Guardian report on Geraldine Newman murder

The readers' editor would be a bit hit than Kath. He's more likely to take the time to look into the complaint and can also give recommendations back to Kath on policy/style guide issues.

I agree regarding the Mail's report being much better. It's a sad moment for independent journalism.

Yes, painful as it is to admit it, the mail's coverage was better.

That's a good idea.

I think it IS shocking that the Mail managed to research that the poor woman had been living in fear of him, was petrified of him doing it again, however, the police had removed assistance etc, etc. while the Guardian didn't mention any of that, yet instead chose to devote five paragraphs (out of a short article) to an acquaintance who is virtually protesting the murderers innocence.

OR Email or tweet the Guardian's new editor-in-chief - a woman, Katharine Viner, @kathviner

Anyone thought to send a link to this thread to the reader's editor?

^The readers’ editors are independent internal ombudsmen and can be contacted as follows:

Chris Elliott - Guardian readers’ editor
[email protected]
Guardian readers’ editor page^

Focussing on the perpetrator instead of the victim is something most newspapers in uk are changing.
Focussing on the perpetrator-as-victim is shoddy and I think the guardian got the balance wrong here.

The media always focus more on the perpetrator than the victim.

Think of well known murderers-they are household names. How many of us can name their victims?

Maybe a mn campaign is needed?

Well I've lost faith with the Guardian after their appalling coverage of the New Years Eve assaults in Cologne which pretty much followed the same method of reporting: minimise the assault on the victim and concentrate instead on the hardship of the perpetrators.

Good idea kestrel, then a link to WA and/or a police DV unit number.

This is an interesting discussion. Perhaps what we should be looking for in articles like this is a paragraph at the end along the lines of:

"Research has shown that the strongest predictor of family annihilation (the term for the killing of spouse and children) is that the perpetrator has previously engaged in domestic violence."

It's a good point Loraline, but I think they should have been more careful to avoid doing what IShouldBeSoLurky refers to. All they had to do was give the WA number as well and not focus so much on the supposed good character of the man, or portray it as some kind of natural disaster which just happened to the family, given that he brutally murdered his wife and children and had been abusive before that.

Again I'm going to say that I think the Samaritans number is only on the article because they have such strong guidelines for the media. Whenever articles refer to suicide and don't include this info the Samaritans usually get in touch afterwards and quite strongly remind them to do so. Other charities just don't do this or have this kind of weight.

That Daily Mail article is much better than Guardian one (though it pains to say it).

It wouldn't be the first organisation you'd think of to signpost women in an abusive relationship to. It's more appropriate to highlight specific, practical support for domestic abuse, not focus on the suicide element or just put the Samaritans as a catch all.

They are for everyone in trouble.

Then why is it not guardian policy to put the Samaritans contact details after every murder/act of violence?

In fact, the only time I've heard people recommend the Samaritans is to people who are depressed or suicidal. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise imo.

In this context, the contact details were definitely not provided for the benefit of dv victims.

Ate you seriously suggesting that you'd recommend the Samaritans to a female domestic abuse victim? Because that's nonsense.

The organisations that might be recommended to someone currently experiencing dv include refuge, women's aid, the police etc... but not the samaritans!

There was a lot of discussion about the letter of the law in the thread. You are not supposed to be able to claim provocation because you're angry that your partner is leaving you for someone else, but in practice courts have got round this by saying it is a relevant factor when there is a secondary trigger, for instance if the husband says the wife "taunted him" in the course of the argument. Then it is apparently considered relevant. And of course the wife can't say whether that is true, because she is dead.

Can we clear one thing up here, re the posting of the Samaritans details. From their website;

Common reasons people contact us are:

• relationship and family problems
• loss, including loss of a friend or a family member through bereavement
• financial worries
• job-related stress
• college or study-related stress
• loneliness and isolation
• depression
• painful and/or disabling physical illness
• heavy use of or dependency on alcohol or other drugs
• thoughts of suicide

Read that first point, and then look how far down the list you have to go for suicides. It is right at the bottom. They are for everyone and anyone in trouble, not just depressed, homicidal husbands. Are people deliberately mis-interpreting this? Why are the Samaritans being presented as a service only for male murderers here? Can we please not bend facts just to suit our agenda?

17 weeks for an attack in which he left her for dead?