Informing and educating

Some participants were receptive to the idea that media has an important role to play by improving its messaging to the public in relation to suicide prevention. The dominant mode of suicide reporting takes an incident report style and is developed by crime reporters, which was seen to miss the opportunity to inform and educate the public in relation to suicide prevention. ‘Media could inform and educate society about suicide and depression… [to help bring] down the suicide cases… If you have some suicide experts that can enrich the story and we can talk with them about why suicide happens’. (Bureau Chief #1, Delhi). In stark contrast to the daily incident report style suicide news produced by crime reporters, it was articulated that media could do a number of things to have a protective effect on the population. As explained by one editor, when reflecting on how media can support suicide prevention among students (a high-profile issue in India):

We can highlight the helplines, the solutions, the indicators that one must look out for… we can give advisories to parents to avoid placing so much pressure on students during exams and to advise on the risk signs to look for, like not talking too much, avoiding eye contact, you know. We can underplay some suicide news, to avoid making it big news. We should avoid giving students the idea that suicide is a solution to their problems, particularly at exam time. (Editor #2, Delhi)

Participants reflected on the speed of the news routine, which impeded quality reporting on suicide and saw suicide events being covered as breaking news before there had been the appropriate investigations. A senior reported suggested that: ‘we should investigate thoroughly before putting the story out, also, once in a week, television channels and newspaper columns could carry a suicide prevention story… media has the power to help bring down the number of suicides’ (Senior Reporter #6, Chennai).

A common suggestion was that media ‘give messages that suicide is not the solution, the suicide awareness should be there’ (Senior Reporter #7, Chennai). Such that, ‘instead of just reporting it, you tell people that there’s a way to prevent it… so we write, “don’t do it”’ (Reporter #1, Chennai). Participants in Chennai gave the example of a high-profile suicide event that was daily news for several weeks, where ‘a Dalit girl and doctor aspirant who committed suicide in protest over an issue with the national medical entrance exams’ (Editor #5, Chennai). Participants reported that they ran lines in their stories that ‘suicide is not a solution’ (Editor #5, Chennai) and that ‘suicide is not the answer, she could have been alive to fight’ (Senior Reporter 7, Chennai).

Doubts around preventability of suicide

Despite the above suggestions for mass media to play an informative and educative role, several participants held strong doubts that mass media could do much to prevent suicide. Participants articulated that they were ‘not at all sure how media can help prevent suicide’ (Senior Reporter #1, Delhi). It was also reflected that suicide is intertwined with broader and complex socioeconomic issues that exacerbate people’s mental pressures, leaving media and others with little they can do to help prevent suicide. As explained by one senior crime reporter:

Media cannot prevent any crime or suicide. We can raise the issue, even police cannot stop. If I have decided to suicide, what can media or police do? If I am committing suicide in my own room, what is police going to do? It is about how can you make people mentally strong. Something is lacking in the city. Lack of literacy, poverty, such things. People are not in such place they can come out of that pressure. It is not like anyone can prevent some kind of suicide. (Senior Reporter #2, Delhi)

Other participants highlighted that there are additional challenges to suicide prevention in India posed by an under-resourced mental health sector and pervasive mental health stigma that impedes help seeking. ‘Mental health services are very bad’ (Senior Reporter #7, Chennai) and it would be unreasonable to expect media to be able to resolve these issues. As articulated by one health editor:

people think that going to a psychiatrist means you are insane or mad, people will look down upon you, so they don’t visit the psychiatrist… it’s a major problem for preventing suicide in India. So, prevention of suicide, with all these issues, I would be very apprehensive about how you prevent suicide in India and how media even can truly prevent a suicide. (Editor #1, Chandigarh)

Concerns regarding the risk of imitation suicides

Many participants expressed serious concerns around the impact of media reports of suicide events on vulnerable readers, highlighting that media reports may normalise suicide as an option: ‘we are afraid of copycat suicide deaths’ (Reporter #1, Chennai), ‘I know that readers may normalise suicide’ [Editor #4, Delhi] and ‘I think it’s pretty common sense that vulnerable people reading about suicides are going to be affected… it might plant an idea that suicide is an answer to their problems’. (Reporter #4, Chennai).

One senior crime reporter reflected that the suicide reports published by their media colleagues may inadvertently have negative effects: ‘When a person is having suicidal tendencies I think it is very easy to influence them in a particular direction so they might get influenced by reading a simple media report that a reporter might have written… without realising that someone may get ideas from’ (Senior reporter #4, Delhi).

Participants also reflected on their worries about the negative impact of their own suicide reporting and their lack of training in this area: ‘When we write suicides, I am worrying if we are contributing to this. Those who are vulnerable, emotional in nature… such news has a serious impact on them. It may be a small part of the population, but media do not think about the impact on them’ (Senior reporter #9, Chennai) and ‘the first time I wrote about a 15-year-old student committing suicide because of doing bad in exams, I felt bad about any other student who might read the story, so I don’t like writing these stories… I don’t have any training about how to write such suicide stories.’ (Reporter #4, Chennai). Participants also expressed that they sometimes felt fearful of publishing particular suicide news: ‘with student suicides, we sometimes fear that if we telecast a student suicide it may trigger more student suicides’ (Senior Reporter #13, Chennai).

Participants also clarified that while they have concerns about imitation suicides, media reports could not be blamed as the main reason for any particular suicide. Media reports were perceived to be a background factor, rather than a main reason for a suicide. One bureau chief explains:

If someone is depressed and already thinking of suicide and he goes through stories of suicide, then that risk may be there for him. But usually, I think it’s not the main cause, but if someone is depressed and already thinking of committing suicide, these stories may become a trigger for them. If a lot of stories are coming and they go through three or four suicide cases every day, then they may try to imitate that. (Bureau Chief #1, Delhi).

Another bureau chief highlighted the importance of identification in the process of imitation suicides through the media, and the audience may also be attracted to the level of media attention given to suicides. ‘There are many people struggling with the same issues faced by people who have died by suicide, so a reader may identify with them, you know, it seems close to their situation… they may also see the public profile that this case gains and wonder how the public will react if they suicide as well.’ (Bureau Chief #4, Chennai)

Instances of perceived imitation suicide events

While details of specific imitation suicides were not sought during the interviews, several participants voluntarily offered clear examples of instances that they perceived to be imitation suicide events that were connected to media coverage. Participants described how ‘soon after we report a suicide, we see 4 or 5 other suicides that seem to follow the case reported in the story… we see people go to the same location and do the same thing.’ (Senior Reporter #9, Chennai).

A wide variety of examples were provided of imitation suicides as well as the dissemination of suicide methods and suicide locations. One health editor identified the impact of media reports of a suicide connected to a celebrity and the ensuing increase in suicides at the same location:

In Chennai we have [a well-known] bridge over a river. A leading singer’s husband committed suicide there, and it was big news. After he committed suicide, everybody is going and jumping. People asked for a barrier to be put up. It has become a suicide point that people know about. (Editor #4, Chennai).

A senior health reporter discussed further examples of particular detailed suicide methods and locations being provided in media reports, resulting in suspected imitation suicides:

Somebody climbed up to the top floor of a mall in Chennai and jumped from an open window and committed suicide. The newspapers carried the story, detailing how this man went up the mall and which window he jumped off. So, in less than a month after that, one more person took the same route, went up, jumped off the same window. After which [they] put up those nets and blocked access to the top floor. Metro suicides in Delhi also give a lot of ideas to people. So, if metro suicides are curbed in reporting, or suppressed as information, then I can guarantee it will have an impact in Delhi. (Senior Reporter #5, Delhi)

While participants gave examples of suicide methods being disseminated through media reports, they also stated that novel suicide methods were highly newsworthy. One bureau chief explains:

Jumping in front of the metro trains, that is something I think people are picking up from the media, there is one or two every month. But, if there’s a unique method, like falling in front of a metro train, then you have to write that information, how can you ignore that? The novelty is the method. Newsworthy is the main thing for us. (Bureau Chief # 2, Delhi)

One bureau chief explained that while they could recall several instances that they perceived were imitation suicide events, it is hard to be certain that the suicides are related to the media coverage:

A man set himself on fire. He was complaining of high interest rates by money lenders. That led to a spate of copycat suicides, for sure. Also, someone jumped off the railing in a shopping mall, and for a few weeks after that there were some jumpers. Also, some kids jumped into a well and committed suicide, and then you had people jumping into the wells… We don’t know for sure [if it is imitation suicide], but it’s more than a coincidence if there are four or five self-immolation deaths after a very high-profile incident using the same suicide method. (Bureau Chief #4, Chennai)

Dismissal or minimisation of the role of media in imitation suicide

In contrast to the above-mentioned perspectives, a minority of participants held views that dismissed or minimised the potential for media reports to be implicated in imitation suicide events. Some media professionals expressed scepticism, arguing that any such instances would be rare, and that some people may even be put off suicide from reading some types of suicide reports. One crime reporter stated:

I think [the number of] people drawing inspiration to suicide from a news article is very miniscule, if you look at it. Alternatively, a person might just read an article and there’s a chance they might find inspiration that I shouldn’t be doing this to myself and if I do this then my family will be depressed if I die… I shouldn’t follow this person’s example (Senior Reporter #4, Delhi)

Others minimised the impact that news media might have on imitation suicides, while arguing that fictional media is the real problem: ‘news channels have a limited impact on viewers, while TV series and films may have a bigger impact’ (Senior Reporter #8, Chennai) and ‘people are not copying what is published in the newspaper, but they are taking ideas from TV series’ (Senior Reporter #2, Delhi).

Several participants raised concerns around attributing any particular suicide to the effects of viewing a media item: ‘to attribute it to a media story is not that appropriate; I have got lakhs (1 00 000s) of readers and not everyone has gone and committed suicide. (Bureau Chief #2, Delhi). Some participants also argued that reporting suicide methods in the media is unlikely to have a major effect on the public 'given it is the Google world and people can find suicide methods online’ (Senior Reporter #1, Delhi) and that ‘it’s unlikely people would go to a news report and try the suicide method’ (Senior Reporter #3). Others made the argument that ‘there is no such case of imitation suicide here [in Chennai] that followed a media report; we get all the information on suicides so we [crime reporters] would know’ (Editor #7, Chennai).

Poor awareness and utilisation of suicide helplines

A small number of participants were confident in regularly publishing helpline details, saying that ‘it should be helpful to promote helplines, that goes without saying’ (Editor #3, Delhi) and that ‘the suicide helplines are fantastic, they are doing a very good service and it works in some cases… media can mention the helplines’. (Senior Reporter #7, Chennai). However, most participants stated that ‘the level of understanding of helplines is low and most people [in the population] are not aware of them’ (Editor #6, Chennai) and that ‘helpline people say they don’t get any calls’ (Editor #1, Chandigarh). In part, this was explained by a sense that ‘media hasn’t done much to put out information about where suicidal people can go to get help’ (Senior Reporter #8, Chennai). Some participants stated that even if they ‘do sometimes mention the helplines, not many people call them’ (Senior Reporter #4, Delhi).

Concerns regarding the quality and effectiveness of suicide helplines

Many participants expressed a level of reluctance to publish the suicide helpline numbers in their media reports, raising concerns around quality and effectiveness. Participant expressed confusion around the helpline model and how such services work in practice. There was a sense that ‘we don’t know whether they actually work’ (Senior Reporter #8, Chennai) and doubts were raised that ‘if someone has decided deep inside his or her mind that he will suicide, how does a helpline or anyone else prevent it’ (Senior Reporter #1). Some participants were wondering why you might give a helpline number instead of simply encouraging people to go directly to a mental health professional: ‘We don’t understand how it works and I’m not very comfortable with the idea of a helpline… how do you prevent suicide with the helpline? I would rather directly give the number of a doctor or psychiatrist’ (Editor #1, Chandigarh). Concerns were also raised that giving helpline details in media reports is unlikely to reach suicidal people experiencing poverty and disenfranchisement, as explained by one senior crime reporter:

in most cases helplines don’t work. We have many crores (millions) population and nobody cares what someone does. We have more than 30% unreachable population, which you cannot reach by media. They are downtrodden people, under the poverty line. (Senior Reporter #7, Chennai)

The second issue related to important concerns was raised by participants as to the quality of suicide helplines and a lack of evidence of effectiveness. As explained by one senior health reporter, ‘the problem is the quality of these services… if you launch a service the numbers [of suicides] should come down… if the numbers are not coming down, it isn’t working’ (Senior Reporter #1). One editor commented that a government medical college had set up a 24/7 helpline, but ‘because it is a government set-up I think the bell will keep on ringing and no one will pick up the phone… even if they might be available, they say they’re not available. Helpline is a joke’(Editor #1, Chandigarh). Others similarly raised concerns that if people ring the helplines in a time of crisis, the staff may not pick up:

One suicidal boy found a suicide helpline number on Google and called them at night. No one picked up. Finally, one doctor took a call from the boy had a conversation with the boy and consoled him, and it prevented him from suicide. The helpline must be 24/7. It isn’t a helpline if it is only 9–5. People may commit suicide at any time [of day]. (Editor #6, Chennai)

Barriers to regularly publishing details of suicide helplines

Some participants highlighted that Indian media practices acted as a barrier to the possibility of regularly naming helplines in media reports related to suicide. As explained by one bureau chief:

It is a good thing to have a helpline but in the Indian media we tend not to put the same thing again and again. Advisories, like don’t smoke or don’t drink, can’t be published in every article. Like call this helpline, call this helpline, every day, it becomes too much like an advertisement. Even if it’s a government service, we can do it once, we can’t do it week after week (Bureau Chief #2, Delhi).

This issue was compounded in the case of helplines run by nongovernmental organisations, some of whom were not considered to be trustworthy. One senior crime reporter explained this attitude:

NGOs are doing PR. They are not working properly, and we can’t trust that if we give this phone line it is going to be beneficial for people. It needs to be a trust-worthy body. Some NGOs are doing very good work, but most NGOs are doing things for the money (Senior Reporter #2).

Awareness of existing international guidelines

The majority of participants expressed that ‘there are no guidelines, there is no rulebook’ (Senior Reporter #12, Chennai) and that they were unaware of any national or international guidance or recommendations on media reporting of suicide. As expressed by one bureau chief: ‘I haven’t come across any study that says how we should report on suicide… I have not come across any such training or guidelines’ (Bureau Chief #1, Delhi). When asked by the interviewer whether they were aware of international media guidelines published by the WHO, almost all participants had not heard of them and they also reflected that the media organisations they worked for had not raised any guidelines to their attention: ‘You say there is a World Health Organization guideline around media reporting of suicide, but none of the media companies I’ve worked for bothered to look at the guidelines and train editors and reporters in this’ (Reporter #4, Chennai).

Receptiveness to Indian media guidelines

Participants were asked whether media professionals in India need more information or guidance on reporting of suicide-related news, in so far as it might help them to support the goal of suicide prevention. It was broadly acknowledged by all participants that ‘there are no media houses who want to encourage people to commit suicide’ (Reporter #1, Chennai). Consequently, all participants also expressed that ‘there would be value in having guidelines’ (Editor #3, Delhi) that would provide recommendations. As explained by one senior crime reporter: ‘Definitely there should some guidelines… avoiding going into details about the suicide method, minimise attention to public locations, avoid harassment of family’ (Senior Reporter #3, Delhi).

Many participants drew on prior examples of media guideline development in India, to provide encouragement that guidelines for suicide reporting could be developed and implemented successfully over time. A commonly offered example was the development and implementation of Press Council of India media guidelines for reporting related to HIV/AIDS. As explained by on senior reporter:

A few years ago the government did a major HIV campaign, to spread awareness about preventing HIV and reducing stigma… they should definitely do more to spread awareness about suicide prevention, as many more people die by suicide than AIDS. We need media guidelines. Just as we have for reporting on patients suffering from AIDS. We don’t show their photo or identify them in any fashion. We speak of them in a non-judgemental fashion. Similar things need to be followed when reporting on suicide. People need to be made aware that these are people who need help. Don’t put them down, don’t judge them. Get them help. (Senior Reporter #8, Chennai)

Participants felt that the HIV/AIDS guidelines have resulted in a ‘vast difference in reporting compared to 20 years ago, the language of accusation has changed… it took many organisations, resources, huge money and persuasion over a long time, but it did happen… to change the language around suicide needs time’ (Senior Reporter #1, Chennai).

Another encouraging example was provided in relation to organ donations, with multiple stakeholders coming together to improve public understanding and attitudes through reporting in the mass media. As explained by one health editor:

In 2008, when we started reporting about organ donations, because of a series of health department orders… The number of people who donate organs zoomed and today we are a leading country in organ donations. We will be able to do it with suicide and reporting guidelines as well. (Editor #4, Chennai)

Current self-regulatory practices

In the absence of Indian-specific media guidelines and a lack of awareness of existing international guidelines, several participants reported that ‘most media here take self-regulating decisions’ (Editor #4, Chennai), either occasionally or regularly, and that ‘we try to follow our own guidelines, informally’ (Senior Reporter #3, Delhi). One bureau chief articulated how their newspaper had gone against the dominant trend to change their approach to reporting on suicide over the past 5 years:

It has to enter your consciousness that suicides lead to copycat suicides and reporting them can have a deleterious effect on the society itself. When you are ready to imbibe that kind of input, then you are ready to make changes… It’s ultimately about how it is being reported. We provide some information on counselling and other services. We try to write about it sensitively, because the temptation is to be graphic for maximum impact, but I think a certain amount of sensitivity at this stage, when you are dealing with suicides, even high-profile suicides, is important. (Bureau Chief #4, Chennai)

Some participants described experiences where their organisations had independently taken some steps to temper the high frequency of graphic suicide coverage for fear of ‘triggering the suicide mentality by reporting too many suicide stories’ (Editor #5, Chennai), and others articulated that their editorial policy is that they now only report on suicides where ‘there is something interesting that we can convey’ (Editor #4, Chennai). Participants identified that there is a business model pressure to regularly report suicide news in a sensational fashion, although this assumption has not properly been tested. As explained by one bureau chief:

We keep the suicides that happen for ostensibly personal reasons out of the newspaper, unless it happens in a public place, like someone falls off a building, or someone dies in a school or a college, or the suicide note blames someone in a public post. Otherwise, we tend to now look the other way. There are a lot of suicides and what do we gain by reporting this? A lot of this breast beating, “I give you the news first”, kind of thing, doesn’t come from solid business sense. It comes from a very mindless perspective. Unfortunately, there is no scientific measure as to what makes better business sense. I can only say we haven’t lost readership from following this practice. I think it’s a call that every organisation will have to take. (Bureau Chief #4, Chennai)

Participants also described avoiding reporting on the detail around suicide methods, including novel suicide methods, to avoid giving people information as to how they can kill themselves: ‘if a poisoning, we don’t mention the poison, in case someone else is planning a suicide and he might go out and find the poison’ (Senior Reporter #3, Delhi) and ‘if you give the method then you might just be giving the idea about the methods of how to kill yourself to someone who is depressed.’ (Senior Reporter #4, Delhi). Others articulated that their approach was to avoid this detail on suicide methods by focusing more on the broader socioeconomic and political issues that may be related to the suicide. Giving the example of farmer suicides, a senior crime reporter stated that:

we try to report farmer suicides in such a manner so that more suicides do not take place… instead of talking about how he committed suicide… we highlight the plight of farmers more broadly. For example, a farmer may suicide by self-immolation, and some media will sesnsationalise this act. We choose to focus on the social and economic issues and the political drama. (Senior Reporter #11, Chennai)

Some participants discussed student examinations as a high-risk period for suicide, which saw them adjusting their media coverage with the goal of helping to prevent suicide. One crime reporter stated that during the examination period:

we put the suicide helpline number and take advice from experts in suicide prevention. We bring psychologists and psychiatrists into the studio and interview them, as well as government policy people to clarify any system issues, so that people don’t think they need to commit suicide over this. (Reporter #3, Chennai)

Others highlighted that they will sometimes use ‘a small box that gives prevention messages, like please consult a doctor’ (Buruea Chief #2, Delhi) or provide messages saying ‘don’t do it… there’s a way to prevent it’ (Reporter #1, Chennai).

Development of voluntary guidelines

Participants discussed the need for Indian-specific guidelines that are suitable for the Indian context, ‘you simply can’t compare with other countries… there are a lot of differences, community-wise, culturally, politically and in terms of the intersection between suicide and social injustices… sometimes our suicide reporting can create social change’ (Editor #5, Chennai).

To develop Indian-specific guidelines, it was commonly suggested that it needs broad participation across the media sector and input from a range of stakeholders. ‘All major media houses should get together and fix a guideline’ (Bureau Chief #2) and that ‘we need mental health experts, media experts and media houses, the police and maybe the law commission to get together and draw up a draft’ (Senior Reporter #9, Chennai). Others highlighted the key role of higher level authorities, as articulated by one editor:

We have the Press Council of India. Maybe if they take the initiative and circulate some guidelines. Maybe if the government, the health ministry, invites these bodies, the press clubs, the press association, hold a brainstorming, and emerge with two or three guidelines, simple ones, but you know, it has to be organised, … it has to have a government participation… If the big players do it, it can happen. It must have a government role in it somewhere, because that draws in the media players. (Editor #2, Delhi)

It was repeatedly stressed by almost all participants that any such guidelines ‘have to be voluntary… there can’t be a total blackout of suicides in media coverage, but it can be toned down’ (Editor #2, Delhi). Participants stated that ‘you can’t stop the media from reporting on suicides, nor can you decide the way guidelines will be used, that’s the editor’s prerogative… but, you can give a guideline saying that when you’re reporting on suicides please do it in such a manner that the public is educated’ (Bureau Chief #2, Delhi).

Some participants expanded the stakeholders to be involved to include police, given their integral role in providing crime reporters with ready access to details for suicides across the country. Police input could be helpful with respect guidance around reporting while the relevant investigations are incomplete. One editor argued that police should be ‘slower at releasing the information to the media, and once you get through that initial phase media will have moved on to something else… half of the detail of suicide is gone if police say they are not commenting on incidents suspected to be suicide until further investigations have taken place’ (Editor #2, Delhi).

Sensitisation

All participants were clear in highlighting that guidelines alone would not be enough. The phrase ‘sensitisation’ was commonly used to articulate an important next step after the development of guidelines, with training and other sensitisation approaches required for media professionals in relation to any new guidelines ‘so we are more conscious’ (Bureau Chief #1, Delhi). ‘The sensitisation process is critical, you cannot expect the journalists to be aware of all the sensitivities’ (Senior Reporter #9, Chennai) and ‘there would be value in having guidelines, if people were to read them… we need sensitisation, some explanation as to why these guidelines are important’ (Editor #3, Delhi).

Others articulated more specifically that ‘face-to-face training and media workshops are best, otherwise they will not go through an online course [and that] you can also integrate into the curriculum for new graduates’ (Bureau Chief #1, Delhi). It was highlighted that this training should be provided for reporters and the broader range of personnel involved in the production of a suicide-related media report (eg, photographers, people writing headlines, etc).

Most participants stressed that ‘simultaneously you need to educate editors also’ (Bureau Chief #1, Delhi), because ‘at the end of the day I’m reporting to my editor in my office, that’s who I’m answerable to’ (Reporter #4, Chennai). The editorial team were viewed as ‘the guys that stand between the crime reporters and the public’ (Bureau Chief #4, Chennai) and that even if field reporters ‘know something about what we should or shouldn’t say in a report, our news desk don’t understand such things… news is group work’ (Senior Reporter #13, Chennai). Otherwise, ‘if your editor comes to us and asks us to run a suicide story, obviously we are going to say yes because we don’t want to give them a lecture on media reporting around suicide’ (Reporter #4, Chennai).

Finally, participants felt that suicide prevention experts and organisations need to engage with the media owners and the highest levels of media organisations. As explained by one senior reporter:

My point of view is that suicide prevention organisations should have interaction with the media on a periodical manner… the interactions need to happen at the higher levels of the media organization, and then the media desk will handle it in a different manner and will follow the directions that are given. (Senior Reporter #8, Chennai)

This approach was seen as crucial, so that ‘we can get media owners and editors to give a strict circular that our newspaper will follow the guidelines… reporters are small pawns in this whole thing’ (Reporter #4, Chennai).

Embedding guidelines in style sheets and templates

Another strategy that was viewed by participants as being critically important was to integrate guidelines into style sheets and templates that largely guide the approach to reporting on suicide. As explained by one health editor:

I want these guidelines to get into style sheets, the rules of the syntax for the newspaper. There is no point in just having guidelines for health reporters. Everyone who is working the story and they are on the same page. Even the kind of illustrations that go into a suicide story are terrible. These changes should get into style sheets of newspapers. (Editor #4, Chennai)

One participant gave the example of how their organisation changed the template for reporting on suicide so that the last line gives details for suicide support services:

Template would be number one. It doesn’t cost you anything, no time, no energy. Templatising also makes it routine. Having a template works. For example, we now mention counselling services at the end of each article. The last line in every report is, call this number. It’s just a line, it’s doable. (Bureau Chief #4, Chennai)

Compliance issues with voluntary guidelines

Almost all participants raised the prospect that there might be poor compliance with voluntary guidelines, highlighting the need for some form of ongoing follow-up. Some participants argued that ‘we need guidelines and tools with some force behind them… in India we have some laws, but people don’t follow them, and we need someone there to tell them not to do something’ (Editor #6, Chennai). As explained by one senior reporter:

You can have guidelines, but who follows the guidelines. In the evening I’m reporting, do I have to read the guidelines? Then I will not make my deadline. Guidelines are always good, but I don’t know how regularly they’re followed. It’s the problem with all guidelines… Once the guideline is made there is no follow-up made to check whether the guidelines are being followed or not. The follow-up is essential. (Senior Reporter #1, Delhi)

In contrast to the dominant suggestion for voluntary guidelines, some participants went further to suggest that ‘media guidelines have to be enforced, it’s not enough to just have guidelines’ (Senior Reporter #8, Chennai). Suggestions were made to make certain aspects of the guidelines mandatory, ‘make it mandatory to publish a helpline, and have a box saying how suicide can be prevented’ (Bureau Chief #2, Chennai). Others suggested that ‘it’s important to involve the police and the Supreme Court, the law makers in the country, it has to be enforced.’ (Senior Reporter #5, Delhi). For example, ‘if a Supreme Court orders that we don’t publish the location of a suicide death, we will have to follow’ (Senior Reporter #2, Delhi).