Witnessing the pain of suffering: Exploring the relationship between media representations,public understandings and policy responses to filicide-suicide

Introduction

The photo to which Pemberton is referring in the quote above appeared in a wide range of newspapers just before Christmas in December 2011. As Pemberton says, the photograph of the Smith family offered us an image of the ‘happy family’; an image that some of us may aspire to, and all of us are encouraged to emulate, whether through photographs, other media representations, or by politicians and policy-makers. Indeed, social scientists share in some of the responsibility in embedding idealized notions of the family and family life such representations depict, in their theories and empirical investigations. The murder of a child, or children, by their parent transgresses boundaries of what is considered normal and acceptable (Jenks, 2003) and those transgressions hold a powerful sway over all of us. Indeed Seaton (2005: 230) reminds us that ‘News generates feelings. It elucidates and shapes our sensibilities.’ So much so that, in the case of the Smith family, their relatives have withdrawn permission to use the image that so readily appeared in newspapers at the time and is still available on the Internet. In this paper we wish to offer an initial exploration of newspaper reporting of this kind of event over the last ten years (the media narrative) and compare this coverage with what is known about their nature and extent (the academic narrative). In putting the two narratives within the wider political and policy context in the UK in particular (the policy narrative), we go on to consider what is rendered visible and invisible in the public representation of such private tragedy. However, first of all it will be useful to say something about how we understand the act of ‘witnessing’ and its significance for the analysis that follows.

Witnessing the pain of suffering

Contemporarily, newspapers, alongside a wide and varied range of media outlets, appear to thrive on the desire to put us next to the victim so that we can share in their suffering, but, as Chouliaraki observes (2006: 26), the contemporary ‘capacity of technology to deliver immediacy is simultaneously the failure of technology to establish connectivity’. This poses a dilemma above and beyond aesthetics. Carrabine (2012: 467) suggests that ‘human suffering should not be reduced to a set of aesthetic concerns, but is fundamentally bound up with the politics of testimony and memory’. Thus it is important to set apart the complexities of the ‘witness’ from the simple onlooker: to differentiate ‘witnessing’ from ‘bearing witness’. The former is what we ‘see’ (such as the symbolic and figurative observations of victims and their experiences, as in the withdrawn image of the Smith family). The latter involves ‘seeing beyond what we see’, which would include political and policy responses. So, following Howie’s (2012: 20) observation that ‘Witnessing is far more than merely watching or seeing. Witnesses are never passive. Witnessing is active, performed and embodied, even when it occurs at a distance (our emphasis)’, the impact of the media is clear. Media coverage and outlets work to cultivate and endorse the shared cultural meanings (Ferrell and de Voorde, 2010) that they capture, helping build ‘cultural myths’ (Campbell, 2010). Nowhere is this more the case than in images of happy families commented on so aptly by Pemberton (2011) above. In this sense it is the kind of media outlets discussed below, and the ‘visual culture’ (Valier, 2004) of which they are a part, that can add to the suffering that people experience, not only through the images that they use but by also by deflecting professional attention away from the individual circumstances of the cases they are covering towards political interests and public opinion about professional practices.

Filicide-suicide: The academic narrative

The murder of children by a parent, known as filicide, is not a new phenomenon. There are examples of such behaviour reaching back to the Ming dynasty (Collins, et al., 2001) and even earlier ones in Greek mythology such as Medea who killed her two children in revenge for her husband’s desertion. In the case of the Smiths, the father stabbed his wife and children before setting fire to the bedroom they were all in and himself dying as a result of smoke inhalation. It should be noted, of course, that this kind of act is not common. For example, Shackleford et al. (2005) state that filicide occurs less often than other forms of homicide and filicide-suicides are even more uncommon. Daly and Wilson (1988), analysing a national Canadian database of 1324 family-related homicides, found that 78% were spousal/consortial, 20% were filicides and just 2% were familicides (the killing of a spouse and their children). Biological parents who commit filicide are also much more likely to commit suicide than are step-parents (Liem et al., 2010). Cooper and Eaves (1996), using a province-based Canadian database, found that 57.7% of genetic filicides were followed by suicide compared to just 11.9% committed by a step-parent. Similar findings have emerged in Sweden (Somander and Rammer, 1991), and the UK (Daly and Wilson, 1994). The incidence of this behaviour appears to be constant. Coid (1983) reviewed 17 studies from 1900 to 1979 involving 10 nations and found that the murder-suicide incidence was surprisingly similar and constant – between 0.2 and 0.3 per 100,000. Marzuk et al. (1992) reported that the incidence in the US and other western countries was shown to be stable over the previous 40 years. Since 1993 there have been only a handful of further studies, but these also show a relatively constant rate of occurrence. Travis et al. (2007) confirmed that, in England, suicide after homicide has remained at a similar rate over the last half-century and is an uncommon phenomenon.

However, despite its rarity, demographic characteristics associated with this act look somewhat different from homicide in general. Homicides in general occur more frequently in lower socioeconomic groups, yet several studies have found murder-suicides more frequent among more affluent groups (Byard, 2005). Perpetrators of filicide-suicide tend to be older than those who commit homicide alone, with the most common scenario being an estranged white male in his 40s killing his spouse and possibly his children before killing himself. The evidence suggests that familicide (referred to as family annihilation in the United States) in complex affluent countries such as the UK, Canada and Australia is committed mainly by men (Barraclough and Harris, 2002; Eliason 2009; Hatters Friedman et al., 2005; Travis et al., 2007; Warren-Gordon, 2010; Wilson et al., 1995), a characteristic replicated elsewhere (for example, see Roma et al., 2012, on Italy and Papapietro and Barbo, 2005, on America). Byard et al. (1999) suggest greater equality between the sexes in relation to this behaviour but also note that, while all husbands killed their spouses, no wives killed their husbands. Hatters Friedman et al. (2005 and 2008) found that, in the reported literature, 16–29% of mothers and 40–60% of fathers who commit filicide then commit suicide. They go on to suggest that the higher rate for fathers may be a reflection of the generally higher rate of male suicide in the wider population. Other than this link with male suicide, there are no strong demographic links between filicide-suicide and homicide more generally. However, what motivates such behaviour?

Wilson et al. (1995) defined two different types of motive for what they term familicide, both reflecting male possessiveness over family members. The first type of motive is where the male sexually proprietary mindset is activated by aggrieved hostility towards their spouse because of suspected or actual infidelity and/or her intention to terminate the marriage. These ‘family annihilators’ (Pemberton, 2011) seem to have similar motives relating to male sexual propriety found by Wilson and Daly (1998) in their international study of murder and sexual jealousy. The second type of motive, characterized as ‘altruistic’, is where the father is depressed and, suspecting impending disaster for himself and his family, sees suicide as his only way out. He therefore constructs the murder of his family as an act of mercy or rescue. Although there may be different motives for such behaviours, as discussed by Wilson et al. (1995), they have an important feature in common: the perpetrator feels entitled to decide his victims’ fates. The man acts in a proprietorial fashion not only towards his wife but towards his children as well. Where the motive in familicide may be related to revenge, this may be the result of children being seen merely as appendages of their mother. Children may well be at risk from these kinds of perpetrators even though they are not the primary objects of the assailant’s hostility but are killed in vengeance against their mother. So while she is the main focus of his hostility, any paternal feelings for his children are rejected in his act of violence towards her. In the case of ‘altruistic’ motives, familicide occurs as a product of the desire of the father to protect his family. However distorted this motive might appear to be, he does not want to leave them to an unknown fate. Filicide-suicides by mothers appear to have ‘altruistic’ motivational triggers similar to those of the despondent type of male-perpetrated familicide. Interestingly, the rate of such incidents can also be connected with wider socioeconomic conditions, for example, the unemployment rate. Stuckler et al. (2009), in a study spanning 26 European Union countries from 1970 to 2007, found that for every 1% rise in unemployment suicides and homicides rose by 0.8%. When employment fell by 3% or more, suicides leapt by 4.4% and homicides by 6%. The National Suicide Research Foundation (Arensman et al., 2012: 32) based in Cork, Ireland, reports that:

International research shows consistency in relation to a number of risk factors associated with suicide, such as the presence of alcohol and drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, marital/relationship problems, unemployment, history of deliberate self harm and adverse life events. However, risk factors may change in the context of socio-economic developments.

Indeed, the changing socioeconomic circumstances in Eire appear to be connected with a sudden increase in filicide-suicide (see below). This prompted Arensman and colleagues’ investigation into this phenomenon and the development of a special support system for families bereaved in this way.

To summarize then; this overview suggests that men have proprietary feelings towards their wives first and then their children, whereas women have strong proprietary feelings towards their children but rarely towards their husbands. One motive for ‘family annihilation’ is extreme hostility and desire for revenge or punishment of the (female) partner when partners are going through conflict or separation. The other circumstances in which filicide-suicide occurs suggest more ‘altruistic’ motives. These circumstances put economic conditions to the fore. However, it seems apparent that, whatever the motives for filicide-suicide, whether ‘family annihilation’ or ‘altrustic’, they share in common two presumptions. First: children are viewed solely as parental possessions. Second: filicide-suicide is rooted in personal or economic catastrophe reflecting dominant patriarchal discourses that underpin the presumption of male proprietorial power over women and children.

So to what extent do newspaper reports of such family tragedies mirror these findings? In the second part of this paper we discuss some preliminary findings from an exploratory study on the nature of newspaper reporting on filicide-suicide in Britain and Ireland.

Newspaper reporting on filicide-suicide: The media narrative

Interestingly, media analysis of filicide-suicide cases appears to be one of the few sources of data available to researchers to explore this type of behaviour. Two recent extensive investigations on the nature and extent of filicide-suicide (Warren-Gordon et al., 2010, and Roma et al., 2012) rely on newspaper archives for their analysis in the absence of other available sources of statistical data. So following this tradition in which, rather ironically, the media are one of the main sources of data for all three of the narratives discussed in this paper, a limited search was undertaken of British and Irish newspapers from 1991 to March 2011, available on Lexis Nexis. Key word searches using murder-suicide, family tragedy and family death yielded the most cases and it should be noted that not all newspapers were online from the start of that period so early figures may not reflect what was actually published in the press. This search identified 95 incidents of filicide-suicide, and, consistent with most findings from the literature discussed above, the majority of the perpetrators were men. Almost two-thirds of the perpetrators were fathers, and no mother murdered or attempted to murder her husband or partner. A total of 173 children below the age of 18 years were killed by a parent or step-parent. The number of incidents reported per year varied considerably, with twelve occurring in 2007 (a cluster of these being in Eire), ten in 2001, and eight each in 2010 and 2006. In the early 1990s, and in 2003 and 2004, only one report each year was found. This may reflect fewer online sources in the earlier period, or competition with more newsworthy items, or it may be that the incidence has increased in more recent years.

Eliason (2009) suggests that, although murder-suicide is a rare event and the incidence does not seem to be increasing, it may be that media coverage of such incidents is rising. This could be the reason for the number of filicide-suicides reported by newspapers in Eire in our study. Of twelve cases reported in 2007, five were in Eire and one in Northern Ireland and, overall, in the period searched from 2000 to 2011, almost a fifth of the cases occurred in Eire. However, in an article in the Eire edition of the Mirror in May 2008, it was reported that the murder-suicide rate is seven times higher in Eire than in the UK and a headline in the Irish Examiner in April 2008 proclaimed: ‘Toll grows as murder-suicide comes out of the shadows.’ What is prompting this apparent change in behaviour? Is it simply, as Eliason (2009) suggests, that media coverage is on the rise or is there a greater incidence linked to increased couple conflict or growing economic privation thus promoting despondency among parents? Moreover, what is the role of newspapers, if any, in these apparent changes?

In the data presented in this paper the reporting of filicide-suicide varies considerably between tabloids and broadsheets. Tabloid reports are often graphic and sensational, such as ‘Deranged Dad choked his two young daughters before incinerating himself’ (Sun, 17 November 2010) and ‘Crazed father shot wife and drugged children before torching their home and blowing head off with shotgun’ (Sun, 29 May 2009). Phraseology can be apocalyptical in nature, for example, ‘one of the most vile crimes on the statute book … which sickened the nation’ (Mirror, 17 November 2010). And later another report asks ‘When did depression, unemployment or the desire for “revenge” become an excuse for child murder?’ (Mirror, 19 November 2010). Similar approaches are taken in relation to mothers. A report in the Edinburgh Evening News (26 August 2010) stated: ‘whether guilty or not, the very idea of a woman allegedly killing her children is abhorrent to society. It goes against nature and the instinctive response is of horror and a questioning disbelief.’

Some tabloid coverage offered commentary rather than analysis. Cases that attract more lengthy speculation as to motive were usually where the perpetrator was affluent or had high status within a community, for example as a police officer, clearly reflecting the view that in these kinds of circumstances such behaviour is even less understandable. Another common theme focused on cases in which serious shortcomings were perceived in health or social services and in particular where professionals could be blamed for failing to prevent the tragedy. For example, the Daily Mail (16 November 2006) cites the case of a woman who had finally taken the children and left her husband after years of domestic violence. When it came to divorce proceedings, in spite of or possibly because of his severe mental distress, she maintained she was advised by court officials to agree to contact arrangements. It was on one of these arranged outings that he subsequently killed the children and himself. A report in the Daily Mail (4 January 2010) stated that fear of such a terrible incident now haunts every contested divorce and every access visit in embittered relationships. Broadsheet reporting also includes commentary but in doing so considers some of the factors, such as gender, that have emerged in the research discussed above. For example, the Sunday Telegraph (19 November 2006) cited the case of an estranged father who killed himself and his toddler son in front of the mother. The writer commented that the subsequent press reporting focused on her infidelity as though that made her responsible for the deaths. The Guardian a few days earlier (8 November 2006) had criticized the ‘facile attempt’ to explain these events by blaming a wife’s infidelity – or, indeed, financial disaster. In this article it was pointed out that neither of these led to murder-suicide for the majority of men who share in the same experience.

Given that newspaper reports have often been the data source for academic analyses of filicide-suicide, it is not surprising to find some similarities between these narratives: children perceived as possessions, adult conflict that can result in children suffering ‘collateral damage’, the greater propensity for men to engage in this behaviour than women, and the role of socioeconomic circumstances in triggering this kind of extreme behavioural response. As illustrated here, however, media coverage does tend to be somewhat simplistic in tone and to be prone to making instant judgements about individual cases. The question is, however, what kind of impact, if any, might different kinds of newspaper coverage have on responses to tragedies of this kind? Connolly (2007: 111), in reflecting on the cluster of cases in Eire, has this to say:

Whether these cases are related somehow may be impossible to establish, but it is notable that they all occurred during a period of extensive and detailed media coverage sparked off by the first deaths. This coverage was often of a sensational nature and, given the similarities between some of the cases, a copy-cat effect cannot be ruled out.

For Connolly it is clear that some types of newspaper coverage may well have an adverse impact on individual behaviour. The recent phone-hacking scandal in the UK has revealed, for example, the vulnerability and willingness of politicians in particular to make decisions in line with media interests and representations of the ‘story’, regardless of other considerations. So while there may well be some connections to be made between behaviours and attitudes of the general public, it is almost platitudinous to say that the media do not tell people what to think but they are an important dynamic in what people think about. In relation to filicide-suicide this suggests further interesting questions as to whether or not such media influence stretches to the professionals charged with child protection. In order to offer some preliminary thoughts on the connections between media coverage and professional practice, it will be useful to appreciate the contemporary context in which professionals in the UK, engaged in these kinds of cases, find themselves.

UK child protection: The policy and professional narrative

Recent work by Gekoski et al. (2012) suggests that extensive and prolonged media interest in homicide is determined by the nature of the crime and type of victim. In particular, their study shows that homicides involving ‘perfect’ victims (such as children and women), coupled with the relative rarity of acts like filicide-suicide, will attract prominence in media reportage. Thus features such as these can act as drivers ensuring media interest and coverage. Such drivers need to be placed alongside issues such as the recent controversy in the UK about the impact of press behaviour as revealed by the Leveson Inquiry Report (2012). That report illustrates that politicians and senior police officers, among others, were influenced by the nature of media coverage when making decisions. Here we wish to consider whether child protection decision-making by professionals in the UK has been or indeed could be so influenced by the media gaze.

Lun Hon (2011) defines filicide-suicide as an extreme form of child abuse. This sits at one end of a continuum of abusive behaviours towards children and, put in the context of the UK, the capacity for professional intervention in child abuse is beyond question. The UK has one of the most detailed and centrally enforced legislative, policy and professional frameworks for protecting children from abuse, comparable with any other western country (HM Government, 2010). It might be thought, therefore, that media impact would be negligible as professionals work within highly prescribed government guidance and regulations. These regulations have developed during the last 30 years in response to specific events and social contexts and are currently under review. Nevertheless child deaths from abuse have remained remarkably static for the last 30 years, whatever policies have been in place. While annual statistics fluctuate a little, the longer-term pattern is fairly stable at 100 to 150 child deaths per year from cruelty (DoH, 2002; Laming, 2009; NSPCC, 2001; Ofsted, 2009). Furthermore it is argued that it is impossible to predict or prevent child deaths from abuse entirely. Nevertheless in all four countries in the UK complex policy and procedural requirements and a highly interventionist legal framework are in place. Since the mid 1970s policies, legislation and procedures have increased exponentially although not always consistently. The pendulum has swung between family support and state intervention, often in response to high-profile child abuse tragedies that attracted media attention and public concern or political agendas. For example, between 1973 and 1989 approximately 37 public inquiries were held on abuses perpetrated on children by those caring for them, including murder and institutional abuses (Corby, 2000). In 2008 a government review showed that there were just a small number of cases in which children and a parent were victims together and where the perpetrator then committed suicide (DCSF, 2008). A further review defined cases where the perpetrator subsequently commits suicide as ‘extended suicides’ (DCSF, 2009: 134). Here domestic violence was identified as a feature of the majority of cases where the father murdered the mother and ‘sometimes the child as well’ (DCSF, 2009: 42). The authors comment that such family killings prompt considerable media attention and that research is needed to establish whether there is an actual increase in their occurrence over time or simply an increase in media interest.

What has been the impact, then, of media interest of this kind on child protection professionals? Factors affecting UK child protection services as a whole were highlighted in Lord Laming’s progress report of 2009 and drew attention to the negative impact of media reporting on the child protection workforce:

Public vilification of social workers has a negative effect on staff and has serious implications for the effectiveness, status and morale of the children’s workforce as a whole. There has been a long-term appetite in the media to portray social workers in ways that are negative and undermining. (Laming, 2009: 44–45)

Moreover the British Association of Social Workers conducted a survey in 2010 that revealed this type of media attention has exacerbated recruitment and retention problems of child protection social workers (Association of Directors of Children’s Services, 2010; Community Care, 2010). ‘Caught in the sheer intensity of the media glare – and the message that failing to prevent the death of a child, however complex the situation, was career destroying – many professionals quit’ (Butler, 2011). A major review of child protection systems, policies and procedures in the UK led by Professor Eileen Monro, commissioned in 2010 by the outgoing Labour government and subsequently endorsed by the current Coalition government (DoE, 2011b), argues that media and public pressure on governments has led to the diminution of professional decision-making and over-reliance on centralized bureaucratic, prescriptive policies and procedures. She states that these responses to media and public pressure have not always been in the best interests of children:

Whilst child protection almost always attracts the general public’s attention following a high profile serious incident, the intensity of that reaction places enormous pressure on Government and professionals to act and act quickly in order to improve practice … data confirm that a shift in public attitudes influences the anxiety that child protection professionals experience when trying to avoid false negatives when dealing with a difficult case. (DoE, 2011a: 17)

So it would seem that there is some evidence to suggest that media coverage does impinge on professional practice in the desire to avoid ‘false negatives’, as Monro (DoE, 2011a) states, as well as more generally on recruitment, retention and morale. Such effects can be compounded by knee-jerk political decisions often stimulated by media pressure. For example Sharon Shoesmith, Director of Children’s Services in Haringey, won her appeal in May 2011 against her removal from post without compensation by Ed Balls, then Children’s Secretary (Guardian, 2011). She claimed she was subjected to a media witch-hunt and political pressure that breached the rules of natural justice. All of which suggest some implications for policies and practices.

Two trends coexist in media and politically driven responses to child abuse tragedies of all kinds in the UK. The first is a simplification of complex factors allied to a determination to allocate blame, and the second is a disregard of systemic and contextual causal factors. This desire to simplify, that coexists between media and politicians responses to child abuse in general (that become so poignant in cases of filicide-suicide in particular), marginalizes the potential significance of other aspects of the wider, changing socioeconomic landscape (alluded to in the academic narrative above) which, while somewhat invisible, may also be contributing factors to individual child abuse or filicide-suicide catastrophes. There are, however, additional factors at play here that intensify these trends. First is the role of legal and policy developments that reinforce parental power over children, and fathers’ power over mothers, and reduce opportunities for the voice of the child to be heard and taken into consideration. The Shared Parenting Order Bill, introduced in 2010 by Brian Binley MP, is a good example of this. The Bill, if made law, would empower courts to make orders imposing shared parenting on parents in conflict. Fehlberg et al. (2012) reviewed the international research on children’s well-being and shared care and concluded that, in the Australian experience, ‘The changes have resulted in … an increased focus on father’s rights over children’s best interests, and has increased the reluctance of mothers to disclose violence and abuse’ (Fehlberg et al., 2012: 16). Such developments do little to facilitate a better appreciation of the dynamics that can result in the kinds of cases with which this paper has been concerned, yet do much to ensure that children are seen but not heard. Second, as research has shown (Dorling, 2011; Stukler et al. 2009; Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010) the primary achievement of the shift to neoliberalism has been to widen the gap between rich and poor. When overlaid with ‘austerity’ policies and cuts in public sector services, the impact on the most vulnerable, particularly children, is exacerbated. The latest report from the UN Children’s Fund (Unicef) states:

Because children have only one opportunity to develop normally in mind and body, the commitment to protection from poverty must be upheld in good times and in bad. A society that fails to maintain that commitment, even in difficult economic times, is a society that is failing its most vulnerable citizens and storing up intractable social and economic problems for the years immediately ahead. (Unicef, 2012: 1)

Given the evidence cited in this paper indicating a socioeconomic dimension to cases of filicide-suicide, the potential implications of the continuing difficult economic climate are clear enough. The cases in Eire and the response to them commented on above may be illustrative of the impact of wider economic trends. However, the question remains, what, if anything, could be done to prevent some, if not all, of these cases occurring?

What, if anything, can be done about filicide-suicide?

Filicide-suicide is a family tragedy that is difficult to predict and prevent in complex affluent societies notwithstanding more than 40 years’ research and study (Papapietro and Barbo, 2005). The media presentation and public response to cases like that of the Smith family with which this paper began, stand as testimony to the bewilderment that such events provoke. Although the incidence of filicide-suicide and other forms of child abuse correlate with contextual factors, such as gendered social relations and economic conditions, specific causal factors are complex and unique to each situation, and there are indications that the media may play a role in some tragedies. While Collins et al. (2001) suggest that there is little in the current body of literature indicative of a causal role for the media in filicide-suicide, they go on to observe that publicized stories about the phenomenon might be identified with by others in marital trouble, and lead to copycat suicides or murder-suicides. Indeed, Stack (1990) had found a significant association between well-publicized suicide stories of people who had been going through a divorce or experiencing marital problems and increases in suicide rates. Spates of suicide among young people have been attributed to such copycat behaviour (Samaritans, 2011) and Pirkis et al.’s (2006) systematic review of international studies exploring copycat suicides suggests that the weight of evidence indicates a causal relationship between behaviour and exposure. Their own empirical investigation revealed that certain media items on suicides were associated with an increase in suicide and that certain characteristics of reports were predictive of such an increased incidence. In particular, and consistent with the ‘dose-effect’ of social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), it was found that when there were multiple concurrent items on the same subject on the same day an increase in suicide occurred. So, it seems that some types of newspaper coverage may well have an adverse impact on individual behaviour.

Does this suggest that the media (and for the purposes of this paper, newspapers in particular) have particular responsibilities in the way that family tragedies are reported? If we accept that it is reasonable to expect the media in general, and newspapers in particular, to adhere to some ethical principles when covering events that might cause harm to vulnerable groups or individuals, how might we move to such a position, and what implications would that have for all the professionals involved? In response to the cluster of cases that occurred in Eire, a pilot Suicide Support and Information System was established in Cork and in relation to the emerging suicide cluster there, the first report on that system states:

The SSIS has contributed significantly to the implementation of the media guidelines during the development of the suicide cluster, resulting in the absence of sensationalised media reporting of specific cases involved in the cluster. (Arensman et al., 2012: 34)

Liem et al. (2010) have argued that mental health professionals and suicide experts should collaborate with media professionals to try to balance public interest against the risk of harm to vulnerable groups in particular as well as promoting opportunities for education. Sensitive reporting that does not glorify or romanticize such tragedies, or provide visual detail of exact method, is important, together with depictions of the stressful consequences for others, and sources of help. Stephen Pritchard, readers’ editor of the Observer and president of the Organisation of News Ombudsmen, makes this comment:

Perhaps the most important guiding principle for all journalists … is to consider the vulnerable reader who might be in crisis when they see the story. We need to ask ourselves whether our coverage will make it more likely that they will attempt to take their lives or more likely that they will seek help … excellent guidelines can help us make the right decisions. (quoted by the Samaritans, 2011)

Similar recommendations have been made in relation to media reporting on sexual violence. The Lilith Project (Mahria, 2008: 47), for example, suggests training and a voluntary code of practice on reporting sexual violence to be expected of all journalists covering these issues as well as a publicized and transparent complaints system should the guidelines not be adhered to.

Furthermore the Levenson Inquiry (2012) in the UK has shown how responses of politicians and policy-makers can be also influenced. We have argued above that media reporting of family tragedies influences the form and shape of political and professional responses in the UK to child protection policies and practices, and there is evidence that recruitment and retention of child protection workers in the UK has been adversely affected by hostile media reporting. This does raise ethical questions about codes of practice and the balance between public interest and regulation, the recommendations of the Leveson Inquiry (2012) notwithstanding. It is a moot point whether or not voluntary codes of practice underpinned by statute offer an answer to the questions posed by this paper.

Conclusion: Visual culture and the pain of suffering

Newspaper coverage of the type referred to earlier in this paper, that reports filicide-suicide and other family tragedies in crude and simplistic ways, seeks to provoke an immediate emotional response in the reader. In this ever-present ‘visual culture’ (Valier, 2004) the individual’s feelings are mined in all kinds of ways to provoke guilt, anger, vindictiveness. The response in some communities to the campaign run by the News of the World’s ‘name and shame’ campaign against paedophiles is a case in point as it triggered violence and criminality in some communities (BBC, 2000). However, other feelings can be mined by media coverage, and compassion is one, and perhaps one that could be invoked by the tragic circumstances of the Smith family. In discussing the contemporary invocation of compassion, Berlant (2004: 5) observes that:

This is a peculiarly modern topic, because members of mass society witness suffering not just concretely in local spaces but in the elsewheres brought to home and made intimate by sensationalist media, where documentary realness about the pain of strangers is increasingly at the center of both fictional and nonfictional events.

Woodward (2004) notes that the desire to invoke compassion, particularly by George Bush Jnr in the United States, was by a definitional sleight of hand declared to mean ‘suffering with’ rather than ‘sympathy for’ by Olasky (2000). In this way, especially politically but also increasingly culturally, compassion has become elided with a concern about individual suffering rather than social suffering. In such a context the individual and individualized suffering of families like the Smith family becomes all the more poignant and simultaneously asks questions of us all when we are encouraged to look.

Following Young (2010), we have been concerned to ask whether nor not there is such a thing as ‘just looking’. Clearly, for the relatives of the family that has been the illustrative focus for this paper, there is not. The removal of the photograph of the Smith family from further public use stands as testimony to this. However, the notion of ‘just looking’ carries implications for all of us. Quinney (1972: 107) observed some time ago that ‘The witness first has to be where the suffering is taking place. And once there, the witness is moved by conscience to observe and make the report.’ Such a view implicates us all to think about what ‘just looking’, like just looking at the Smith family, actually means for us as individuals, academics, policy-makers, politicians, as well as for those who report on such events themselves. In this paper we have sought to document how, as witnesses, we can observe the elision of compassion as meaning suffering with rather than sympathy for, commented on by Woodward (2004), which inevitably places blame for family tragedies solely on individuals while sidestepping any consideration of collective social responsibility as an element of causality. We witness this elision in the narratives outlined above in the foregrounding of the presumptions of children as property, the role of patriarchal gendered relationships that nonetheless pathologize individual men (and women) who commit filicide-suicide, and the focus on individual responsibility in sensationalist media reporting often endorsed by soundbite politics. Taken together these serve the purpose of keeping the potential of other causal mechanisms in the background. Not only in the background, but well in the shadows, are the voices of the children themselves.