As a few others have said, no one is denying that women sometimes also kill their children and then themselves (or attempt to,) although I haven't come across any cases where they've also killed their partner nor fit the profile before the killing of displaying controlling or abusive behaviours towards their partner.
The context of men who kill partners and/or their children and women who kill their children is different. That's not excusing or justifying either, but pointing out the need for different types of prevention/early intervention activities in order to reduce the risks. If we are saying that parents-who-kill-their-children-are-all-the-same, perhaps to avoid thinking about the gender dimension, we are badly, badly letting down those children who in future could be murdered.
With regard to reporting, there are plenty of examples where immediately after a major incident, tabloid papers especially, and especially on their online sites, take the "publish and be damned" route. They include rumour, assumptions, hearsay and either shift it to the bottom of the article later when more information comes to light, delete it if it's likely to lead to litigation and/or print a retraction on page 37 when forced to later down the line.
So, I find the suggestion that the press are being socially responsible and exercising restraint by giving skeletal information and not drawing any conclusions a bit hard to swallow. This seems only to be the case in cases like this one.
Newspapers are revenue driven, not motivated by ethics, no matter what editors and managers insist. They print what will sell papers/earn web hits because those translate into advertising income. We know from the Levenson enquiry that the media aren't averse to skirting the boundaries of the law, or even leaping over them, if they think they can get away with it.
A neat formula for getting the "biggest bang for the buck" with a major incident story goes something like this: 1.) Shock the reader 2.) Provoke strong emotion (e.g. fear, anger, compassion, etc.) 3.) Reassure them.
The shock factor usually comes from the headline, photos and first few lines of the story. It also gives the "tone" for how we are supposed to feel about the incident, the perpetrator and the victim(s). Can the perpetrator be depicted as a monster, or will it play better to show some sympathy? Can the victim be depicted as innocent, or will it play better to suggest "flaws" that make the crime seem less bad?
Often the decision whether a case becomes headline news, how many column inches it's given and for how long, or even if it's reported beyond a brief statement at all will depend on whether it can be spun in a way that will sell.
So, young children killed by strange man with history of drug abuse and offending sells. Prostitute killed by her pimp or a john doesn't (although sometimes you get the grieving parents of the woman in a feature about how she went off the rails, etc., slight hint of victim blaming woven into it.)
Step 3, the reassurance bit is really important. If readers are too upset or repulsed by a crime, they'll switch off. So, reporters try and ensure readers won't feel personally too threatened, or at least get a message of what they can/should do to protect themselves.
Victim was a prostitute? You'll be fine. You're not a prostitute. Perpetrator was an ex-offender/immigrant/drug user/known thug? Keep your distance from all such people, write to your MP, etc. Woman was killed in a dodgy part of town/down a dark lane/on a date with someone she met on the net/etc.? Don't do any of those things and you'll be fine.
But, when the perpetrator is the father and partner of the victim(s), there is a problem. If he can be portrayed in the ex-offender/immigrant/drug user/known thug mould, that's fine, you know the drill. But, if he seems "just an ordinary father," there's a risk that folks might get worried by the thought that "ordinary fathers" could do something horrific for no reason, making it hard to reassure readers everything will be okay for them. They often scratch around for explanations (e.g. lost his job/worried about money/end of relationship/fear of losing children, etc.) to make his motivation seem more reasonable.
However, highlighting "flaws" in the character of the mother (e.g. having or rumoured to be having an affair/left or leaving relationship/spoilt or spent too much money/too bossy/etc.) then that deflects attention from the perpetrator, suggesting some culpability on the part of the victim. That's easy if she's already dead. A bit more dicey if not, but papers bank on the fact that few people will sue for libel.
So the "reassurance" factor is if seemingly "ordinary dads" kill their children and/or partners, there will be some exceptional circumstances that "drove" them to it (but don't worry because you/the men in your life aren't like that,) and on some level, they felt provoked by their partners (but don't worry because you/the women in your life would never do that.)
It basically becomes a cautionary tale for the reader. Men who feel provoked can be excused for their behaviour. Women, be careful not to do anything whatsoever that could even remotely be considered provocative.
PS: I still haven't read anything about this case and I'm not going to - wondering how much more I can "predict" about the reporting of it.