Dear Media, don’t do the following while covering suicides

By Meera Damji

The news of three minor girls dying by suicide in Ghaziabad received incessant updates and constant speculation on TV channels and other media. If journalism is supposed to service the public, here’s what the media should not while covering suicides.

Content warning: This story contains content about suicide.

Over the past few days, news and social media platforms have been flooded with the coverage of a tragic incident involving three young girls who died by suicide in Ghaziabad on 4 February. While investigations are still on, preliminary media reports widely suggest mobile phone addiction.

The scale of attention to this incident, reflected in round-the-clock coverage and frantic social media activity, indicates public shock and grief. But it also signals a harsh truth–suicide may be an issue we avoid talking about, yet it has nearly touched all of us in some way or another.

This is precisely why such a situation demands utmost responsibility from the media; unfortunately, much of that responsibility is being missed.

“By putting out facts and providing our audiences with minute details of the incident, aren’t we giving them what they want, and maybe even helping investigations,” many ask.

But to what end?

Let me try and explain this by listing out what is problematic with the coverage of this particular story and why.

Highlighting the method of suicide

Media coverage of the Ghaziabad incident has repeatedly mentioned detailed descriptions of the method of suicide. Decades of research has shown that explicit reporting of the method of suicide, especially when sensationalised in headlines or captions, can lead to imitation/copycat suicides, particularly among vulnerable readers and viewers. These details do not inform the public; instead, they endanger the public.

Intrusive interviews with grieving families

News reporters and their mics have been shoved into the faces of family members, visibly in acute grief. Some have moved on from asking a grieving father “Aapko kaisa lag raha hai? (How are you feeling?)” to “Kya kuchh kehna chahenge aap iss ghatna ke baare mein? (Do you want to say something about this incident?)” Just a quick reminder: this father has lost three of his children, all at once, to suicide, and has the whole country publicly dissecting his life.

Research shows that people who have experienced a sudden loss by suicide are themselves at a heightened risk of suicide. In the immediate aftermath of trauma, no one is in a position to offer complete or reliable accounts. Yet what is said in these moments is amplified, dissected, and treated as a fact, shaping public discourse.

Treating suicide like a crime thriller

Much of TV media coverage adopts the tone of a criminal investigation, offering blow-by-blow reconstructions, conspiracy theories, “exclusive” details, and, not to miss, the jarring background score. Reporting on this incident is no different.
This approach leads the public to speculate rather than understand the larger issue at hand, but more importantly, it reinforces the stigma around suicide and seeking help, thus reducing the issue to a sensational incident. What message does this send to people who are struggling? That their pain will be dissected, judged, and monetised?

Publishing private suicide notes

Suicide notes are deeply personal expressions written under extreme distress. Many in mainstream media published suicide notes of the girls. Publishing them raises a fundamental ethical question: why does the public have a right to these words? Turning private anguish into public content invites judgment from people who lack context, compassion, or understanding. It serves no preventive purpose. However, if these details are already in the public domain, republishing them without situating the incident within its larger societal and structural context is not journalism but opportunism.

Ignoring the larger issue at hand

The media’s focus has remained narrowly fixed on the girls and their family, singling out personal struggles, relationships, and parenting as the cause of suicide. Despite this incident spotlighting some glaring systemic problems, such as unregulated digital spaces, addictive gaming platforms, social pressures, and other broader structural factors, these issues remain unexplored in most news articles.

The individualistic framing of the issue, “It’s their personal problem,” is misleading. People do not exist in a vacuum; they are a part of larger social structures, and when reporting ignores the ecosystem that shapes people’s behaviours, it misses the opportunity to educate readers, question policies and regulatory gaps, and contribute to solutions for this serious public health concern.

Disregarding audience safety

Personally, for me, the most troubling aspect has been the repeated disregard for audiences’ safety. Vulnerable people–including those dealing with suicidal thoughts, people with lived experience of suicide, friends and family members who have lost a loved one to suicide, and young children–all are consuming this content in real time. The media is doing nothing to suggest that, if they are distressed and in a similar situation, help is available. Adding a trigger warning or helpline numbers with a caption that says, “suicide is preventable,” while violating all safety norms in articles, is merely checking a box. It does little.

Not censorship

This is not censorship; it is an urgent call for human-centred reporting. At its best, journalism exists to serve the public, not merely to capture attention. Keeping the safety of audiences at the centre of the story means asking a simple but critical question before publishing: will this story minimise harm or compound it? The media’s goal should not be to wait for the next tragedy to report on but to help prevent the next one.

Many argue, “But the details are already out there, I’ll sound uninformed if I don’t mention them.”

Audiences go to the media for more than repetition. They trust the media to provide clarity, depth, and leadership. Simply echoing what others have published is a missed opportunity for the journalist and for suicide prevention.

Choosing to NOT repeat harmful details and instead letting audiences know that their safety is prioritised over clicks and views is not a weakness in reporting, but ethical and responsible conduct.

The media has the power to shape public discourse by setting the agenda, framing the narrative, and priming audiences to view the issue in ways that build understanding, empathy, and action rather than voyeurism and harm.

 

Support Resources:
If you are concerned that you or someone you know might be experiencing depression or suicidal thoughts, connect them to Tele MANAS Services, the National Tele Mental Health Programme of India: dial 14416 or 1800 891 4416 (https://telemanas.mohfw.gov.in/home)

A detailed state-wise list of helplines can also be found here: https://www.ipn.net.in/suicide-prevention-centers/

Media Guidelines:
https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/92773496-dc8b-4d42-aef3-3a5a517dfa63/content
https://cmhlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Resource-2-SPIRIT-Media-Guidelines-for-Reporting-Suicides.pdf