The study revealed the following: 1. OVAW coverage follows clear and rigid patterns: All 137 media reports covered only seven aspects: occurrence of the Online Violence against Women (OVAW) incident; public reaction to the incident; OVAW survivors’ responses; pursuit of justice; consequences of the OVAW incident; attribution of blame for the incident; and other issues (e. g., responses to OVAW incidents by survivors’ families and mentions of OVAW incidents in broader human rights articles). These findings show that traditional media coverage of OVAW is typically quite predictable in its course, unchanging, and basic. The media is typically feeding their audiences the same type of information regardless of the survivors and type of OVAW. On the other hand, what all reports are usually missing is a discussion of why and how OVAW is committed, what laws prohibit OVAW, and what measures exist to combat this kind of violence.
2. The threshold is high for OVAW to be covered: Editors have created a more stringent criteria for covering OVAW, compared to other topics such as crime, sports or politics. Apart from audience preference, other factors that determined whether OVAW incidents received traditional media spotlight included, among others,– magnitude and gravity of the incident;– opinions of (male-dominated) newsroom teams on the value of OVAW stories; – compliance with editorial policies, most of which censure incidents involving nudity;– and whether the incident attained an offline dimension (e. g., if it was reported to police). All in all, OVAW stories need to tick many more boxes to be included in traditional media coverage than politics and crime stories, for example, and are therefore less likely to be published, despite their frequency.
3. Single-sourcing is common: The analysis covered– the diversity of sources used in media reports (that is, the number of sources per media report);– relevance of sources;– gender diversity in sources; – the involvement of OVAW survivors, and– the involvement of OVAW perpetrators in media investigation and coverage. Across the region, 62 percent of media reports on OVAW only cited a single source. Single-sourcing was most often found in radio reporting of OVAW at 90 percent, followed by news websites at 68 percent, with television and newspapers coming in at 50 percent each. Across the region, most sources quoted in OVAW reports (95 percent) were relevant to the topic covered. However, even though sources were mostly relevant, the widespread practice of using a single source ultimately limited the scope of relevant information published or broadcast on OVAW. At a regional level, there was a fair balance of male and female sources. Reasons for the exclusion of OVAW
survivors and alleged perpetrators as sources by the media included the refusal to take interviews, cases being on trial, and the convenient option to replace personal interviews with the use of social media posts. A few survivors and alleged perpetrators dominated media coverage. Where survivors dominated coverage, they achieved significant public awareness, diffused incidents, and demanded accountability from alleged perpetrators.
4. OVAW is trivialized: Several factors indicated that OVAW incidents are seen as trivial by the media, including the low-priority placement of stories on media platforms, inadequate verification of evidence, and miscommunication of the gravity of OVAW. For instance, 82 percent of OVAW stories were not front-page stories in newspapers. In all four countries, 48 percent of web articles on OVAW were placed in the lifestyle and entertainment sections. However, OVAW is not a subject of entertainment regardless of whether the women affected work in the entertainment industry. Most radio content on OVAW (81 percent) was classified as gossip or entertainment indicating OVAW as a non-newsworthy item. Most traditional media houses also relegated OVAW reports to their digital platforms. Media reports also framed OVAW incidents as “love scandals,” diminishing their gravity. Some media practitioners said OVAW was not a serious topic for news coverage." (Key findings, pages 7-8)