A sensitive issue
| 12:55 UK time, Wednesday, 16 April 2008
Since Mark Speight's sad death on Sunday the has received over 3,000 e-mails, mostly from children saying how much they admired him and how much he'll be missed.
Clearly this shocking story was something that a vast majority of the Newsround audience were quickly aware of, and something that they cared about deeply. But how much of the detail should Newsround actually report - indeed should we be reporting it all?
That was the subject of a debate on Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show on Monday, sparked by e-mails from parents saying the story was too distressing for a young audience. Interestingly, (and despite what is written in ) Newsround only had a tiny handful of similar e-mails, and to be honest there was never any doubt that we would report Mark's death, but we've been aware from the start that the story raises difficult editorial questions.
Foremost amongst these has been the issue of suicide. After much discussion and after consulting with Editorial Policy we felt uneasy with the idea that some children's first encounter with the difficult concept of suicide would be occurring in relation to a C´óÏó´«Ã½ personality whom they looked up to and greatly admired.
Trying to explain to young children why anyone would take their own life also poses problems. Newsround's usual approach is to explain difficult subjects clearly, in no-nonsense language that kids understand. Yesterday however, it was easy to imagine us explaining that someone had killed themself because they were feeling incredibly sad, and for a child who is being bullied or coping with a divorce or death in their family to then think; "I'm feeling incredibly sad too - is this an option for me?"
It was for this reason that Newsround did something yesterday that goes right against the team's instincts, and deliberately didn't include all the key facts. Our reports did not explicitly state that Mark had killed himself, but instead were written in such a way that children who may have gleaned the facts elsewhere would be able to piece together what happened, whilst the younger end of the our audience, aged around six, would simply understand that Mark had died, that he'd been feeling sad, and that lots of people would be missing him. Did we do the right thing? Were we overly cautious? We're still talking about it, and the debate will no doubt continue.
The Newsround team work in the same ´óÏó´«Ã½ department that Mark worked in, colleagues were friends of his, and Mark and Newsround shared the same audience. Whilst as journalists yesterday we may have felt unusual, in terms of serving that audience we hope we got it right.
PS: From 1800 this evening (UK time), we'll be doing some essential maintenance to all of the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s blogs. As a result of this, you won't be able to leave any comments on our blog posts from that time until early morning on Thursday, 17 April. Our blogs editor explains a bit more about this here.
Comments
I'd like to commend Newsround on the responsible way in which they handled the issue of Mark's death. My children are too young to understand the concept of suicide and I appreciate Newsround's considered approach to this difficult subject.
My thoughts go out to Mark's friends and family. We loved watching Mark and he will be greatly missed.
You did the right thing. The death itself is shocking enough, and talk of suicide is both unnecessary and dangerous: any child whom you might consider capable of understanding the nature of the death can find out the full facts elsewhere, or by asking a parent.
One of the problems with suicide stories is that people relate themselves into the story, and so increase the chance that they would also take their lives. In this instance, the story of Mark Speight's death is particularly prone to this as he is a role model for many children - whom many people have been trying to emulate for many years.
Responsibility in journalism is not the same as censorship or deception.
I thought that Newsrounds coverage was sensitive and touching. Our 6 year old understood Mark had died, and that he was very sad, but it must have answered all his questions. Our 3 year old and 2 year old sons will also miss Mark from SMARTeenies on CBeebies. They really loved him.
Difficult, but we now live in a cotton wool age where, I believe, children are over protected. The censorship (and that's what this is) of this story is just another example of do-gooders 'protecting' children from what they (the do-gooders)believe is in the interest of the children.
In fact, children are much more robust than many a mamby-pamby, phsyco-babbling, cotton wool wrapping do-gooder thinks.
So, in future tell it as it is, it's life, it happened, report it, do you job properly.
It is certainly a sensitive issue but one that had to be reported nonetheless. Unfortunately death is something that happens and IMO it serves no purpose hiding that fact away from children.
I watched Newsround's reporting of the story and must say you did a good job. It was clearly something that had to be delicately handled and it was clear that a lot of thought went into it. IMO everyone involved with reporting the story got it right. You explained everything without going into uneccesary details that would cause distress whilst also making sure it was clear what had happened (apart from explicitly saying it was suicide). You did get it right.
Although this event is unfortunate it has shown why there is a need for a programme like Newsround and it is a credit to the ´óÏó´«Ã½ that such services do exist.
Mark was a talented artist and great tv presenter. R.I.P
I thought the C´óÏó´«Ã½ coverage of Mark Speight's death was well handled, I watched Newsround specifically to see how they would report it (I'm 22, so not the target audience!) and was suitably impressed. It explained what happened without being too melodramatic like some reports and not patronising either.
I have three six year olds who assiduously watch Newsround. All three came running in to ask my wife all sorts of questions about Mark's death following what they had seen on the programme. We then had a difficult, but necessary, conversation with them about suicide. I was surprised how well they understood what we were saying and how well they understood the multiple caveats we put around the event.
I think the team got it right for our family. This may not, though, have been right for all families.
I don't think though that ignoring his death was an option. Our kids had picked up on the story through other adult news outlets on the radio and TV.
Very well handled. I'd been wondering how the issue would be dealth with by Newsround, and couldn't think of a responsible way to report the issue without mentioning suicide (and possibly drugs, seeing as it is mentioned in most mainstream news reports on the issue). I think the way it has been reported was responsible - those children who are more 'switched on' to the issues can gather more information elsewhere (or from parents).
Sounds to me like you got it right - had my children been younger than the teens that they are, this is how I would have wanted it reported to them.
It must have been very difficult for you being friends and colleagues of Mark having to have these discussions and I for one am pleased that you were still able to put the children first
I'm pleased by the thought and sensitivity that appears to have gone into handling this.
If only the newspapers (especially those prone to getting their hysterical reporting wrong, such as the one you mentioned) were as thoughtful.
I also think the reporting of this tragic event was handled correctly by Newsround. With most issues I think honestly and full reporting is the best case with school age children, however issues surrounding suicide do, perhaps, fall into a special category; there is enough indicative evidence to suggest that reporting of suicide may cause increased risk of suicide in young people (even primary school age children) and many of Newsround's audience would not have adequate understanding of the many complex issues surrounding this story to have been safely informed of the full details of Mark's suicide, especially in the time available to Newsround. Broaching an issue such as this with a child for the first time, would need careful, tailored consideration and the immediate availability of 1:1 support for children that wished to ask questions or explore the issue more thoroughly.
Similarly to the comment above, I am 22 and tuned in to see to see how Mark Speight's death would be handled. I can only say this sad story was communicated with great sensitivity. Any upset caused to children was that of loss, which was unavoidable with the death of such a lovable character and Newsround's audience should not be sheltered from such emotions and the story could not have been done in a more appropriate and respectful way.
I wish to congratulate the Newsround team on how they dealt with the subject of Mark Speight's death. Of course they should have reported on it - how couldn't they? Mark was very much a huge part of Children's ´óÏó´«Ã½. He was a larger than life character who gave inspiration for me, my daughter and son (i'm 38, my daughter is 13 and my son is 5). Newsround sensitively confirmed that we would no longer be seeing Mark on Children's ´óÏó´«Ã½ - and I am glad they did. If the children didn't know about Mark's death - they would still maybe question their parents on when SMart and Mark would be on TV again. Thank you Newsround for handling such a sensitive and upsetting item with respect and in a non-patronising way for the children. Thank you again.