Tracey Nearmy/GettySince South Australia’s toxic algal bloom started to kill millions of marine organisms in March 2025, the media has been filled with images of dead and suffering coasts, plants and animals. There have been countless reports of people experiencing health effects and pets suffering symptoms, from wheezing to gastrointestinal problems.The bloom has been described by First Nations communities as “a profound cultural wound”. And it has continued for more than a year, ebbing and flowing in severity. Even if people in SA avoid the beach, it is impossible to avoid the violence of the bloom. Distressing images are everywhere on social media and news feeds, with stories emphasising death, damage and human powerlessness. While there’s no easy fix for the bloom itself, addressing this unnecessary suffering is possible.How media covers death and destruction in natureThis year, the ABC broadcast two investigations with upsetting content. One was about women’s health and the other an ecological disaster. Both episodes featured multiple scientific experts and tackled distressing material. One gave good warnings about upsetting content. The other did not. Comparing them illuminates an opportunity for positive change.The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Four Corners program aired Scarred, about medicine and women’s safety, in February. It released Toxic Tide, on the algal bloom, in March. These investigations reflected an inconsistent approach to audience safety.The reporting in Scarred aligned closely with established ABC editorial policies and Australian Press Council guidelines. The episode opened with an explicit content warning, empowered victims and closed with support information, directing viewers to services.The visual content throughout Scarred was reasonably neutral, focused on people, buildings, blurred scans, and mundane scenes such as a surgeon washing their hands.This approach reflects a broader awareness: repeat exposure to traumatic events — visual or spoken — can trigger further harm.Trauma awareness takes decades to build and formalise into practice. In the case of women’s safety, conversations in the early 2000s led to research and, eventually, an Australian Press Council Guideline in 2023. The reporting in Toxic Tide was starkly different. Despite distressing content that included videos of dead and suffering animals and coastal ecosystems, there were no warnings. There was no support information at the conclusion of the report, and the episode ended pessimistically. This approach isn’t unique to adult audiences. The Behind the News episode about the algal bloom, for audiences aged 8–13 years, followed a similar pattern. It presented ecosystem death and suffering without warning or support. It did conclude, at least, with hope. A screenshot taken of the Four Corners episode of Scarred, which included content warnings for viewers. Four Corners/ABC TV How could media do it better?Australian media professionals today have access to policies such as the Australian Press Council’s advisory on reporting family and domestic violence and the Mindframe national guidelines on safe reporting about mental health concerns. These documents emphasise minimising harm, using language and imagery carefully, avoiding sensationalism, educating the audience and providing pathways to support. Yet the same materials are not available for reporting on distressing environmental news.Disasters that affect our ecosystems can generate anxiety, grief and a sense of helplessness, which media reporting can amplify. These effects accumulate when the event lasts months or years. This is even the case for people who have no direct contact with the original event.Some level of public concern can promote action, something we have also found in our own work on algal blooms. But too much anxiety over a long period can be harmful, driving a range of psychological, behavioural, economic and physiological effects, including systemic stress and chronic inflammation. How to strengthen environmental journalismSA’s experience with the algal bloom suggests it’s time to extend the logic of existing media guidelines into the environmental domain. A dedicated framework for reporting on environmental disasters would not censor or dilute journalism. It would strengthen it. Such guidelines could encourage upfront warnings about distressing content. They might include contextual framing that avoids fatalism. They should include support resources — not only crisis lines but educational resources, community services attuned to environmental anxiety, and opportunities for action. Crucially, guidelines could prompt journalists to consider narrative balance: pairing exposure to harm with pathways for agency in response to environmental bad news. Without this, coverage risks tipping from information into overwhelm.Whether the subject is violence against women, mental health, toxicity on our coasts, or perhaps now bird flu, we must ensure the duty of care to audiences keeps pace with the realities being reported.Amy McLennan works for the Australian National University, is a John Monash Scholar and a member of The Algal Bloom Shed. The Shed received some start-up funding from the General Sir John Monash Foundation.Andrew Meares works for the Australian National University and is a member of The Algal Bloom Shed. He worked as a photojournalist and photo editor at The Sydney Morning Herald from 1991 to 2017.Jacqueline Stephens works for Flinders University and is a member of The Algal Bloom Shed. She is a member of the National Executive Council of the Australian Science Communicators.