|
When domestic violence causes the death of one or both of the
people in a relationship, the local media spotlight usually picks
up the tragedy. But the reporting usually reveals little about
the painful history that preceded the violence.
Using all the newspaper reporting about domestic violence deaths
in Washington State in one year, two Dart Center researchers studied
what does get included in domestic violence reporting and wondered
about what is usually omitted. The first part of the research
by Cathy Ferrand Bullock, who teaches at Utah State University,
and Jason Cubert, a law student at Cardozo University in New York
City, was published last spring by the Journal of Interpersonal
Violence. You can read about these findings in the Special
Feature on our home page.
Their broad conclusions tell journalists and police agencies
that more is needed if the public is to gain a realistic view
of domestic violence. The coverage seldom labeled the killings
as domestic violence, seldom placed the killing in the context
of a history of psychological or physical abuse, and too often
found excuses for the death that clouded the history of interpersonal
violence.
Here at the Dart Center, we especially noted two other findings
in their analysis. The first was that there was scant reference
in any of the reporting to psychological or emotional abuse as
part of the case history. Domestic violence often includes physical
injury, of course, and often long before a fatal injury. But the
relentless control of the victim by the perpetrator may also wound
the brain and the emotional system, but leave no evidence of a
physical injury. The traumatic injuries may be delivered over
time, draining the will to resist and denying the victim the resilience
of recovery. When that part of the DV experience is more widely
recognized, we will try less often to explain such deaths as “unexplainable.”
The other finding was that most of the coverage read by the two
scholars offered little or no expert information about the reality
of domestic violence. Officials, such as police, coroners and
prosecutors, and emergency personnel, including firefighters and
medical technicians, were often quoted. But people who know about
DV from working with victims as therapists, or in other support
roles, were not there. Also missing from the accounts were people
who had experienced domestic violence as direct victims or as
members of the families of victims.
This research warns us of the dangers of half-formed accounts
of a poorly understood yet widespread form of interpersonal violence.
As we study the on-going coverage of the Tacoma deaths, we note
commendable efforts by Seattle and Tacoma media to offer context
and accurate information about domestic violence.
Bullock and Cubert went beyond their study of newspaper content
to talk to the journalists who produced that coverage. Those findings
are provocative also, and will be reported by the Dart Center
in the near future.
ALSO READ: Tacoma
Shootings Intensify Debate
|

by Roger Simpson
Roger Simpson is Executive Director of the Dart
Center and co-author of Covering Violence:
An Ethical Guide to Reporting about Victims and Violence,
published in 2000 by Columbia University Press.

|