Crossing the line

Professor Watson brought up last week a concern that's worrying journalists, the government and the society in Spain: the line between publishing the news and advertising what happened.
How do we know if we are crossing that line and start advertising a problem instead of just saying that something happened?
In 2006, 7o women were murdered by their husbands or ex-husbands in Spain.
Most of these women had been beaten up by their husbands for years. And most of them were too scared to go to the police. Too scared that the day their husband knew about it, he would kill them. Like most of them did.
Recent studies have proved that after an assassination is reported (almost everyday on the news you can see and read information related to these cases,) the next murderer usually repeats the way it was done, so you can see that 3 women in just one month had been set up in fire by their husbands. And then three more men used a knife. And so on.
The media are giving so many details about these cases because it's becoming the only way to denounce that this is a problem we must solve in Spain.
But the government thinks that all those details are not helping.
In an informal meeting with the media, the vice-president asked editors and directors to avoid some of the details about these murders. One of the suggestions was to stop talking about "woman killed by her husband" and just say that a woman had been killed.
Maybe giving all that information about how she was killed and why is only making the problem worse. People have the feeling that the media coverage of this issue is only giving more ideas to the next murderer.
But the media want to give those details as a way of denouncing a problem, so the society is conscious about it.
How do we know when we are crossing the line?

--Cristina