We’re not talking about changing the facts or taking sides. Just some reflection, discussion, and a nuanced understanding, by listening to some well-known social scientists urging us to view interpersonal violence (IPV) against a broader framework.
The time is also right: October – Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Peer-reviewed social analysts are saying don’t see and report IPV in a limited way, as only a criminal act, but in the larger context as a public health issue.
Their argument is persuasive and logical:
“…how the problem is defined determines the solutions available. For example, when an issue is presented as isolated cases of deviant behavior, then the interpretation might be that little can be done. On the other hand, if the issue is presented as a pervasive social problem, then resources might be directed toward ameliorating the problem through education, prevention, greater protection, and granting and enforcing protective injunctions. By reinforcing the idea that IPV is a societal public health issue, policymakers can take a proactive stance rather than the more common reactive response to IPV.”
“Media influence the shaping of conceptions of reality by providing consistent social acceptance”
It’s a given that public perceptions are affected by the framing of news or the contextual information that accompanies it. The weightage to certain factors can tilt public acceptance of IPV as an individual problem, lead to victim blaming, trauma for the survivor and children, and other dire fallouts. Importantly, this public also comprises policymakers, law enforcement, and service providers, who are as liable to be influenced.
A potent example of an altered social environment where individuals, society, and policymakers have been driven to make decisions is drunk driving. Awareness, research, media and communications, and dialogue has changed how we view this problem: it has raised the issue to a social health level, and led to formal and informal sanctions.
‘Framing’ of an IPV incident: episodic vs thematic
IPV is complex and layered. There’s a need to comprehend the total social construct and avoid causing human damage inadvertently.
An episodic report can put the responsibility of the problem on the individual as well as isolate the incident from the factors that have led to it, and skew understanding and judgements. On the other hand, including contextual information such as the history of the violence, helpline and other support services, and related statistics can alter perceptions of the reader, who can perceive the ending of this social health problem as a shared responsibility.
Public trivialization of the incident can also take place if it is presented as if there is no severe injury and/or as a first-time offense, given the widely supported social construct of male dominance in family dynamics. Presenting it with a social health perspective can give it the gravitas that is needed and deserved. IPV reportage needs careful calibration, sometimes with the involvement of legal and social service agencies who are involved in the case.
It’s not easy, but over time, we can be sure, public perceptions can be made to change.
We can try.
Guidelines
Several studies have been made by social service agencies on media coverage of IPV, drawing up clear guidelines, including (but not limited to):
https://www.womensaidni.org/resources/responsible-reporting-matters/
https://media.ourwatch.org.au/reporting-violence-against-women/guidelines-for-reporting-violence-against-women/
https://www.welevelup.org/media-guidelines/
https://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/Mandatory_Reporting_of_DV_to_Law%20Enforcement_by_HCP.pdf
Read more:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032440/
