Suicide Reporting Guideline by Press Council of India: Utility and Lacunae.

To the Editor,

Media reporting of suicide significantly influences the suicidal behavior in vulnerable individuals.[1,2] Studies have found a poor quality of suicide reporting by media.[3-6] To regulate the irresponsible media reporting of suicide, the World Health Organization (WHO) had developed a guideline in 2017. Referring to this guideline, the Press Council of India (PCI) has also developed a guideline.[8,9] It was developed by the central statutory body (authority) of PCI, in reference to the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, section 24 (1), which deals with reporting news about psychiatric disorders. While framing the guidelines, PCI had considered the WHO guideline. The PCI guideline appeals to the media to refrain from certain reporting styles that may negatively impact the public (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The guideline has several strengths and weaknesses (Figure 2). The major strengths are its adherence to the international norms laid by the WHO guideline. The weaknesses are its methodological (such as the lack of operationalization and a high degree of subjectivity) and ethical (such as disclosing personal information containing potential triggers) issues. The recommendations are more subjective as they are not operationalized. For instance, sensationalization and explicitly describing suicide are more of qualitative terms, which may be perceived differently by different individuals. Similarly, the term repeat stories also merit some explanation. At the consumer level (read as media professionals, for whom the guideline is intended), it may be misinterpreted, manipulated, and even misused. For researchers, lack of clarity about the terms may result in various biases in interpretation. A few Indian researchers have referred to the PCI guideline in their research to measure the quality of suicide reporting by media.

Figure 2.

Lack of standard definition for these terms may compel researchers to develop their own operational definition for research, which may again mislead readers. Hence, there is a need to operationalize terms through standard definitions, which may increase the utilitarian value of the PCI guidelines for both researchers as well as journalists. Perhaps, the addition of a glossary section to define the key elements would benefit users.

The PCI focuses on reporting styles that are not to be followed; however, also mentioning the things that need to be done while reporting suicide will further increase the guidelines’ utility. Additionally, the PCI may add a word of caution on reporting suicide during periods of high-risk for imitative suicides such as after suicide by celebrities, farmers, or students. In a position statement, in 2014, the Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS), one of the largest bodies of mental health professionals globally, had proposed certain recommendations for the sensible media reporting about suicide. They emphasized keeping the suicide stories neutral, discrete, and sensitive. They also dwelt upon the parameters to be followed (the do’s of reporting) to improve the quality of suicide reporting by media (e.g., destigmatization, facilitating awareness, early warning signs of suicidal behavior). Similarly, the PCI may develop a checklist of parameters that need to be considered while reporting suicide.

To enhance its impact, there is a need to strictly monitor for adherence to this guideline. Moreover, media personnel should be sensitized through workshops and webinars; this will improve awareness and support adoption and practice. Involving other stakeholders (mental health professionals, journalists, persons with mental illness, and their caregivers) may help understand their perspectives related to the impact of media reporting and may be helpful in further strengthening the PCI guidelines.