Today, new research has been released that examines attitudes towards the reporting about suicide held by media professionals in Australia. This report forms part of a PhD study and was supported by staff at the Hunter Institute of Mental health working on the Mindframe National Media Initiative. For more ifnormation about the research visit www.mindframe-media.info

1. Views and attitudes regarding the
reporting of suicide held by media
professionals in Australia
Report prepared by Jaelea Skehan, Ross Tynan and Renate Thienel for the Hunter
Institute of Mental Health and the Mindframe National Media Initiative.

2. About the research
• Within the suicide literature, there has been extensive research
investigating the relationship between news reporting and suicide. This
research has been used to develop evidence-based recommendations
regarding how to safely report on suicide.
• There has been very little research, however, looking at the views and
attitudes of media professionals, including their views on
recommendations about reporting suicide.
• This research aimed to gather information about media professionals’
attitudes towards the reporting of suicide; their level of exposure to
suicide; and their attitude towards suicide in general.
• This research is complemented by two further studies to assess the
knowledge and attitudes of public relations and communication
professionals and students studying journalism or public relations.

3. About the research
• This research forms part of a PhD study through the University of
Newcastle and was supported by a team of staff from the Hunter
Institute of Mental Health, who manage the Mindframe National Media
Initiative.
• The research has been approved by the University of Newcastle’s Human
Research Ethics Committee, Approval No H-2014-0369.
• This is a summary report of results, which have not yet been peer-
reviewed. It has been developed for broader communication through the
Mindframe National Media Initiative and the media partners in Australia.
• Further analysis will be included as part of a peer-reviewed publication.

4. Acknowledgements
• This research forms part of Jaelea Skehan’s PhD study supervised by
Professor Brian Kelly (University of Newcastle), Professor Jane Pirkis
(University of Melbourne) and Associate Professor Myfanwy Maple
(University of New England).
• The research was supported by a team of staff from the Hunter Institute
of Mental Health, including Dr Ross Tynan, Dr Renate Thienel and
Mr Marc Bryant.
• Media organisations in Australia and the project team working on the
Mindframe National Media Initiative supported recruitment for this
study.

5. The Australian context
• In Australia, evidence-based guidelines for media reporting of suicide
have been developed and disseminated by the Hunter Institute of Mental
Health under the Mindframe National Media Initiative (Mindframe).
• Mindframe is a comprehensive and multi-faceted strategy that targets
media organisations and media professionals as well as the mental health
and suicide prevention sectors, police, courts, film and television, and
universities offering programs in journalism, communications and public
relations. It also offers a StigmaWatch program delivered by SANE
Australia.
• Australia is one of only two countries where the introduction of
guidelines or strategies have resulted in a change in media reporting
(Media Monitoring study, Pirkis et al. 2009).

6. Research methodology
• People were eligible to participate in the research if they were: (a) over
the age of 18 years; and (b) were currently (or in the past 2 years)
employed as a media professional in Australia.
• The survey was promoted by the peak media bodies, individual media
organisations and the Hunter Institute of Mental Health, using email,
media release, social media posts and other online discussion forums.
• Participation was voluntary and all surveys were completed online. At
the end of the survey, participants were provided with an option to go
into a draw (with contact details entered separate to the survey) to win
one of ten $50 vouchers.

7. The survey instrument included five sections:
1. Participant demographics, including current role and educational
background;
2. A 20-item rating scale assessing participants’ level of agreement with
statements about reporting of suicide;
3. The 16-item Stigma of Suicide Scale (SOSS);
4. Questions relating to participants’ personal and professional
exposure to suicide;
5. Questions about participants’ prior exposure to the Mindframe
program and resources.
Research methodology

8. 1. Participant demographics
A total of 262 participants were able to complete the survey by indicating
that they were currently (or as recently as two years) working as a media
professional in Australia.
Gender: Participants included 171
people who identified as female
(65%), 86 who identified as male
(33%) and 5 people (2%) who did not
complete the open field.
Culture: 10 participants (4%)
identified as Aboriginal or Torres
Strait Islander.
33%
65%

9. Figure 1. Age of participants (%)
Age: Almost three-quarters
(73%) of participants were
aged between 26 and 55
years old, with 15% of
participants aged 25 years or
younger and 12% of
participants aged over 56
years old (see Figure 1).
25 years or younger
26 - 35 years
36 - 45 years
46 - 55 years
56 - 64 years
65 years or older
1. Participant demographics

10. 1. Participant demographics
Over half of the participants (59%) had studied journalism at an Australian university,
with Charles Sturt (n=16); UTS (n=14), RMIT (n=14), QUT (n=11), Curtin (n=11) and
University of Queensland (n=10) the most commonly mentioned – see Table 1.
Table 1. University where participants studied journalism (n), n = 149*
University n University n
Charles Sturt University (CSU) 16 Edith Cowan University 5
University of Technology Sydney (UTS) 14 University of Tasmania 5
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) 14 Monash University 4
Queensland University of Technology (QUT) 11 University of Newcastle 4
Curtin University 11 Melbourne University 3
University of Queensland 10 Murdoch University 3
University of South Australia 9 Griffith University 3
University of Canberra 6 University of Sydney 3
* Other universities mentioned by one or two participants included: James Cook University, J School, Latrobe
University, Macleay College, Macquarie University, Deakin University, University of Wollongong, Bachelor Institute,
University of Western Sydney.

11. 1. Participant demographics
The most represented
state in the sample was
NSW (42%) followed by
Victoria (18%) and
Queensland (12%) – see
Figure 2.
Most participants were
working in a capital city
(with Sydney the most
common), with only 17.5%
working in a regional or
rural area.
Figure 2. Participants (%) by state
11.2%
42.7%
1.2%
6.6%
6.6%
17.8%
10.4%
2.9%

12. 1. Participant demographics
Participants worked across broadcast, print and digital media. Over half of
the participants worked in broadcast (56%), with ABC (77%) and SBS (17%)
most represented. A total of 27% of participants worked in print media, with
the Sydney Morning Herald (35%) most represented in this sample.
Figure 3. Media type (%) n = 243
Broadcast
Print
Digital
Wire
Other
Public
Commercial
Community
Other
Figure 4. Media type (%) n = 243

13. 1. Participant demographics
On average, participants had 16 years of experience (mean = 15.5 years) in
media, with a range between one year to 59 years – see Figure 5.
Figure 5. Years of experience (%)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0-3 years 4-10 years 11-20 years 21+ years

14. 2. Reporting of suicide
Media professionals were asked to rate their level of agreement with a range
of statements about reporting of suicide, using a 7-point Likert scale from
strongly disagree to strongly agree.
• Tables 2-4 provides a summary of responses to 16 statements that relate
to current evidence-informed recommendations provided through the
Mindframe Initiative in Australia, and the expected direction of responses
based on the current recommendations, indicated by a green, yellow or
red box.
• Table 5 provides a summary of responses to four more general statements
about the frequency and value of reporting about suicide.
• To simplify the reporting of results, the strongly agree and agree as well as
the strongly disagree and disagree categories were combined, with results
in Table 2 and Table 3 presented on a 5-point scale.

15. 2. Reporting of suicide: Alignment with
principles high (>70%)
Strongly
Disagree
or
Disagree*
Somewhat
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree or
agree*
Journalists should ensure information about
suicide (including suicide statistics) is accurate
and confirmed. (n=234)
1.3% 0 0.9% 1.3%
It is important to report about a suspected
suicide quickly, stating it is suicide or
suspected suicide even if the cause of death
has not yet been confirmed. (n=237)
12.7% 3.0% 3.8% 2.6%
Adding help-seeking information to stories
about suicide is not helpful. (n=234)
8.5% 5.6% 1.7% 4.3%
Reports should show images of an Aboriginal
or Torres Strait Islander person who has died
by suicide. (n=234)
8.1% 12.4% 2.1% 3.0%
Table 2: Level of agreement with statements about reporting of suicide, with high (>70%) alignment with Mindframe
recommendations.
96.5%
78.1%
79.9%
74.4%

16. Strongly
Disagree
or
Disagree*
Somewhat
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree or
agree*
Reports about suicide should not mention
specific details about the method of suicide.
(n=242)
6.2% 7.4% 8.7% 12.8%
Suicide deaths should only be reported when
there is a clear public interest to do so. (n=236)
7.2% 11.4% 5.9% 20.8%
If a celebrity dies by suicide, then it is
important to report the death in detail. (n=241)
17.8% 7.1% 16.2% 7.4%
The best time to interview people bereaved
by suicide is soon after the death (n=240)
13.8% 17.1% 6.7% 1.7%
Table 3: Level of agreement with statements about reporting of suicide, with moderate (>50%) alignment with
Mindframe recommendations.
2. Reporting of suicide: Alignment with
principles moderate (>50%)
64.7%
54.7%
51.4%
60.8%

17. Strongly
Disagree
or
Disagree*
Somewhat
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree or
agree*
The media should involve suicide prevention
experts or services in any story about suicide.
(n=234)
6.8% 4.3% 4.7% 21.4%
People in the media can be adversely
impacted when reporting on suicide. (n=233)
2.8% 1.7% 9.0% 17.2%
Stories that involve people who have been
suicidal in the past can be helpful. (n=236)
2.1% 2.5% 8.5% 17.8%
Table 3 (cont.): Level of agreement with statements about reporting of suicide, with moderate (>50%)
alignment with Mindframe recommendations.
2. Reporting of suicide: Alignment with
principles moderate (>50%)
62.8%
69.5%
69.1%

18. 2. Reporting of suicide: Alignment with
principles low (<50%)
Strongly
Disagree
or
Disagree*
Somewhat
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree or
agree*
Suicide deaths should always be reported.
(n=242)
16.9% 13.2% 17.4% 11.2%
Reporting on individual deaths by suicide can
increase the risk of suicide in other members
of the community. (n=237)
15.1% 13.5% 15.2% 21.9%
Reports should include the location of a
suicide death, especially if it occurs at a well-
known location. (n=234)
15.0% 20.5% 11.5% 6.9%
Table 4: Level of agreement with statements about reporting of suicide, with low (<50%) alignment with
Mindframe recommendations.
41.3%
32.4%
46.2%

19. 2. Reporting of suicide: Alignment with
principles low (<50%)
Strongly
Disagree
or
Disagree*
Somewhat
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree or
agree*
When reporting on a story that involves
suicide, it is appropriate to use the term
‘committed suicide’. (n=234)
12.0% 32.1% 8.1% 10.2%
Stories about a suicide death should not use
the word 'suicide' in the headline, lead or
online search terms. (n=241)
31.9% 14.9% 14.9% 12.9%
37.6%
25.3%
Table 4 (cont.): Level of agreement with statements about reporting of suicide, with low (<50%) alignment with
Mindframe recommendations.

20. Strongly
Disagree
or
Disagree*
Somewhat
Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree or
agree*
Reporting on individual deaths by suicide
will help to reduce suicide. (n=235)
26.3% 19.7% 34.9% 12.3% 7.7%
Reporting on the broader issue of suicide
will help to reduce suicide. (n=235)
2.1% 1.3% 6.0% 25.1% 65.6%
Having a regular ‘suicide toll’ in the media
would help reduce suicide. (n=233)
46.8% 9.4% 21.5% 12.9% 9.4%
Media should report about suicide more
often than they currently do. (n=240)
16.7% 4.2% 14.6% 27.5% 37.1%
* Strongly disagree/disagree and strongly agree/agree options have been combined in this report
2. Reporting of suicide
Table 5: Level of agreement with general statements about reporting of suicide.

21. Of the participants (n=229) who responded to this question, more than half indicated
that they reported on suicide about once a year, with 14% indicating that they reported
on suicide about once a month or once a week. Some (17.5%) had never reported on
suicide.
When asked how often they heard about suicide as part of their job, people were most
likely to indicate this happened between weekly and yearly, with the most common
response being monthly (46.7%).
daily weekly monthly yearly never other
During your career, how often have you had to cover a story involving suicide?
0 2.6% 14.4% 50.2% 17.5% 15.3%
During your career, how often would you hear about a suicide attempt or suicide death as part of your job?
4.8% 17.9% 46.7% 24.0% 1.3% 5.2%
Table 6: Professional exposure to suicide and impact experienced.
2. Reporting of suicide

22. 62.4%
21.7%
3.5%
0.4%
5.3%
6.6%
All of the time
Most of the time
Some of the time
Never
I am unaware of any
guidelines
Other (please specify)
2. Reporting of suicide
Applying guidelines:
When asked to think about
their own professional
reporting on suicide, more
than 80% of the respondents
indicated that they always or
mostly use guidelines, only a
small percentage were either
not aware of guidelines (5%),
or rather or never used
them - the latter in only 0.4%
of the respondents.
Figure 6. Application of guidelines for reporting suicide in their practice (%)

23. 3. Stigma of Suicide
Respondents (n=224) were asked to complete the 16-item Stigma Of Suicide
Scale (SOSS), that measures three underlying constructs: Stigma (8 items);
Depression/Isolation (4 Items); Glorification/Normalisation (4 items).
Participants were asked to rate how much they agreed with a series of
descriptions of people who take their own lives (suicide) on a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’ and a mean score
(between 1 and 5) was calculated for each construct as indicated in Table 7.
• For the Stigma construct higher scores indicate higher levels of stigma.
• On the Depression/Isolation scale, higher scores indicate respondents are
more likely to attribute suicide to depression/isolation.
• On the Glorification/Normalisation scale, higher scores indicate that
respondents are more likely to glorify or normalise suicide.

24. Stigma
Isolation/
Depression
Glorification/
Normalisation
Media professionals (this research - unpublished) 1.61 3.54 1.91
Public relations and communication professionals
(complementary research - unpublished)
1.58 3.67 1.98
Australian community* (published research) 2.19 4.11 2.45
Medical students* (published research) 2.06 3.50 1.85
Table 7: Stigma of Suicide construct scores (mean) and comparative research.
In general, media professionals had low scores on the stigma and glorification
constructs and higher scores on the depression construct. Based on responses from
other published research, media professionals appear to have lower levels of stigma,
however caution should be exercised when comparing different research samples.
3. Stigma of Suicide

25. 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
YES
NO
4. Exposure to suicide (personal)
Over three-quarters of participants who answered the question (n=173)
reported having known someone who died by suicide, with almost 44% (n=75)
of these people reporting that they were ‘close’ to at least one person who
died by suicide (with a mean of 2.3 people).
Figure 8. Have you been close to someone who died by suicide (%)?Figure 7. Do you know anyone who died by suicide (%)?
Mean = 2.1
(Range: 1-7)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
YES
NO

26. 4. Exposure to suicide (personal)
When asked to think about the death
that had the most impact on their
life, most respondents reported that
the person was a friend (53%) or
family member (37%).
When asked how long ago the death
occurred, participants were equally
likely to report it occurred between
1-5 years ago (34%) or over 10 years
ago (36%).
Family breakdown (n=28):
Extended family (68%);
Sibling (14%); Partner (7%);
Parent (4%); Child (7%).
Figure 9. Relationship to the person (%)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
53%
37%
9%
Other
Family
Friend
Figure 10. Length of time since death (%)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
< 1 year 1-5 years 5-10 years > 10 years

27. Table 8: Impact of exposure to suicide (personal)
More than half of participants reported that the death had a significant effect
on them, with over 20% stating that they still feel those effects.
Friend (n=39) Family (n=29) Other (n=7) Total (n=75)
The death had little effect on my life. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
The death had somewhat of an effect on me but
did not disrupt my life.
15.4% 34.5% 14.3% 22.7%
The death disrupted my life for a short time. 30.8% 37.9% 0.0% 30.7%
The death disrupted my life in a significant or
devastating way, but I no longer feel that way.
25.6% 10.3% 14.3% 18.7%
The death had a significant or devastating effect
on me that I still feel.
28.2% 17.2% 71.4% 28.0%
4. Exposure to suicide (personal)

28. <1 year
(n=8)
1-5 years
(n=26)
5-10 years
(n=15)
>10 years
(n=27)
The death had little effect on my life. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
The death had somewhat of an effect on me but
did not disrupt my life.
37.5% 26.9% 6.7% 22.2%
The death disrupted my life for a short time. 12.5% 42.3% 40.0% 18.5%
The death disrupted my life in a significant or
devastating way, but I no longer feel that way.
50.0% 19.2% 20.0% 11.1%
The death had a significant or devastating effect
on me that I still feel.
0.0% 11.5% 33.3% 48.1%
Table 9: Impact of exposure to suicide (personal), by length of time.
4. Exposure to suicide (personal)
There was no significant relationship been the length of time since the death
and the reported impact that the suicide had on people.

29. 4. Exposure to suicide (professional)
More than half (64.4%) of respondents had interviewed or interacted with someone
bereaved or affected by suicide as part of their work. When asked about the
personal impact of these interactions, more than half of the respondents reported
that it had somewhat of an effect, but did not disrupt their life (59.47%) while a
further quarter indicated that the interactions disrupted their life for a short while.
Table 10: Impact of exposure to suicide (professional).
(n=143)
The interactions had little effect on my life. 8.4%
The interactions had somewhat of an effect on me but did not disrupt my life. 59.4%
The interactions disrupted my life for a short while. 22.4%
The interactions disrupted my life in a significant or devastating way, but I no longer feel that way. 5.6%
The interactions had a significant or devastating effect on me that I still feel. 4.2%

30. 4. Exposure to suicide: workplace support
Table 11: Workplace awareness and support.
When asked to reflect on whether their workplace was aware of the impact that
reporting about suicide could have, and whether supports were available, 70%
indicated that their workplace was aware and there were supports available.
(n=220)
The workplace is not aware of the impact that communicating about suicide can have on staff
and there is no support provided. 6.4%
The workplace is not aware of the impact that communicating about suicide can have on staff
but there is support provided. 13.2%
The workplace is aware of the impact that communicating about suicide can have on staff but
there is no support provided. 10.5%
The workplace is aware of the impact that communicating about suicide can have on staff and
there is support provided. 70.0%

31. 0.5% 1.4%
5.9%
34.2%
58.1%
Yes, daily
Yes, about once a
week
Yes, once or twice a
month
Yes, once or twice a
year
No, I have never used
the Mindframe
website
5. Exposure to Mindframe
YES
NO
Figure 11. Use of the printed book for media (%)?
When asked if and how often the respondents were using Mindframe resources
in Australia, more than half of the respondents stated to never have used either
the book or the website.
0.5% 0.5% 2.3%
30.5%
66.4%
Daily
About once a week
Once or twice a month
Once or twice a year
I have never used it
Figure 12. Use of the Mindframe website (%)?

32. 5. Exposure to Mindframe
Most participants who have been exposed to Mindframe, indicated they were
exposed via their workplace, about a quarter had received Mindframe email
alerts.
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%
In my workplace
Mindframe email alerts
Mindframe briefing or training
On social media
Not exposed
Figure 12: How have you been exposed to Mindframe resources (%)? (all that apply)

33. 5. Comments provided about Mindframe
“They need to be promoted more in all workplaces”
“I'd like to get reminders of the resources available to keep their existence fresh in my
mind”
“Keep it up”
“Love to have more distributed”
“Information and training for people in Aboriginal communities would be beneficial”
“I would love to undergo a Mindframe briefing/training! It would be incredibly helpful”
“They're helpful and provide a reasonable set of guidelines for reporting suicide
sensitively and responsibly”
“Excellent”
“I will consult them via their website now that I've been made aware of them”
“I would like to receive the information”
“While you do fantastic work, I find your approach to educating the media as also
conservative. People are still overwhelmingly wary”
“While I have not sought out the Mindframe resources I think I am reasonably well aware
of key points. If I were in a dilemma about reporting suicide I would seek out Mindframe
resources”

34. Support services
Services are available to anyone needing immediate support.

35. Contact Us:
Email:
mindframe@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au
himh@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au
Twitter:
@HInstMH
@MindframeMedia
Websites:
www.himh.org.au
www.mindframe-media.info