Media reporting on children and youth justice: AYJ advises review on press standards
Last month, in collaboration with press regulator, IMPRESS, we held a consultation with our AYJ members on what best practice for media should look like and how this the IMPRESS Standards Code and guidance could be improved. It was an opportunity to share experiences of children’s interactions with and portrayals in the media.
The purpose of the code review is to draft a revised set of rules that continue to be relevant and fit for purpose in the changing world we live in. The AYJ were keen to ensure that, in the context of youth justice, the code works to avoid damaging and unjust press coverage of children.
Through this consultation grew a crucial discussion on the role of media in reporting on, and interacting with, children in contact with the youth justice system. Some key points raised by our members in response to IMPRESS’s questions are as follows…
Certain sections of the media are worse than others in terms of their portrayal of children. Partisan editorial agendas exist that regard young people as some existential threat to white middle class society; what flows from that is a description of children as violent, wild, feral, and yet at the same time they must also be accountable and suffer consequences. This leads to sensationalism and the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes.
There is a trend of “Adultification” where children are spoken and written about as adults. In the case where a crime is particularly cruel or gruesome, children are discussed as though they were adults. This creates a public perception that these children should be perceived as adults and deserve more punitive response, such as harsher penalties and longer sentences with respect to criminal justice.
Instances have been noted of children who should have the legal right of anonymity being named by related Google or internet searches to a news report; the fact is that online the presence of enough information about an offence means the associated child’s name can appear in related searches. Therefore, even without directly naming a child, there is quite a lot of information that is permissible in news reporting that can lead to jigsaw identification.
The use of certain terms like ‘gang member’, ‘offender’ and ‘thug’ and framing of stories against the person’s ethnicity creates word association and therefore associated perceptions: for example, articles can refer to young black boys as gang members, while their white counterparts are talked about as individuals who have committed offences which, by proxy, creates associations with different behaviors and social and racist stereotypes.
The media should, therefore, never underestimate the impact that being named can have on a child – those named are more likely to experience threats because of what is being reported in the media, they can have serious mental health issues, and they or their families can at times be required to move to avoid intrusion.
This impact is amplified by the online media experience. Media coverage and reaction can follow children throughout their lives because of the internet’s ease of access. Comments sections under news stories also have significant impact, particularly with the unregulated nature and the abusive stigma often carried by the ‘people need to be punished’ crowd; without context those messages become a self-fulfilling prophecy for that young person.
Front line organisations face a constant battle around supporting young people who do media interviews, in terms of protecting the interests of the child and satisfying what the media want from them, particularly with regard to sensitive information. Young people end up having to retell their upsetting stories, which lead to them being traumatized and labelled and at time having their whole identify subsumed into one mistake they have made. The impact is not just on the child, but on their parents and siblings; identities can never be wholly protected, whereas wider families of children in high profiles cases should be reported on in a way that respects anonymity. Journalists need to be sensitive to these realities.
Front line organisations have plenty of negative experiences working with the media, the better experiences are those where young people and the organisations supporting them get to have some control about what is reported. Most will only work with those journalists they trust, who will not surprise them when the story goes to publication. As soon as a story is in the public domain it is incredibly hard to put it back in the box. The key features an organisation is looking for in a journalist is: do they recognise the importance of the story, do they understand the sensitivity, are they responsive?
When interviewing children, there needs to be opportunity for the child or responsible adult to withdraw consent at every stage. For example, where stories are sent in advance to check for accuracy, the subject should be able to withdraw consent based on story choice. This sort of copy approval is about journalists acknowledging their safeguarding responsibilities; it also takes the responsibility of safeguarding media experiences off organisations and onto the media, and centres young people and the organisations that represent them in developing their own narratives.
Sectoral guidance on children’s expectations of working with the media would create consistency and enable front line workers to debrief according to code of conduct with the children and young people involved. It is worth exploring whether a joint Code with children’s advocacy and youth justice sector on media engagement and interactions would address this need.
Thank you to all our members who provided insight for the IMPRESS code review, and to IMPRESS for allowing the opportunity for experiences and concerns around media and the youth justice system to be considered.