Sensationalism versus Sensitivity: Femicide Representation in Media

In March 2020, the world was taken by surprise with the arrival of the Covid-19 virus. Life was effectively moved online, with most people forced to remain at home for months at a time. However, as the world focused on rising Covid casualties, a different kind of death increased in tandem: femicide. According to UN WOMEN, femicide is “an intentional killing with a gender related motivation.” It separates itself from homicide, which is not gender-related, and is widely considered “the most brutal and extreme manifestation of violence against women and girls.” Called the “Shadow Pandemic”, violence between intimate partners increased in many parts of the world during the Covid Pandemic.

“Every 10 minutes, a woman is killed by an intimate partner or a family member.” Even more concerning, that number is likely a stark underestimate. Officially in 2023, 85,000 femicides were committed. Africa recorded 21,700 femicides, or 2.9 for every 100 thousand people, the highest in the world, while the Americas reported 1.6 out of 100 thousand people. Femicide is increasing all around the world, becoming a dominant global issue. This change becomes apparent when looking at the media representation of femicide and domestic violence in general.

The media perpetuates femicide, choosing to display the issue in one of two perspectives: sensationalist or sensitive. Think of the average true crime TV show—Forensic Files, The FBI Files, or Up and Vanished. In most cases, the stories cover middle class white women. Why? Called the “missing white girl syndrome” or “missing pretty girl syndrome”, the phenomena involves “round the clock coverage of disappeared young females who qualify as ‘damsels in distress’.” Simply enough, people are more invested in stories involving vulnerable women. Often, femicide coverage lacks intersectionality and is glorified or sensationalized for consumption’s sake.

On the other hand, sensitive reporting of femicide uses sensitive choice of language, being careful to not be excessively gory or sexually explicit in detail. A study conducted by ANROWS in 2016 found that “17.2 % of newspaper and online headlines were deemed sensationalistic, while 13.3 % of incident based news items used language in the report that was sensationalistic”. Why does our use of language matter in framing socio-political responses?

The media plays an incredibly important role in the social perception and documentation of femicide and its victims. When representation lacks intersectionality or sensationalizes the crime, it undermines its brutality and need for change. According to Janet Coats, “Language is not merely a tool for communication but a reflection of positioning and perspective, bias and blame.” Media does not simply describe—it shapes social values and norms, often blaming victims of (usually) lower social status. This type of symbolic violence undermines the violence of the crime, sensationalizing the victim. When reporting mirrors socio-economic and political perceptions, it contributes to the normalization of femicide.

Additionally, media portrayals often encourage victim blaming. For example, oftentimes, sexual assault survivors are asked about what they wore or if they fought back when the crime was committed. Interestingly, research suggests that victim blaming is a direct result of people wishing to view the world through rose colored glasses, called a “just-world bias”. Those who victim blame operate under the notion that good is rewarded, and evil never wins. “The derogation of the victim comes as a defensive reaction against [one’s] personal worldview unraveling,” says Laura Niemi, a postdoctoral student in psychology at Duke University. When the media embellishes and exaggerates the drama of a crime for the sake of “wow-factor”, viewers turn to victim blaming to cope.

This behavior makes sensitivity even more vital when documenting crimes against women. Sensitive reporting humanizes victims rather than reducing them to statistics or lurid stories. Take the case of Vanessa Robinson, for example. In 2010, her two sons were found dead in their home while Robison was seriously injured. The Australian media sensationalized her to such an extent, incorrectly claiming she had murdered her children and attempted to commit suicide after, which left lasting scars on Robinson and her family. This media reaction is an instance of what some psychologists call “the second wound” in action – “the further, collateral damage that hasty, thoughtless and inaccurate journalism can do to trauma survivors or people who have lost loved ones to violence and tragedy.” When reporting on crime, there is a set of ethical guidelines which journalists should follow: be respectful, take no for an answer, get the facts right, get “informed consent”, and careful use of language.

Additionally, the media needs to discard the “missing white girl syndrome” in favor of intersectionality, shifting the lens from individual crimes to broader societal causes like gender inequality and systemic violence. The femicides in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, which gained international attention in the 1990s for the mass systematic killing of women, exemplify the need for intersectionality. These murders were characterized by extreme violence, sexual assault, and impunity, with many victims being young women working in maquiladoras (factories). The failures of law enforcement, government indifference, and widespread misogyny allowed the violence to persist.

Activists and feminist groups played a crucial role in reframing the narrative around these crimes. Initially, authorities dismissed the murders as isolated incidents or blamed the victims. However, activists highlighted systemic issues such as gender-based violence, state negligence, and economic exploitation. They introduced the term feminicidio (femicide) into public discourse, emphasizing that these were not just homicides but gender-motivated killings rooted in structural inequality. Amnesty International released a list of recommendations for the Mexican government to limit the killings, suggesting that they take into account the gender perspective in policy creation and implementation. Additionally, they proposed that regardless of social standing or any other characteristic, the women and their families should receive justice.

Through protests, art, journalism, and international advocacy, activists pressured the Mexican government and global organizations to recognize the crisis. Symbols like the pink crosses painted in public spaces became powerful reminders of the victims and of femicide as a whole. Their efforts led to increased awareness, legal reforms, and international pressure, though femicides remain a pressing issue in Mexico today.

It must be noted that there are serious disparities in coverage, especially for women of color or from marginalized communities. A striking example of these disparities is the extensive media attention given to Gabby Petito, a young white woman whose disappearance in 2021 sparked international concern, compared to the relative neglect of missing and murdered Indigenous women (MMIW) in North America. In Latin America, a similar pattern emerges in the coverage of femicide. The #NiUnaMenos movement, which originated in Argentina, has been instrumental in shedding light on the epidemic of gender-based violence, particularly against poor and Indigenous women. Feminist organizations and independent media have worked to counteract mainstream narratives that either sensationalize violence or ignore it altogether.

Comparing cases such as MMIW and the Ciudad Juárez femicides to high-profile cases like Petito’s shows a stark contrast: while one case dominated news cycles, the ongoing femicides in Juárez required years of grassroots activism to receive international attention. The disparity in coverage reflects racial, economic, and geopolitical biases that shape how victims are perceived and how justice is pursued. Ultimately, the media plays a large role in driving change.

However, the government has a role to play as well. Recently, a worrying trend has emerged. According to UNWomen, “Since 2020, fewer countries are reporting data on femicides, particularly those committed by intimate partners or family members, with only a small number of nations tracking femicides outside of the domestic sphere.” We cannot, must not, backslide on our treatment of femicide. It took decades of work for the femicides in Ciudad Juárez to gain attention. Allowing data collection to weaken now risks undoing hard-won progress, obscuring the true scale of gender-based violence and enabling impunity. Without accurate reporting, victims remain invisible, and governments face less pressure to implement policies that protect women. Moreover, underreporting disproportionately affects marginalized communities, where femicide rates are often highest and justice is least accessible. To combat underreporting, feminist activists, journalists, policymakers, and regular civilians must continue to demand transparency and sustained global attention to ensure that femicide remains recognized as a critical human rights issue.

The way the media represents femicide is more than just a matter of journalistic ethics—it is a determinant for society’s understanding and response to gender-based violence. Sensationalized reporting, whether through the glorification of crime, victim-blaming, or racial and economic biases, distorts public perception and normalizes the systemic violence that allows femicide to persist. In contrast, sensitive and intersectional reporting amplifies the broader social injustices at play and pushes for necessary policy changes.

As the cases of Vanessa Robinson, Ciudad Juárez, Gabby Petito, and the NiUnaMenos movement demonstrate, media coverage holds immense power in shaping public discourse and influencing political action. If journalists and media organizations commit to responsible reporting—one that is intersectional, fact-based, and free from sensationalism—then they can serve as allies in the fight against gender-based violence rather than passive enablers of its perpetuation.