Italian media and the problematic discourse in reporting Feminicide

About

In this compelling article, Ilaria Nilges, current WAVE Youth Ambassador from Italy, examines the harmful narratives present in media reporting on feminicide. Drawing on recent cases and critical feminist perspectives, the piece highlights how journalistic language and imagery often reinforce patriarchal norms and shift blame onto victims. It calls for a fundamental shift in how the media addresses gender-based violence, moving from sensationalism to structural analysis, and urges greater collective awareness of the role language plays in shaping culture, behaviour, and justice.

Written by

Ilaria Nilges, 4^th generation WAVE Youth Ambassador (Italy)¹

In recent years, Italy has made some progress in shedding light on an issue that has remained silent for long: feminicide². The media, with their widespread influence and access to public opinion, have played a fundamental role in breaking this silence. A silence historically maintained by the belief that these cases were ‘private matters’.³ Today, the subject is more openly discussed, and this in itself is a step forward.⁴ However, the way this violence is discussed in the media is often characterised by distorted narratives that blame the victims and are rooted in patriarchal culture, leading to further harm.

Looking at the Italian context, cases of feminicide often make the front page and become the subject of public debate. We saw this with the recent cases of Sara Campanella and Ilaria Sula in March 2025, and more recently in the case of Martina Carbonaro, who was killed by her ex-partner in May. However, journalism, which should aim to educate and raise awareness, often fails to inform properly and instead relies on misleading language, images, and details that are highlighted.

As journalist Francesca Mannocchi said in her monologue on Propaganda Live: “Where does violence originate, grow and take root? In the education we receive and in the words we associate with phenomena, because words fuel our behaviour, and our behaviour builds culture and shapes societies. Language allows us to mask culture, to mystify it, like for the stories that narrate about women being murdered, but not about men who kill […]”.⁵

This quote highlights the importance of recognising the power of language and how harmful and misleading terminology can distort our understanding of gender-based violence. The narrative that often is used by the media when presenting a case of femicide includes phrases such as “because of too much love” or “a sudden outburst of rage”.⁶ This kind of discourse perpetuated by the news, reflects a cultural mindset in which men are dominant and women subordinate, and in a way justifies and minimises the feminicide.

For instance, in reporting on the murder of Sara Campanella, some media outlets framed the event through a lens that implicitly questioned the victim’s actions. They underlined that she had been a victim of stalking for two years, but never reported him. This use of “but she” suggests that if only she had acted differently, the tragedy might have been avoided, a narrative that shifts the responsibility from the perpetrator to the victim. Or, in the case of Martina Carbonaro, the public discourse on social media focused on the age difference between her, 14 years old, and the men who killed her, who was 19. The focus and people’s comments were often on the idea that they should never have been allowed to be together in the first place, rather than on the violent actions of the perpetrator. Meanwhile, the man is often described as a “normal” or “good” guy from whom no one would have expected such actions. These are phrases that imply shared blame, as if failing to report or, in the second case, age difference, could ever justify murder. This is classic victim blaming: it shifts the focus away from the perpetrator and places it instead on the woman who was killed.⁷

Media narratives also often tend to avoid the use of the word “feminicide,” opting instead for sensationalist terms such as “crime of passion,” “blinded by jealousy,” or “couldn’t accept the breakup”.⁸ This language minimises and depoliticises the social impact of the crime. In a sense, it erases the victim and ignores the years of abuse that in most cases led to the feminicide, while painting the motive as anger or a burst of madness that somehow explains or even justifies the perpetrator’s actions.⁹ Whereas using the correct terminology means recognising that these are not isolated incidents. They are the extreme outcome of structural, systemic violence rooted in a still very present patriarchal culture.

Even the choice of images in media reporting is not neutral.¹⁰ Articles are often accompanied by smiling, affectionate photos of the couple, again silencing the reality and suffering that led to the death of a woman. In doing so, the media, driven largely by the need to attract readers,¹¹ construct a romanticised, misleading narrative showing a “happy couple” which prevents society from confronting the real issue which is that a woman died because she was a woman and it happened because the men who killed her was raised in a society that teaches possession, dominance and toxic masculinity.

As Elena Cecchettin said about Filippo Turetta, who murdered her sister Giulia Cecchettin in November 2023: “Turetta is often called a monster, but he’s not a monster. […] ‘Monsters’ are not sick – they are healthy sons of patriarchy, of rape culture.”¹²

Therefore, today’s journalistic language not only often fails to hold murderers accountable, but actively reinforces sexist and patriarchal stereotypes, by shifting the blame away from the perpetrator and reducing the chance for meaningful change.¹³ As a consequence of this storytelling, the reader may feel pity, but not outrage. And without outrage, there can be no revolution and systematic change.¹⁴

What is needed is a shift in approach. The media should take responsibility for reporting feminicide for what it is: a social, structural and cultural issue. Journalists need to use accurate language that emphasises the systemic nature of gender-based violence, and stop treating each case as isolated or exceptional. It is essential that media outlets adopt a more responsible approach, specifically in the case of Italy, in line with the Manifesto di Venezia,¹⁵ a document issued in 2017 that outlines guidelines for ethical reporting on gender violence.

This is because every murdered woman is not just a case of “love gone wrong”, she represents a story that concerns us all. Feminicides are not rare emergencies, but they are the visible tip of an iceberg that needs to be dismantled.