The fear in newspapers has been led by the politics of fear perpertrated by the Howard Government for 11 long years. The conservative political weapon "children overboard" which proved to be a lie, after the election of course.

This is a much more complex issue than indicated here, and as much as I'd like to blame Howard, this is a symptom of a problem with the wider human condition.

It's quite simple - papers aim for what gets attention, be it sex, drugs or violence. They just want people to pick up the paper and read it, and will write about whatever will do that.

Here's where it gets tricky however - lets say we decide that we're going to deny that urge, and convince media to adopt more ethical reporting.
Aren't we then putting a form of control over the media? Why is it okay to complain about media barons and bias when it's other issues, but okay to do it for ethical reporting - who defines what's ethical reporting?
Would a pro-life supporter consider stories relating to abortions to be immoral? It's an extreme example I know, but quite the quandary. Morality isn't black and white and when you enforce ethical reporting, even though it may be for the best of reasons, it's still a form of censorship.

Yet, the only alternative appears to be a downward spiral into fearful stories and attention grabbing headlines.

It's definitely an issue worth discussing, but I've not much respect for empty pieces which just say "the media's bad" in some form, without realising that the media is just pandering to its audience - a much more bitter pill to swallow and a much harder problem to deal with.

Despite the headline, the article doesn't touch on the responsibility of the audience - though how the audience can better exercise that responsibility yet still engage the issue without boosting misplaced circulation is a tough one, especially when you consider the role of media as an informant.

Tough issues that need more rigorous analysis.

Though I'm definitely not what you'd call a Howard supporter, I think it's absurd to call the use of fear as a political and economic tool a Howard government invention. Just off the top of my head, I can think of a few other good examples of sensationalistic fear-mongering in the past. There's the ridiculous hysteria that surrounded the "sexed up" performances of Elvis Presley, and the drug use of the Beatles. And then there's the tendency to portray wartime enemies as horrible marauding monsters that exist only to destroy your way of life (see World Wars 1 & 2 and the Cold War especially for easily-obtainable examples).

I'm pretty sure they all pre-date the Howard government.

I am not sure how one deals with reporting suicide. To accept social responsibility for the death of others requires seriously profound insights. I do not think that either the newspaper reporters or the audience are currently capable of embarking on the level of intellectual depth required to grasp suicide, as a social consequence.

“It's definitely an issue worth discussing, but I've not much respect for empty pieces which just say "the media's bad" in some form, without realising that the media is just pandering to its audience - a much more bitter pill to swallow and a much harder problem to deal with.”

This is an interesting point – and it raises a chicken-or-the-egg quandary. Are people more likely to swallow stories that pander because that’s what the majority media presents them with, or does the media pander because that’s what the audience demands?

I think, however, that it’s a point that goes off on a tangent from the main thrust of this article. The article in question is not merely about pandering in the coverage of this particular story – it’s about misreporting and baseless speculation. It’s about the widespread adoption of what are at best pseudo-truths because of the potential such journalistic methodology has for the boosting of profits. I’ll agree that journalistic ethics regarding pandering, bias and objectivity is a grey area worthy of wider discussion. But when it comes to misinformation and blatant fear-mongering, we’re definitely looking at black and white ethics, and black and white morality.

Alexander, your article and the links included provided extremely useful and interesting information to me, as a mother.
It's undeniable that the news of this suicide pact and its apparent motives, as covered in most media, had raised fears in me. How could I protect my daughters? Your article provided a much more balanced, and much more helpful insight into the tragedy.
It is a very fine example of good journalism.
Thank you

The Press still has not managed to learn the difference between "in the public interest" and "interesting" - as in taking a prurient interest in the private lives of people they consider to be public property - or sensationalising and misreporting events for their own benefit.
It raises an interesting question - when a person of interest is selectively reported by the press and the wrong impression is passed on to the public then who is guilty - the person of interest or the press? The answer from the press would appear to be the person of interest.

I don't quite agree that the subject of suicide requires any kind of deeper insight - it does, however, need deeper awareness. Not, it is to be agreed, in a prurient manner, but so that more people are aware of just how prevalent, serious and, yes, sensationalist it is. It SHOULD cause a sensation. After all, if a headline read "Well, done Australia, you've killed off a couple more kids" it would sell just as many papers and get just as many people hot under the collar as the seemingly nonsensical attitude taken in this instance.

And yes, speaking as a journalist myself, it is irresponsible journalism to take the line taken in this case: witness citizen k's post.

This kind of reporting leads to the impression that suicide only occurs to people who are different, or bad, or outcasts, or in any tiny way different to our own children, parents, partners or friends. Whereas suicide happens across all gender, class, occupation and age barriers and to people who are successful, loved, seemingly understood and outwardly happy and content.

It IS scary and we DO have responsibilities. Instead we perpetuate the myth that some agency other than ourselves is responsible. This in turn leads to inconsolable grief for those left behind, sends the subject even more underground, allows the rest of us to be complacent and judgemental and leads to more taking this way out.

I am not a great fan of news media and their methods of operation.
However, something is lacking in a society where this sort of tragedy can happen.
Should we go back to more face to face relationships rather than getting our reality through electronic media/ newspapers?

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Press Council guidelines on reporting suicide suggest that they not be reported at all. (Unless a person is of public interest, a mass suicide, or the circumstances are bizarre. I keep wondering if two people is a 'mass' or whether Jodie and Steph are regarded as bizarre.)

If they are reported, then the press Council recommends that the place and manner of the suicide should not be, because of the risk of 'copycat' behaviour. Yet, the manner of Jodie and Steph's death was in the news before the bodies had even been identified. My daughter found out more than she ever wanted to know about the death of her friend from the television news. That information should have come to her from someone who cared about her and about Jodie - not from a media outlet seeking ratings.

Most articles articles about Jodie and Steph mentioned the manner of their death, and some included a map of the location. While many articles mentioned the risk to the girls friends, they also at the same time stressed the 'emo' and MySpace links as though dressing in black and using a computer was somehow sinister. The Age published a link to Jodie's MySpace causing any friend listed there to be inundated with messages from ghouls and thrillseeekers the world over. There were requests for paid interviews as well. If these kids felt marginalised and misunderstood before, they feel it even more now.

Why were there TV cameras at Jodie's funeral? Why were grieving friends and family on the national news? My daughter learnt many things about the media and society from this experience and none of them were good.

Why does the Press Council issue guidelines if they are so blatantly disregarded?

The only loyalty of the media is to the media, and the media is doing it tough lately. Anyone who disputes this should note that the SMH is currently implementing its third round of redundancies in three years. This is because the advertising rivers of gold are drying up, and the very existence of the printed version of the Herald is under threat.

In these circumstances the media will cover whatever sells, and they know from long experience that war, crime, murder, etc are what sells. For that you can blame human nature.

With the internet liberating millions of people, particularly young people, from the control of an editor who could influence what they see and hear, the media is in the middle of the greatest restructure in its history. Expect them to be totally ruthless in pursuing their interests.

Excellent item Alexander. Few in the media even see this yet alone acknowledge it. The use of fear and the way the media jump at every tragedy, reporting them before they know anything. Theories just come out of the twisted heads of the people that write such rubbish. I couldn't call them reporters as they are not reporting. They are short story writers, fiction.

As usual there are both Coalition and Labor barrackers trying to make a political point here. I detest Howard more than I can say and yes he uses fear in every way possible. But he didn't invent it and he won't be the last.

It is the media that want to use every nasty little invention of their twisted, sick minds to try and sell a story. Just for a few bucks. Howard uses that at every opportunity and so will Rudd if he gets in.

On suicide. It's not a scary topic at all. People suicide all the time, more than reported. Not talking about it mystifies it and makes it seem a "romantic" thing to do if you like. It's not. I've been there and backed off obviously unless I'm writing from beyond.

Car accidents are one area where the media will not even speculate on what does happen. Some deliberately have an accident trying to kill themselves. I tried but was too scared I'd fail and end up a vegetable. I know many who have tried and failed too. Some of those hurt others and hate themselves for it. Pity they didn't think of that earlier but at that point you just want out.

Until our societies start to elect people who lead by example we will just continue to see more and more depression and suicides as people can't stand the way we are living and being led. It's all about a few bucks, nothing more. Money, an invention of man. It doesn't really exist if you think about it. But it is today's God. Not for me, it's fools gold.

I do not understand why anyone would consider suicide "romantic". Our hospitals are full of people trying desperately to stay alive just a little bit longer. Deciding to kill yourself and attempting to do so is not about romance. It goes against the grain of our primal instinct for survival and seems like a most extreme form of pain management. I think that a person has to be in a desperate state to choose throwing themselves into the unknown (by death). The known has to be quite terrible for that kind of decision to be made and carried out. It is not a subject to be treated lightly.

Lets get back to basic human caring for all and make listening to others important again.It's not quantum physics, just common sense.

Yes, fear certainly sells papers. Fear of being labelled a racist is probably the main one.

Although our 'newest Australians', who all seem to have hyphens in their description - with the 'Australian' part second, i.e, Vietnamese-Australian, have formed our drug and crime capitals as well as have some utterly disgraceful cultural practices, to comment is...yes...racist!

It's even worse when one of their own kind comments, like a Hirsi Ali, about backward Islamic practices such as murdering daughters in honour killings (a recent one in Britain made the headlines, and there would no doubt be many Muslims here who thought it was racist to even show the story! Apparently there are 100's more in England alone!) because our leftist establishment don't know what to do.

Here's a coloured person, a woman, a minority - with an accent even, and a Muslim! Can't get any more 'downtrodden than that', it's all the minorities in one (even though in reality it is whites that are the minority on earth, but even in many parts of our capital cities) and those leftist bigots who preach cultural relativism don't know what to do.

They too, know that Muslim practices are backward, are wrong, but are too racist (yes racist, it is racist to think non-whites don't deserve to live by the standards we impose on ourselves) to care, they don't care about little Muslim girls being mutilated by misoginistic, cowardly males in white sheets.

FGM and in-breeding for starters - which Dr's at Auburn hospital, as well as others, have begged the government to educate Muslims about the results if cousins mix - children handicapped, as well as demanding action about little girls with horribly mutilated genitals and infections being brought into casualty by concerned aunts or sisters - westernised no doubt...

...People have a fear of being called racist for demanding to know why Muslims support Hilali, why they never protested to get rid of him even though he supports terrorism - 9/11 was 'God's work' comment for starters.

There ARE people in his community who want to kill me because of my skin colour, don't I have a right to know why? I don't want to be killed by Islamic bigots, and I believe ALL mosques should be bugged. This isn't fearful, this isn't racist - it is dealing with reality as opposed to hiding from it.

Yes, that is by far the biggest fear many have. What is the maddest thing about it though is that most don't even recognise it. There are such wicked populists out there who would charge me with being a fear monger - even though there are Muslims who have been CONVICTED, and dozens more on trial, for wanting to do exactly what I said - kill me because of my white skin.

Such people who try to cover that reality up are tantamount to if, in the 1920's American south, when blacks commented about the injustices there were whites who called THEM racist!

It is truly bizarre, I believe most people are so afflicted with the nonsense of cultural relativism and political correctness, they have lost the ability to be critical.

Non-western cultures DO have backward values, that is a fact. It is the reason so many of them flock to the west to live as westerners live - although sadly many bring their ways with them, dragging us backwards...

and the winner of this weeks award for pointless and nonsensical segue to their pet issue is......

Benjamin!

congratulations, you've won a meat platter, all halal of course.

On the contrary its not., Benjamin has just given us the perfect example of what happens when people believe the garbage they see and read in the media.

Also the short attention span we associate with media these days. He couldn't concentrate for long enough to address the article.

Some very interesting points raised by the article and comments. We're the proud parents of an emo kid. We keep telling him that yes, he's more sensitive than his mates, but that's because he pays more attention to what's going on around him. He's better informed.

That's bound to be depressing for him, but we think it's also more intelligent than obsessing over Paris Hilton like 'normal' kids.

Posts should be moderated so that folks with their own agendas who wish to steer off topic can be CENSORED...there I said it. So that brings us back to the media...and this well written article. As a journalist I'm very fed up with the ethical standards in modern media. It's all about soundbites, catchphrases, celebs and teenagers, which is not to say I'm pro-censorship, I'm just pro-discretionary editing as to what is REALLY in the public's best interest. Whether it's TV or print media, we're being fed a daily diet that pretty much matches our actual diet. Too many carbs and not nearly enough lean meat. We're getting fat on apathy and our calorie intake increases in direct opposition to our lowering IQ's.

As for why people commit suicide in the first place - it's as individual and as perennial as reasons why the rest of us choose to remain alive. Because we feel we have to...for whatever reason. Trying to blame the government takes away personal accountability...which is JUST PLAIN STUPID AND WRONG and it's definitely throwing the teenager out with the clearasil.

To take the high road, journalists don't have to pander to the lowest common denominator...surely a change of career is preferable to prostituting one's morals for a steady income.

there I said it.

Newspapers have been accused of being sensationalist since they first began. But...there has always been a choice in the quality of news.

Maybe I'm just getting older, but the quality and variety of news outlets, be it papers or TV seems to be diminishing by the year. They're all the same.

This is well demonstrated by following through how this particular tragedy has been reported. Why it needed to be reported at all mystifies me.

If there was a perception of it being in the public interest, a general article about youth suicide and potential causes would more appropriate.

It used to be that if one had a vocabulary greater than 400 words, moderate attention span, moderate ability at comprehension and an ability to think for oneself there would be a newspaper that catered for that.

I wonder what it says of us, the public, that papers like this are not deemed profitable enough to print anymore.

Chainsmoker,

What, you don't believe what you see in the papers? You're joking right?

Or are you one of those conspiracist types who think that we're living in George Orwell's 1984?!?

Get real.

There are Muslims on trial, with half a dozen convicted, right here in Australia, for exactly what the papers say they are/were planning.

You just can't criticise the 'ethnic other' can you?

I noticed, as I always do, that you can't attack me for any of my points, just slander.

So weak, make an argument or don't bother. I wasted thirty seconds of my life on your post.

I want them back.

And to the post who said we shouldn't say anything off topic - this isn't off topic. It is the main fear I always see.

Apart from being called a paedophile, being called a racist is the worst thing one can say.

I believe that unless a person has evidence for their claim, the type of evidence say..of wanting to blow people up for not being Muslim, one should use the term wisely.

Most discussions on this site always end up with talk about radical Muslims. How can they not? It is the issue of the day, and yes, somehow the sick Islamist supporters on the left call anyone who wants to discuss it a racist.

That IS a fear.