By Rebecca Lawson

‍

When Jeff Baena, the 46-year-old film producer and husband of actress Aubrey Plaza, was discovered dead in Los Angeles, Miami, Florida, by suicide on January 3, the story was reported in newspapers internationally. 

However, the coverage produced by the Daily Mail and Mail online, over the days that followed, went to staggering lengths to cover every aspect of the tragedy tipping over into sensationalist and invasive content.

In just four days, the Mail published 17 articles, with dozens more posts and videos spread across its website and social media platforms, including Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter. 

This frenzied approach by the newspaper, which examined many personal details about the couple's life, raises serious ethical questions about responsible journalism around suicide.

The most concerning aspects of the Mail’s coverage included:

• Revealing the method of death: The newspaper explicitly reported how Baena died, a detail that is widely recognised as irresponsible. Such revelations can increase the risk of “copycat” behaviour, where vulnerable individuals may attempt to replicate the method.
• Publicising private details: The Mail shared intimate details about the couple’s life, including their home address, putting Plaza, Daena’s widow at risk of intrusion and attacks from fans.
• Speculating about mental health: The Mail also speculated about Baena’s mental state, seeming to make unsubstantiated links to his stepmother’s mental health struggles. There was no factual basis for these claims, and they were presented without the family’s consent or corroborative evidence.

Despite the actress and the family's explicit request for privacy, which the Mail even quoted in some of their posts, the Mail continued its aggressive coverage. 

In one article headlined - Jeff Baena’s haunting quotes on mental health and how it influenced his work resurface after shock death – the newspaper drew on quotes from Baena taken five years earlier, talking about his experiences of his stepmother’s mental health treatment in relation to a specific film which touched on the subject.

This was not the only case of editorial repurposing information to fit the paper’s proposed narrative. 

Photographs taken six months ago and previously used in the paper, in the first case with the headline ‘Aubrey Plaza rocks a loose tee and shorts while hiking with husband Jeff Baena in rare LA sighting’ were rebranded as ‘last seen together on a hike in a rare public sighting before his suicide’

This case highlights a troubling trend of newspapers prioritising sensationalism over respect for privacy and responsible reporting, particularly when it comes to the death of high-profile individuals. It underscores the need for stronger press regulation regarding suicide reporting.

IPSO vs. IMPRESS: A Comparison of Suicide Reporting Guidelines

In the wake of such irresponsible reporting, we examined the press regulation bodies that govern the UK’s media. The two primary regulatory bodies for journalism in the UK—IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) and IMPRESS (Independent Monitor for the Press)—offer guidelines that address how suicide should be covered by publishers. 

Their approaches differ starkly in terms of clarity, enforceability, and the level of protection they provide for the public.

In contrast to IPSO, IMPRESS takes a more robust and protective stance when it comes to suicide reporting. IMPRESS’s guidelines are far more detailed and explicit, offering clearer safeguards for both the privacy of individuals affected by suicide and the tone of reporting. These guidelines are designed to ensure that the media minimises harm, avoids sensationalism, and handles sensitive issues responsibly. We have summarised and compared the two guidelines for you below.

Key Comparisons: IPSO vs. IMPRESS

1. Clarity of Guidelines

• IPSO: The IPSO guidelines are vague and rely on general principles like privacy and avoiding sensationalism. There are no explicit rules on the reporting of suicide methods or mental health issues, which leaves significant room for interpretation.
• IMPRESS: In contrast, IMPRESS offers much clearer, more specific guidance. It sets explicit rules on the handling of privacy, the reporting of mental health, and the prohibition of sensationalist coverage. IMPRESS’s guidelines are designed to minimise harm and encourage responsible journalism.

2. Protection of Vulnerable Individuals

• IPSO: While IPSO stresses privacy, its guidelines fall short in providing robust protection against harmful content. It does not adequately address the potential for contagion effects, where vulnerable individuals may be influenced by media portrayals of suicide.
• IMPRESS: IMPRESS offers stronger protections, emphasizing that vulnerable individuals should be shielded from the harmful effects of sensationalist reporting. IMPRESS also provides clearer restrictions on how suicide should be depicted, ensuring that the privacy of the deceased and their families is respected.

3. Opportunities to Raise Awareness

• IPSO: IPSO encourages the use of suicide reports to raise awareness of mental health issues, but this can sometimes lead to coverage that does not prioritise the family's wishes for privacy or the potential harm that might be caused.
• IMPRESS: While IMPRESS also supports raising awareness, it links this to ethical reporting practices. The tone remains more responsible, and there is an emphasis on including information about support services to provide assistance to those who may be affected by the content.

The Mail’s intrusive and sensationalist reporting of Jeff Baena’s suicide serves as a stark example of the consequences of inadequate press regulation. The Mail’s coverage, focusing on method, speculation about mental health, and private details, highlights the need for stricter guidelines on reporting suicide by a regulator prepared to enforce its recommendations.

When comparing the guidelines of IPSO and IMPRESS, IPSO’s approach is more permissive, offering limited clarity on how sensitive topics like suicide should be handled. While it encourages responsible reporting, its lack of specific rules and enforceability leaves room for harmful or exploitative coverage, as seen in the Baena case.

IMPRESS provides a far more comprehensive and protective framework. It offers clearer guidelines that help media outlets avoid sensationalism, protect vulnerable individuals, and ensure that the privacy of those affected by suicide is respected. For the media to truly safeguard public well-being, especially when covering suicide, it is essential that press regulation bodies adopt more robust guidelines like those of IMPRESS, ensuring that journalism serves the public interest without causing harm.

‍

If you or someone you love has been affected by any of the issues raised in this article, you can contact Samaritans for confidential support, available 24/7, by calling 116 123 or visiting www.samaritans.org

‍