Why are we joining the Press Council out of interest? Are there any upsides to giving people an official ruling body they can complain about us to?
I supported it because there have been a couple of occasions where I've attended court hearings as a member of the public (occasionally with a possible thought about blogging on them) and suppression has been ordered, and I thought it was either totally unnecessary, or at least overbroad, and I've thought that I'd like to be able to stand up and oppose suppression, and writing for an organisation that is subject to the Press Council would give me that right.
I looked at nominating for the Media awards this year, as it was the first time I felt I'd written 3 posts worthy of nominating in a single calendar year. Then I looked at the category, and thought "best blog site, does it have to be the whole site, do I even qualify to nominate myself?" and then never got around to it, so it's nice to know I actually won :-)
I just found that someone has edited together all the bits of "A Good Day" with the Future Leaders for Democracy in into into one video.
Is this in part an endeavour to counter the End Of Life Choice Bill currently before the Health Select Committee?
- so the populace won’t know of deliberate peaceful exits from Life?
When the law changes, such a death could still be called a suspected suicide, you just couldn't describe the death as taking place in hospital.
I will note that the End of Life Choice Bill is not at a select committee. Rather, a select committee is investigating the law generally, with a view to making recommendations.
Do we have to refer to the Japanese tactics in WW2 as “high risk aerial strike operations”?
Those will be overseas suicides. The extension of the law to those is the one select committee error that is is being fixed.
Interestingly a Dunedin blogger will be in court soon over what may be just this issue, after apparently republishing something she thought was OK.
Based on the article, I would guess it was an allegation of a breach of an actual suppression order (it talks about a "coroner's finding"), but, of course, I don’t know.
I'm concerned because I'm researching suicides by former WWI soldiers (in my sample, last once occurred in the 1960s).
You can report anything if you get permission from the Chief Coroner.
If there's a Coroner's finding that a death was a suicide, you can report that the death was a suicide. This is probably all you need. You just can't report the manner of death (eg shot himself).
I will no longer be able to report that the second wife of my great grandfather committed suicide by cutting her own throat?
You will need permission of the Chief Coroner before you do so publicly. You can still mention it in conversation.
That’s unfortunate. I see the damage that breakfast tv hosts could cause if they started cracking jokes about the details of specific suicides (and some of them would if thay could).
Agreed. I've no issue with a broadcasting standard to stop this. There's already a bit of one, although it could perhaps be stronger. Guideline 5a states:
Programmes should not actively promote serious antisocial or illegal behaviour, including violence, suicide, serious crime and the abuse of drugs.