How a murdered woman became invisible in the coverage of her death

[garbon]

Media navel gazing. I think the original blog poster raised some fair points but feels a bit weird for the media to be foisting up a critique of the media.

The Guardian reported on Monday that five members of the same family, had been found dead at a house in Co Cavan, Ireland in what police were treating as a case of murder-suicide.

It transpired that a school vice-principal, Alan Hawe, has stabbed his wife, Clodagh, to death along with his three sons - Liam, 13, Niall, 11, and six-year-old Ryan - before killing himself. Clodagh was also a teacher.

Hawe was reported to have left a letter explaining his reasons. But Irish media outlets continued to ask why he had done it, and the nature of the coverage prompted Dublin-based writer, Linnea Dunne, to ask questions of her own in a blog article headlined "Rest in peace, invisible woman."

Given that it challenges male-based journalistic assumptions, it deserves a wider audience among media professionals...


Sign up to the new-look Media Briefing: bigger, better, brighter
Read more
Five people die in Cavan, and in the days to come, Irish newspapers are full of questions. "Why did he do it?" asks one national daily, picturing a man and his three sons. "How could he kill those poor boys?" asks another.

It is almost immediately clear that the father, Mr Hawe, has stabbed the other four to death: the mother and the three sons. He has then killed himself.

And in searching for answers, we are told what an honourable man the murderer was: "a valuable member of the community", "very committed" and "the most normal person you could meet". Soon follow the calls for increased funding of mental health services.

Two days have passed since the tragic news broke, and today the Irish Times ran a front page reading, "Wonderful children who will be missed by all who knew them". "Killed in their pyjamas by father in frenzied attack," goes one Irish Independent headline alongside a photo of the boys. It is almost as if we've already forgotten: they were a family of five. Rest in peace, invisible mother.

The picture of the man who killed her, however, is becoming more multi-faceted by the day. Mr Hawe was "quiet and a real gentleman", says one representative of the local council.

His brother goes on to talk about his big passion, handball: he'd "won a number of titles", "played from about eight years of age" and used to play "with his brother and his cousin". A neighbour offers more praise: "He was the sole person who would do anything for anybody at any time of day or night. He was very obliging."

It makes sense to draw the conclusion that the man must have been carrying some very dark, difficult secrets, that he must have been mentally tortured somehow. Why else would such a lovely man kill his wife and children before taking his own life?

(There's a study in here somewhere, comparing the reporting of events like this with the discourse surrounding abortion and mental health, with women being labelled murderers for ending pregnancies, stopping the growth of sometimes near-invisible clumps of cells, regardless how mentally tortured or suicidal they are).

But while a note found at the house suggests that Mr Hawe had been in "a vulnerable state of mind" at the time of the murders – and while I wholeheartedly agree with calls to end the stigma around mental illness – there is a different and important narrative for framing these events.

We hear about tragic killings like these every now and then. Nine times out of ten (I don't have statistics, but my hunch is that the figure is far higher), the perpetrator is a man.

Lots of people, men and women and non-binary people, struggle with mental illness, but it takes more than mental torture to brutally murder your own children.

There is a patriarchal narrative that runs through this entire story, from the act itself to the reporting of it, and we need to allow ourselves to see it if we are to find a way to prevent similar events from happening again.

As Paul Gilligan of St Patrick's university hospital pointed out, killing a child requires a certain view of children, an idea that they must be controlled and managed and, in the case of murder suicides, that they cannot go on to live without the murderer.

This ideal of control is part of the same patriarchal worldview that refuses to label domestic violence for what it is; that insists on publishing praise for a man who has just brutally murdered his wife and three children; that almost entirely omits the one woman from the story.

That headline, "Killed in their pyjamas by father in frenzied attack", continued by saying "before mother-in-law found note". The narrative, of course, is from the viewpoint of the murderer: she was his mother-in-law. She was the children's grandmother, the murdered woman's mother.

The murdered woman, then, is most often referred to as the murderer's wife – relevant only as what she is in relation to the man who killed her. Her name is Clodagh.

A man murders four people in Cavan, and we are fed questions and statements of disbelief alongside praise of the murderer as a community man.

On the front pages, we see the man and the three children he murdered. Two days in, Clodagh has all but become invisible. And you ask why feminists are so loud and angry?

[celedhring]

I suspect the murdered woman wasn't hot. That's how it goes. Right now Spanish papers are full with coverage of a missing woman , when I am sure there's loads of missing person cases every week in Spain. Why focus on her? Well,  she's ridiculously good looking.

[Martinus]

I think the original blog poster raised some fair points but feels a bit weird for the media to be foisting up a critique of the media.

We had a "Marty thread", a "Tim thread", a "mongers thread" and others - now we seem to have a "garbon thread" where you post a complete bullshit of an article with some "damning with fainth praise" comment, and when people call it bullshit, you claim you were trolling.

I mean seriously...

Five people die in Cavan, and in the days to come, Irish newspapers are full of questions. "Why did he do it?" asks one national daily, picturing a man and his three sons. "How could he kill those poor boys?" asks another.

In our culture, especially the media culture, murdering children is considered worse than murdering adults. I disagree with it - but that's how it is and it has nothing to do with gender.

It is almost immediately clear that the father, Mr Hawe, has stabbed the other four to death: the mother and the three sons. He has then killed himself.

And in searching for answers, we are told what an honourable man the murderer was: "a valuable member of the community", "very committed" and "the most normal person you could meet". Soon follow the calls for increased funding of mental health services.

It is pretty common to ask for a motive of a crime, and the perp's character or past behaviour is often under consideration. What's so weird about it?

Two days have passed since the tragic news broke, and today the Irish Times ran a front page reading, "Wonderful children who will be missed by all who knew them". "Killed in their pyjamas by father in frenzied attack," goes one Irish Independent headline alongside a photo of the boys. It is almost as if we've already forgotten: they were a family of five. Rest in peace, invisible mother.

Again, see above. We care for our young. How mammalian of us!

The picture of the man who killed her, however, is becoming more multi-faceted by the day. Mr Hawe was "quiet and a real gentleman", says one representative of the local council.

His brother goes on to talk about his big passion, handball: he'd "won a number of titles", "played from about eight years of age" and used to play "with his brother and his cousin". A neighbour offers more praise: "He was the sole person who would do anything for anybody at any time of day or night. He was very obliging."

It makes sense to draw the conclusion that the man must have been carrying some very dark, difficult secrets, that he must have been mentally tortured somehow. Why else would such a lovely man kill his wife and children before taking his own life?

Well, yeah, it's a pretty damn good question. If someone kills his wife and children, it's probably not because they were cheerful or well adjusted. And it often comes to a shock if they were nice before. Damn this patriarchal media (?).

(There's a study in here somewhere, comparing the reporting of events like this with the discourse surrounding abortion and mental health, with women being labelled murderers for ending pregnancies, stopping the growth of sometimes near-invisible clumps of cells, regardless how mentally tortured or suicidal they are).

Err, what? Do women really get labelled this way in descriptions of abortions? And do newspapers actually report abortions-followed-by-suicides that often? This, incindentally, if true, would be the sole sensible point made by this article - so I love that it is in parnetheses and, in a vein of truly rigorous intellectual discipline, based on a "study that is there somewhere".

But while a note found at the house suggests that Mr Hawe had been in "a vulnerable state of mind" at the time of the murders – and while I wholeheartedly agree with calls to end the stigma around mental illness – there is a different and important narrative for framing these events.

We hear about tragic killings like these every now and then. Nine times out of ten (I don't have statistics, but my hunch is that the figure is far higher), the perpetrator is a man.

Lots of people, men and women and non-binary people, struggle with mental illness, but it takes more than mental torture to brutally murder your own children.

There is a patriarchal narrative that runs through this entire story, from the act itself to the reporting of it, and we need to allow ourselves to see it if we are to find a way to prevent similar events from happening again.

Wha? Surely someone who commits a murder-suicide is mentally ill. It's a tragedy. But what exactly is she asking here for? That this guy is called names or gets the official "Worst Dad Ever" badge? Because if there is any afterlife, he is probably getting some shit for that, and if there isn't, what good will it do? Or is her point that this glamourises family murder-suicides encouraging more people to follow suit?

As Paul Gilligan of St Patrick's university hospital pointed out, killing a child requires a certain view of children, an idea that they must be controlled and managed and, in the case of murder suicides, that they cannot go on to live without the murderer.

This ideal of control is part of the same patriarchal worldview that refuses to label domestic violence for what it is; that insists on publishing praise for a man who has just brutally murdered his wife and three children; that almost entirely omits the one woman from the story.

That headline, "Killed in their pyjamas by father in frenzied attack", continued by saying "before mother-in-law found note". The narrative, of course, is from the viewpoint of the murderer: she was his mother-in-law. She was the children's grandmother, the murdered woman's mother.

The murdered woman, then, is most often referred to as the murderer's wife – relevant only as what she is in relation to the man who killed her. Her name is Clodagh.

A man murders four people in Cavan, and we are fed questions and statements of disbelief alongside praise of the murderer as a community man.

On the front pages, we see the man and the three children he murdered. Two days in, Clodagh has all but become invisible.

Wha? 

And you ask why feminists are so loud and angry?

Because they are insane, ugly and no man wants to fuck them? I don't know - I mean it is probably not true, but still makes for a much better explanation than this bullshit fest of an article.

[garbon]

I think the original blog poster raised some fair points but feels a bit weird for the media to be foisting up a critique of the media.

We had a "Marty thread", a "Tim thread", a "mongers thread" and others - now we seem to have a "garbon thread" where you post a complete bullshit of an article with some "damning with fainth praise" comment, and when people call it bullshit, you claim you were trolling.

I mean seriously...

I think my opinion here is pretty clear - why I even stated it at the start of the post.

I'll leave alone whatever the rest of that mess was. Garbage not worth reading, I suspect.

[Gups]

The Guardian publishes a couple of feminist opinion pieces like this every day. It's part of their business plan to appeal to sectional interests in the UK, US and Australia and to double down on click bait to shore up their declining ad revenue. It's best to ignore them if you don't want to support that business model.

[Brazen]

I'd be interested if the blogger had compared and contrasted it with the coverage of the Sadie Hartley case, where two women conspired to murder the "love rival" of one of them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-37105035

Oddly, the Guardian once again seems to take the "patriarchal" standpoint in its coverage:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/18/katrina-walsh-sarah-williams-sadie-hartley-murder-ex-husband-kevin-interview

[The Larch]

I suspect the murdered woman wasn't hot. That's how it goes. Right now Spanish papers are full with coverage of a missing woman , when I am sure there's loads of missing person cases every week in Spain. Why focus on her? Well,  she's ridiculously good looking.

You mean the teenage girl that dissappeared in A Pobra do Caramiñal? Ironically enough right after that a dude disappeared in Baiona, and now his family is asking to please give his case the same coverage, as they fear that they're being eclipsed and not getting as many resources for their investigation.

[celedhring]

I suspect the murdered woman wasn't hot. That's how it goes. Right now Spanish papers are full with coverage of a missing woman , when I am sure there's loads of missing person cases every week in Spain. Why focus on her? Well,  she's ridiculously good looking.

You mean the teenage girl that dissappeared in A Pobra do Caramiñal? Ironically enough right after that a dude disappeared in Baiona, and now his family is asking to please give his case the same coverage, as they fear that they're being eclipsed and not getting as many resources for their investigation.

Yeah. I hope the girl turns out safe, but let's not kid ourselves about the reason the media have decided we as a country have to collectively hold our breath about Diana's fate...

[Martinus]

I think the original blog poster raised some fair points but feels a bit weird for the media to be foisting up a critique of the media.

We had a "Marty thread", a "Tim thread", a "mongers thread" and others - now we seem to have a "garbon thread" where you post a complete bullshit of an article with some "damning with fainth praise" comment, and when people call it bullshit, you claim you were trolling.

I mean seriously...

I think my opinion here is pretty clear - why I even stated it at the start of the post.

I'll leave alone whatever the rest of that mess was. Garbage not worth reading, I suspect.

You said the original blog raised some fair points but attacked the Guardian article over "navel gazing".

Again I am not sure what you are saying here, but it sounds like you agree with the Guardian article to the extent it makes the points the coverage of the murder-suicide - but dislike the fact that it is a media outlet attacking other media.

[garbon]

Gold star.

[Martinus]

Gold star.

So, yeah, you support the thesis of this article, even though it is complete and utter crap.

[garbon]

Gold star.

So, yeah, you support the thesis of this article, even though it is complete and utter crap.

Obviously, I disagree.

[Valmy]

I am sure the Irish press is always eager to be scolded by the English in how it does things.

[grumbler]

Gold star.

So, yeah, you support the thesis of this article, even though it is complete and utter crap.

One always suspects articles that use terms like "one national daily" and "another" rather than naming specific papers.  Then, making a major point revolve around a single picture (and not even what the picture had, but what it didn't have) kinda tells us that the point doesn't really have any support, but, I suppose, it sounds convincing to the gullible.

I don't know why anyone would think that this is "media navel gazing," though.  This is a blog reporting on another blog's writing, insofar as I can tell (there is no link), and blogs have always been self-referential.

[garbon]

The article was posted from the guardian. I forgot to copy the link. Suck a dick.