For anything to make sense when you read about two Queensland women, Linley Anyos and Chloe Jade Mason, being shot in separate incidents, you should be shocked by the tragedy of the violence.
Linley Anyos remains in a critical condition after being shot in the back while sitting in the passenger seat of a car; and Chloe Jade Mason was found unconscious and subsequently passed away from a gunshot wound, on the footpath of a suburban street in Caboolture.
However, the imperial media being what it is, we are instead struck not only by the tragedy of the violence they endured but by the disturbing way their stories are being told. Instead of focusing on the horrific acts of violence they suffered or the systemic failures that may have contributed to these tragedies, we are stuck with articles like this one published by the Daily Mail Australia. An article that refused to see these two women as victims of horrendous acts of violence. Instead, it centred their criminal histories, effectively blaming them for being harmed and killed and dehumanised their experiences.
The article ran with the headline: The disturbing bond linking two Queensland women allegedly shot in separate incidents within days. Both women had criminal histories—which the article emphasises—detailing their past offences and interactions with the criminal legal system.
Linley is in critical condition after being shot in Tallebudgera, while Chloe was fatally shot in Caboolture, with two men charged in connection to her death. The piece highlights their shared social circles and references comments from friends mourning their loss, however it overwhelmingly focuses on their criminal records, painting a picture of lives marked by hardship and crime rather than centring the violence they suffered.

The article exposing Linley and Chloe’s criminal histories is nothing original or new. Portraying criminalised women as disposable is a tired and unoriginal trope. The article has detailed Linley and Chloe’s criminal histories in order to suggest that their past actions somehow justify or diminish the severity of the violence inflicted upon them. This then perpetuates the harmful narrative that these two women were “asking for it” or “deserved it.”
The Daily Mail’s decision to lead with and emphasise the criminal records of these women sends an insidious message: these women were not innocent victims but flawed individuals whose suffering is easier to dismiss. This is not just unfair—it’s offensive.
The media’s role in the disposability of criminalised women
By focusing on the women’s criminal pasts, the article participates in a broader cultural phenomenon that devalues the lives of criminalised women and girls. It frames us as less worthy of sympathy, protection, and justice. In doing so, it tacitly justifies the actions of perpetrators, suggesting that choosing “imperfect” victims makes the crimes less egregious. This reporting isn’t just insensitive—it actively contributes to the disposability of criminalised women in the public eye.
Media narratives like this are complicit in the prison industrial complex, reinforcing the societal devaluation of criminalised people. They perpetuate the idea that women with criminal records are beyond “redemption”, unworthy of empathy, and even in death, not deserving of dignity. This framing ensures that resources and public outrage are less likely to be mobilised on our behalf. When our lives are deemed less valuable, crimes against us are deprioritised, and justice becomes an elusive concept.
A gendered lens of violence and blame
It’s impossible to ignore the gendered dynamics at play here. Women—particularly those of us who are criminalised—are often seen as doubly flawed: our gender demands compliance with societal norms, and our criminalisation marks us as failures. This double standard means that criminalised women are rarely seen as harmless victims. Instead, we are painted as complicit in our own suffering, perpetuating the dangerous myth that our past actions invited violence.
The narrative surrounding Chloe and Linley reflects this deeply entrenched bias. It frames them not as women who faced unimaginable violence but as people whose lives were overshadowed by their criminal histories, as though their pasts nullify their humanity.
The real impact of these narratives
When the media focuses on criminal histories rather than the violence inflicted on victims, it not only shapes public perception but also has real-world consequences. This kind of reporting discourages the public from valuing the lives of criminalised people, making it easier for systems to neglect our needs and perpetuate cycles of harm. It shifts the focus away from holding perpetrators accountable and instead positions victims as undeserving of justice.
Moreover, these narratives let society off the hook. They obscure the systemic issues—such as gendered violence, racism, poverty, addiction, and structural inequality—that disproportionately affect criminalised women. Instead of interrogating why these women were targeted or how to prevent similar tragedies, the focus remains on their past, perpetuating their marginalisation even in death.
A call for ethical reporting
It’s time for the imperial media to take responsibility for the role it plays in upholding systemic injustices. Ethical reporting demands a shift in focus: from victim-blaming narratives to compassionate storytelling that highlights the humanity of those affected by violence. Journalists must recognise that criminalised women are not disposable. We are daughters, mothers, and friends—human beings deserving of dignity, respect, and justice.
Chloe and Linley were victims of horrific violence. To reduce their stories to their criminal histories is to participate in the same systems that failed them in life. We owe it to them—and to all criminalised women and girls—to do better. Their lives mattered, and so does the way we tell their stories.