Last year, Hannah Clarke and her three children were murdered in broad daylight by her abusive husband. She had taken out a domestic violence order against ex-partner Rowan Baxter, she had many interactions with the police, but she fell through the cracks. The system failed her.
And then the media did, too.
In the days following her death, headlines from News.com.au, the Brisbane Times, even the BBC, looked like this.
Source: Junkee, 2020
The pattern of humanising abusers, excusing domestic violence, and centring reporting around perpetrators, is not a new one in Australia.
But it is one we have to grow out of.
What role does the media have to play?
The news media plays a powerful role in shaping public understanding around issues.
The failures in reporting on violence against women to date has an effect on the way society views the issue.
News media and the primary prevention of violence against women and their children, a study by the 5050 Foundation, analysed how media reporting around domestic violence had shaped societal beliefs through a series of focus groups.
It found that public sentiment around appropriation of blame and attitudes towards women directly mirrored what was being published at the time: “Overall, the findings reinforced the importance of media as a primary prevention tool [and] its potency in influencing community attitudes.”
The problems around domestic violence reporting are most stark when we look at the findings from a study done by The Conversation this year.
Researchers Effie Karageorgos and Amy Boyle from the University of Newcastle and the University of Wollongong analysed 554 newspaper articles covering male-perpetrated domestic violence over a 20-year period.
They found all Australian states were more likely to frame domestic violence as a one-off event instead of a systemic issue.
Of those studied, 90.9% of articles focused on physical violence and homicides.
More than half of all the articles analysed gave a reason for the abuse – 52.7% pointed to jealousy, infidelity, mental health issues, or financial difficulties as a motive for the incident.
In addition, they found 20% of the articles shifted focus away from the victim to the perpetrator.
A separate study by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), in partnership with not-for-profit organisation Our Watch, examined 4,516 media pieces in 2015 over a four-month period, and found 61% of reports were about individual incidents of violence, particularly sensational stories, rather than the broader issue.
It also found many stories focused on the psychological, social and economic cost of the case to the man, with little being said about the impact on the woman.
How do we fix it?
Advocacy group Our Watch is working to media train journalists on how to report on domestic violence and they have released reporting guides for domestic violence.
Among the recommendations is to name the relationship between the perpetrator and victim as soon as it is legally allowed, to remind readers that most violence against women is perpetrated by someone they know.
It also recommends journalists include statistics to accentuate the prevalence of domestic violence in society.
Another recommendation is to quote domestic violence prevention experts in stories, rather than law enforcement who can sometimes say harmful, unhelpful things.
Can following media reporting guides around violence against women help stop domestic violence?
Perhaps this is too optimistic a view.
But it is clear the media has the power to affect change in public attitudes, and that could save lives.
Evidence by Our Watch shows 80% of partner violence and sexual assault goes unreported.
If newspapers, radio stations, TV programs, start naming abuse as abuse, placing responsibility on the perpetrator and pointing to a wider societal issue, maybe more victims will come forward. Maybe people will be better at recognising domestic violence in all its forms.
Breaking the pattern
This pattern could already be changing.
Earlier this year, Kelly Wilkinson died in circumstances that eerily mirrored Hannah Clarke’s death – set alight by an ex-partner in front of her children.
Of the articles I analysed, most contextualised the story as part of a wider social issue, gave statistics, and centred the focus on the victim, not the perpetrator.
As journalists, we have a responsibility to break the pattern – to report on domestic violence carefully and to frame it properly.
If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault, domestic or family violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au. For more information about a service in your state or local area download the DAISY App in the App Store or Google Play..
Image source: Australian Institute of Health & Welfare
Such an important message to get out to working journalists, and newsroom leaders. Thank you for your thoughtful piece.
What a powerful piece. Absolutely held my breath reading those headlines – very much the opposite of “naming abuse as abuse”.
It’s simultaneously a relief and a worry to hear that media framing of domestic violence makes a difference: a relief because there is the potential for us to do good work, and a worry because the research you’ve done shows that collectively, journalists are very much not (yet) doing it.
I wonder what best practices are to write/film pieces that help people experiencing violence come forward.
Thanks for writing about such an important issue.
Is it that straight news reporting, with what available facts are at hand, and the legal requirements for writing on the topic, can’t do this issue justice? We know that often with ‘he said she said’ journalism, it doesn’t give enough context to an issue, and therefore lets down the public down.
As those writing guidelines mention, including broader context such as domestic violence statistics routinely will help push these messages through, making the public more aware about the larger forces at hand.
As journalists, we are aware of the power of words. And with that, comes the responsibility to be careful in how we frame stories – ESPECIALLY when reporting on domestic violence.
It’s extremely sobering to read those headlines. It is part and parcel of a broken system that has not just failed to protect victims of domestic violence, but in some horrid circumstances excused it.
It reminds of the work of Mindframe on how to appropriately report on mental health and suicide – subtle changes in words/content can result in broader societal implications.
Far more education is needed to correct how domestic violence is framed in the media. If optimism means possibly protecting more lives – so be it, we should all be optimists. Why tolerate the alternative?
Great article Fae. It’s great to see the way media frames domestic violence is changing because it can have a big influence on the way people view abuse. News stories can be used as a source of education for the public, so if media organisations focus on the victim and the greater impact of the abuse rather than on the perpetrator, it will have a greater impact on the wider society and hopefully, reduce the prevalence of domestic violence.
It is great to hear that organisations like Our Watch are educating journalists on how to cover domestic violence. I think part of the reason why we see so many stories that humanise the abuser is because journalists may not know the best ways to cover such a sensitive topic.
Thanks for the informative article on domestic violence. As journalists, we play an important role in raising awareness and educating the public on these important issues. It is clear that we need to better when reporting on this topic.
Journalist and academic Jenna Price told the ABC that journalists try and “personalise every story” and focus on “good guy reporting”. Journalists aim to have balance in their stories and sometimes telling the full story can be difficult with legal restrictions and only reporting on what has happened in court.
However, I believe that we can make a difference in the lives of victims by having a better understanding of the broader impacts of this issue and by learning more from organisations like Our Watch who train the media to report on this topic effectively.
Great article Fae, thanks for sharing. The way in which the media and journalists frame stories of domestic violence can go a long way in shaping attitudes to significantly reduce and potentially eliminate this issue which takes the lives of so many Australian women.
As your article illustrates, the media is currently failing to adequately report on domestic violence by framing stories as one-off incidents as opposed to as a part of a systemic issue. I wonder to what extent the male-dominated culture of newsrooms has prevented the issue from being tackled with a widespread campaign as other issues have.
Thanks for this article, Fae! We, as journalists, play a big role in issues such as these. I think it’s a huge responsibility but at the same time it is something that we have to do. I believe that if we are able to raise more awareness in important issues like these, more people would come forward. I agree with what you said too about news mediums naming abuse as abuse and that this could be a way for recognizing domestic violence in all forms better.
I remember a certain communication theory I studied before called the Agenda-Setting theory. That theory describes the ability of (news) media to influence the salience of topics in a public agenda. Basically, it says that the more it is covered, the more will the public think it is a much more important issue. Media doesn’t give the public what to think but what to think about. I believe that this theory applies well to covering stories like domestic violence as it is usually reported as a one-off event when it is not.
The future is not easy to tell but let’s hope that in time, that won’t be the situation anymore. In time, let’s hope that news mediums can be a better voice on such important issues.
Thanks Fae for a great article. I’m with Mariah on this one – this is one of the many areas where I blieve defences of the ‘he said, she said’ approach to reporting fall short. I wonder why so many journos feel the need to try and ‘justify’ incidents of domestic violence. Is it to humanise the abuser to have the article conform to a better narrative arc? Is it because they’ve internalised myths about domestic violence? Or are they just following editors’ orders?
I love how you mentioned media reporting influences people’s view on domestic violence.
Generally, women are further victimised when the public blames them or when the media lacks empathy/sensitivity in their reporting. However as journalist, I believe we can support victims of domestic violence by putting the focus on them. Victims rely on us to share their stories so their voice can be heard and for society to stand with them.
This article is practically perfect – it puts in words a topic that I feel strongly about but one to which I struggle to put coherent (researched) words and arguments. This has both, thank you for writing it!
The media (and by direct extension journalists) play such an enormous role in public perception and understanding on domestic violence. The examples you have used are sobering, and you’d be hard-pressed to find any rational journalist who can not be moved by the highlighting of where the media has failed in the past.
I’m very interested in the demographic of journalists that write on domestic violence news and cases (sex, age, news organisation) and how that can directly impact what is broadcast or published (‘journaled’, even).
A really important topic, thanks for your insights (and for those from the comments, too!).
Exceptionally engaging piece Fae, thank-you for sharing!
I agree that we need to call a spade a spade so to speak- the way in which we report on DV shapes public sentiment around what is very much a systematically entrenched social issue.
I have been watching the see what you made me do series and although the documentary is raising awareness of the more subtle nuances of DV, the opening line is “victims of domestic violence walk among us” and that just made me cringe. Framing is so important as you have identified throughout your analysis. I wonder about the choice of language such as victim vs survivor where the latter certainly has more resilient and enduring connotations. These are small details but subtleties that influence how we respond to this content.
Thank you for this article, Fae. It’s encouraging recent studies suggest reporting on gendered violence is improving. But, as a quick scroll through Jane Gilmore’s twitter reveals, the usual gendered biases that attach to reporting in this area are proving difficult to overcome. Still too often the media sensationalises and/or hangs unwarranted question marks over the motives of the perpetrator by describing him as a “reliable friend” or “good neighbour”. Journalists guilty of the ‘good guy reporting’ would likely defend it on the footing of balance. But the incongruity between the “good guy” descriptors and the violence committed gives rise to the unacceptable idea the victim must have provoked the perpetrator and is therefore blameworthy. Because gendered violence typically occurs in private, journalists can never truthfully assign much weight to the perceptions of the perpetrator’s neighbours/friends/colleagues. Moreover, nowhere does the MEAA Code of Ethics mention ‘balance’. It does, however, mention fairness and accuracy, neither of which require the journalist to humanise the perpetrator and excuse his actions at the expense of the (voiceless) victim or her friends/family.