It’s hard to ethically justify publishing photos of celebrity deaths

By Alley Paquin

Media outlets use sensationalist headlines regularly to grab the attention of readers, encourage them to click on their website and read their stories. However, clickbait and sensationalist titles about celebrity suicides can have a disastrous effect. According to The Guardian, there was a 17 percent increase in suicides in the UK following comedian Robin Williams’ death in 2014. Many celebrities took their lives in 2018, including the DJ Avicii, handbag designer Kate Spade, and television personality Anthony Bourdain.

Reportingonsuicide.org, an organization that works with experts to help journalists cover suicide, said, “More than 50 research studies worldwide have found that certain types of news coverage can increase the likelihood of suicide in vulnerable individuals.” But even established and professional media outlets gave gory and unnecessary details surrounding the deaths of these celebrities. The deaths of public figures are newsworthy events. However, is it ethical to publish sensitive information about the death?

There are not many direct rules regarding the discussion of celebrity suicides, but the Associated Press Stylebook provides some advice on this topic. The Stylebook says:

Generally, AP does not cover suicides or suicide attempts, unless the person involved is a well-known figure or the circumstances are particularly unusual or publicly disruptive. Suicide stories, when written, should not go into detail on methods used.

The guideline from the stylebook is helpful in that it narrows down whose death should be mentioned but it becomes less helpful when discussing the detail on methods. How much detail is too much? If my publication does not publish the method, will another source? Is the revenue gain worth potentially triggering a reader? The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics says to minimize harm and to “show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage,” but the code also says to seek truth and report it. Those points conflict. Overall, the rules provide some direction. It seems there is a general consensus on publishing someone’s suicide only if they are a public figure and hiding the method. However, it seems this may not be in practice in the real world. Following Robin Williams’ death, the New York Times published the method and the Los Angeles Times published the details after Avicii’s death earlier this year.

For the purpose of evaluating the winners and losers of publishing the details of a celebrity suicide, look at the recent republication of photos from singer Kurt Cobain’s death in 1994. Following his death, the Seattle Police Department did not develop some images from the scene. When it reopened the case in 2014 and subsequently reconfirmed there was no foul play, CBS published the unseen and undeveloped photos. They range from photos of the shotgun, his suicide note, a cigar box of heroin and his body. CBS published this piece, which likely resulted in a lot of clicks from Cobain’s fans and others with a curiosity. The network probably came out as a winner, since it was able to make money off of Cobain’s death. However, recent studies have shown that increased exposure to suicide (mostly from the media reporting on it) can lead to a copycat effect. This basically means others who are in a vulnerable state can replicate the death.

This series of photos from CBS contained no information on resources or suicide prevention, but rather just the pictures. It was grossly irresponsible. There is no evidence of this article in particular directly impacting a person, but it is still clear that people who are living with depression and/or suicidal thoughts may suffer as a result of the publication. There are also additional stakeholders in this case, such as Cobain’s family. The pictures were personal and even though the death was more than 15 years prior to publication, their feelings should still be acknowledged as part of the equation on whether to publish. Humans are naturally curious so it can be difficult to draw the line between sharing the gory details and respecting the seriousness of mental health concerns. Another option is posting the photo series, but including a warning and positive messages that recovery is possible. The warnings should hopefully deter people who don’t need to look and the positive messages with resources will help them find help if they determine they need it. This option is clearly still showing the method and displaying suicide clearly, but it is trying to minimize harm. In this case, I believe the results are almost the same as above. CBS still wins, while family and those struggling with mental illnesses are seeing uncomfortable information. The one key difference to this approach is the ability to list resources. It could be a very good way to make sure people are aware of ways to get help. The final option would be for CBS to not post the images at all. CBS would be the loser in this situation. It would lose profits and clicks, but it would be reporting responsibly. It could either post an article about the release of the photos (without including them) or not say anything at all. Another outlet may post it, but CBS would personally not harm the deceased’s family and fans or those who are struggling with thoughts of suicide.

This is a difficult situation because the Cobain photographs are without a doubt newsworthy, but whether they should be shared is a different story. Journalists should act in a socially responsible way. If I were in charge of CBS and the story was put on my desk, I would immediately think of my personal value of compassion. However, I would likely also feel a loyalty to my company and a strong desire to see my company succeed. Loyalty and compassion, in this case, are conflicting values. Do I care more about protecting others, who I may not know, or do I care more about protecting my company? Because of my experiences with friends and family, I think I would err on the side of compassion. Mental illnesses are difficult for many around the world and certainly in CBS’s readership.

When reporting on celebrity suicides, it is important to consider differing moral philosophies. Media tend to be consequentialist in nature and that approach applies well to this topic. Simply, there are consequences to publishing the photographs. Some are desirable, such as attention, money and potentially, impact.  Some are undesirable, such as negative attention  and loss of money and subscribers. When looking at this through a consequentialist lens, nothing becomes clear. John Stuart Mill proposed a utilitarian philosophy that works in tandem with consequentialism, which favored actions that either benefit the most or harm the fewest. Through this lens, it is discovered that the only group benefiting is CBS and there are many who could be harmed, such as Cobain’s family and readers in a difficult mental health situation. Sensationalist media can result in the copycat effect. According to Scientific American, “excessive media coverage of suicides of celebrity figures actually has led to an increase in suicide attempts and ideation.” It is important for media organizations to evaluate the potential consequences when faced with a decision like this. The dilemma can also be viewed through the lens of deontologist thinkers and their ideas of universal obligations, which can apply to the decision to publish graphic photographs. Philosopher Bernard Gert wrote about what not to do. He explicitly wrote not to cause death or pain, and the publication could very well cause death and pain. Immanuel Kant wrote moral rules that he believed must be followed, which included not exploiting people. Isn’t the publication of Cobain’s body exploitative? The combination of deontology and consequentialism has proven effective in solving media moral dilemmas according to philosopher W.D. Ross. In this case, it seems to point toward not publishing the photos.

I would not publish the photographs. To me, a simple warning and some phone numbers do not make up for seeing a dead man’s body. If another company wanted to publish, it can, but I would urge CBS to post an article about the reconfirmation of Cobain’s death and interview mental health professionals to give the story a more positive and uplifting spin. I believe that part of being a journalist is reporting responsibly. I cannot in good faith release photos that glorify Cobain’s death and could harm people who are struggling with mental illness. I believe this would be acceptable in today’s climate and most people would understand the decision to not publish. I would not anticipate any backlash from this decision.

Sources:

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/5/5/17319632/anthony-bourdain-kate-spade-cause-of-death-suicide-celebrities-reporting

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/13/robin-williams-media-report-suicide

https://www.cjr.org/first_person/dont_forget_these_changes_to_the_ap_stylebook.php

http://reportingonsuicide.org/recommendations/#important

https://www.poynter.org/news/best-practices-covering-suicide-responsibly

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/on-this-day-april-8-1994-kurt-cobain-found-dead-in-seattle/

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/new-kurt-cobain-death-scene-photos/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/13-reasons-why-and-suicide-contagion1/