Hard News: The Suicide Question
51 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Oh Islander, I should have said - there were disappointing bits about it, for sure. And no, I don't remember all the characters names. And really, you know who the best book I ever read was by. I just loved it. Not as much as I loved the best book I have ever read, but enough, I think. I just thought it was inherently cinematic, and atmospheric. No writer am I, though.
-
Finally delurking after thoroughly enjoying reading PAS comments for a number of years...
I have a vested interest in this topic. After my mother killed herself back in 1999, I've found the media coverage, discussion, and avoidance around suicide in New Zealand to be most interesting.
One thing I learned in the years following her death was that a large number of people know/love someone who has committed suicide - but most of them never talk about it, because there is a perception that talking about it is something just not done (see also: abortion). So for those suicide survivors there is a distinct lack of openness, discussion and support.
When suicide is mentioned in the media, I found that most often the focus is on youth suicide. The statistics are terrible, yes, but they miss that an awful lot of adults are also killing themselves, for a wide number of reasons.
The stimga on mental health is starting to ease. Perhaps the stigma of having a family member kill themselves; having tried to kill yourself; or having indeed done so, will start to pass.
tl;dr: I am no fan of suicide, for sure. But I am a fan of openness and clear reportage. I think the restrictions need easing.
-
Would giving free help-phone/email/text numbers, preferably for trained non-religious (or otherwise-committed to viewpoint) people - and other pertinent info - along with any report of a suicide - be a good idea?
Yes excellent idea.
But to really make a difference, we as a species, NEED to value those who are inclined to care for and help others. The highest calling for humankind isnt to make obscene amounts of money, or seek to make one's own life as luxurious as one can.
Fuck, didn't we get rid of monarch's who did that?
And I am going to say, and I expect censure. Sport isn't humanitys highest calling either. -
Further to the Park Dietz role as a credible authority in Johann Hari's aforementioned article, I looked up his Wikipedia reference and found that he's a controversial figure. He gave false testimony about the non-existence of a Law and Order (US) episode that allegedly contributed to the tragic Andrea Yates maternal child drowning incident, in which a mentally ill woman was alleged to have drowned her offspring. The series producers then responded that no such episode existed at the time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Dietz
And there's also his involvement in the Anita Hill sexual harrassment trial as a witness for the defence, against Ms Hill.
So. Is there a media effects relationship between intensive news coverage and/or police procedural genre realist dramatic genre depictions and events like the Yates tragedy, reports of suicide and/or mass shootings like the Blackburn tragedy?
Or are there collateral socialisation influences from other institutions that lead to such events?
Craig Young
-
We've *nearly* got rid of 'em Andin!
Really seriously: I find it utterly bizarre that, as a civilisation, we grossly underpay those who make the most difference (nurses, of all kinds; teachers; frontline police& GPs (if you think GPs are overpaid - just spend a week with a rural GP. And, IF you survive working their hours, and carrying their responsibilities - which you cant of course- then tell me why they shouldnt get the -way-less-than-your average fukkin pollie
wage?)And for some unknown reason - they swank so much? They consume so much? our media fawn upon those who've done buggerall to earn their squadillions -except manipulate capitalism. Creation level in all these folk = zilch. Net gain for humanity = zilch. Loss if they all die right now = zilch.
-
O, I'd also add the unsung caregivers - who are being deliberately whittled away: the people who come into homes to clean - maybe also care & cook- for elders; the people who do that kind of work within hospitals; the volunteers who work within a thousand different voluntary organisations
*St Johns?
*SF?
*Riding For The Disabled?
*Hospice volunteers?
*Readers for "Books for the Blind"
*CCS volunteersand many hundred others.
These people often donate not only their time, but also resources.
I loathe and despise rich people who do 'stuff' because it gets their name in the news, dear, and I have no time at all for creepy richies who take take take, and never give anything real back to anyone else.
Run me a list of high earners (including Peter Jackson - Hello Flying Hotel Man! What have you done for ANZ film?) and I'll run you a list of people who'll eventually rot - just the same as - one way or the other- we all will.
Pants a while.
Rant kinda finished.
Loathing isnt. -
We've *nearly* got rid of 'em Andin!
Really seriously: I find it utterly bizarre that, as a civilisation, we grossly underpay those who make the most difference (nurses, of all kinds; teachers; frontline police& GPs (if you think GPs are overpaid - just spend a week with a rural GP. And, IF you survive working their hours, and carrying their responsibilities - which you cant of course- then tell me why they shouldnt get the -way-less-than-your average fukkin pollie
wage?)And for some unknown reason - they swank so much? They consume so much? our media fawn upon those who've done buggerall to earn their squadillions -except manipulate capitalism. Creation level in all these folk = zilch. Net gain for humanity = zilch. Loss if they all die right now = zilch.
-
(ooops...sorry for double post- but the difference between those who give & help & repair (and what they earn) and those who manipulate extort & loot - and what they gouge from the body politic- does make me...very very VERY Angry-)
-
Should we open up another avenue of human misery to the media to mine? Do we really want our tragically departed loved ones to be used as page filler and coffee break fodder?
So for those suicide survivors there is a distinct lack of openness, discussion and support.
This is true Deb. I too am a fan of openness and clear reportage, but I find New Zealand's legislative approach to freedom of information in publication is already heavily morally convoluted. I feel it would be a mistake to make any changes to suicide reporting without also carefully examining other areas of news censorship and more poignantly the core belief structures that have combined to form this arbitrary set of standards currently in place, if for nothing more than to develop a more comprehensive approach to truth and transparency in the internet age.
Judging the MSM on their current methods and standards, I don't share your confidence in the media's capacity to encourage compassionate discussion, nor offer or elicit much in the way of meaningful support. The MSM doesn't serve us as much as we serve them I feel.
Still, it's a worthy debate. One aspect of this that interests me is that I've been reading for months in NZ MSM about how (at least one) Foxconn employee commited suicide by jumping to his death. Does the current standard only apply to deaths within New Zealand? What's that about?
Really seriously: I find it utterly bizarre that, as a civilisation, we grossly underpay those who make the most difference (nurses, of all kinds; teachers; frontline police& GPs
I second that.
-
Pants a while.
Rant kinda finished.
Loathing isnt.Spring is here
sap rising...
bud to blossom
glowthings...
not loathings
save life breath
for those that
do good...
not wastrelsjoin the push back:
We just try and win over one person at a time with poetry and it's all one brick on top of the other.
-
I feel it would be a mistake to make any changes to suicide reporting without also carefully examining other areas of news censorship and more poignantly the core belief structures that have combined to form this arbitrary set of standards currently in place, if for nothing more than to develop a more comprehensive approach to truth and transparency in the internet age.
You make a very valid point, Chris. I forget that there is a lot of sensationalism in the news. I was thinking more in terms of comprehensive articles, discussions of how and why, than the individual loss itself. Which catches me by surprise - but it's so long since my own loss that my focus has been more on the overall.
Do you think anything can change those core belief structures?
-
Ian Dalziel
ae
do so
will so
& be soa joyous life-sustaining greeting to us all
-
Do you think anything can change those core belief structures?
Certainly, I feel there is a constant dialogue of influence between all involved. The thing that disturbs me most is how those core belief structures have been influenced by the censorship of this issue, and the difficulty distinguishing between the various influences of the media, the legislative organization, the legislation itself, society as a whole, various subsets therein, the families and lastly individuals.
As an example, I've had two old school friends take their own lives this year. I've no idea how, I tentatively asked friends about the first, but learned nothing, in the second case I simply refrained from asking. From time to time I wonder how they departed this world, then I console myself in the faith that if their families wanted that information available they'd make it so. I respect the family's rights in this case, more so than the media. I don't think I'd like to read it in the news, and would feel upset if I were to be exposed to these details by strangers.
I'm left to contemplate if this is a traditional New Zealand approach or a conditioned response to the subjugated media. No clue really. I just hope I don't receive any more of these very vague emails in the near future.
I was thinking more in terms of comprehensive articles, discussions of how and why, than the individual loss itself.
I wholeheartedly agree.
-
Which catches me by surprise - but it's so long since my own loss that my focus has been more on the overall.
It has made a change in you, I hope it is not a difficult burden.
Do you think anything can change those core belief structures?
You did it. Thats how things change, I guess. I just hate the glacial pace changing a few minds at a time.
Yet wave a dollar, and we're drowning in drool. -
From Ian's superb link, I couldn't resist quoting this:
J.P. is a good fighter. He's a man of action, see. Sometime last year he was at home hoovering and cleaning his house one night. He got a call. J.P.'s a sweet kid... still is. There was a dude down at a local hillbilly night club (they have these in Tennessee) who slapped $500 on the table and said he'd fight anyone.
J.P.'s mate told him to come down, J.P. said he would. I think he finished his hoovering first. I like J.P. because he puts first things first. He's not the biggest guy in the world (but he's not small either), and he said afterwards that if he knew what the guy at the night club looked like, then he wouldn't have gone down.
But he didn't know and so he went - Awfully primal this. J.P. is fast. This is all beginning to remind me of the Clash album "Cut the Crap." Man there's heaps around, crap that is. I put up posters. Other people express these things in different ways, some are Pacifists. There's no point to war, we all know this, but man there's plenty of wars. Sad that is.
Poetry is uplifting.
You know the end of the story: J.P. went down and blitzed the dude and got the $500. J.P. and the other bloke are friends now and there's some respect there. They both know where each other is “coming from”. William Burroughs famously talked about the Naked Lunch being where everyone could see what was on the end of the fork. Wouldn't you like to see it all clearly if you could? But you turn on TV and you see Charlie Sheen and then you see Lindsay Lohan and then it's followed by some politician ripping off the world and getting away with it.
-
History shows us that every problem can be cured by not talking about it.
Wait, no...
What annoys me about the "social science" part of this debate is no one ever seems to mention that the increase of suicides when they're mentioned in the media doesn't have a thing to do with the reason for suicides. How about treating the causes of suicides, ie. why people are depressed enough to want to kill themselves, ie, why people are depressed. Stop shooting the messenger.
It's like, upon hearing the homicide rate increases in summer, we set about banning people from going out in the sun.
-
When Kurt Cobain did what he did, were NZers told it was just typical US carelessness with firearms?
And that the Japanese Kamikaze were just really bad pilots?
-
Islander
Pants a while.
Rant kinda finished.
Loathing isnt.Don't hold back buddy, get it off your chest.
Wiki re copycat suicides
And from a link in there about Epidemiology of suicides
And from there to mass suicidesShit... it's almost religious. A penchant for "following" maybe? "Look, there is a person I look up to. I must do as they do".
I dunno. If you can get multitudes to follow you into the 'valley of death". Then why not expect one or two with just a prod?
Just thinking mind you.
-
I'm happy with the Status Quo, and other rock bands.
The coded message of the press "no suspicious circumstances", is gentle on the ears of the family and friends left behind, leaves no room for doubt about what is being talked about.
The truth is plain to see without the need for gore-pron. -
What annoys me about the "social science" part of this debate is no one ever seems to mention that the increase of suicides when they're mentioned in the media doesn't have a thing to do with the reason for suicides. How about treating the causes of suicides, ie. why people are depressed enough to want to kill themselves, ie, why people are depressed. Stop shooting the messenger.
I think it's fairly clear that part of the 'cause' of suicide is an empathy with other people who have committed suicide. That helps people over the line to taking actions that can kill themselves.
There's lots of ways to address suicide, and obviously addressing the underlying causes of depression etc is a good one. If you want to end up with less people dead, finding ways to stop depressed people (of which there are lots of in society) with suicidal thoughts crossing that line still has pretty good value.
-
Last night's Media7 discussion of suicide-and-the-media is now online here.
-
"Well if you can't trust the media who can you trust?"
Judge Neil MacLean
I'd suggest family, friends, your doctor, nurses, teachers, your lawyer? Certainly when a high level member of the judiciary says something like that, it's understandable that New Zealand has such a high suicide rate.
I thought you were a little gentle on him Russell, especially when he ignobly invalidated -
PhD student Craig Colhoun... said more than 100 published articles have found that suicide media reports are associated with increases in subsequent suicide rates.
-
as a
"perfectly valid point of view."
Mainly he didn't seem to come out with any strong justification for a change. Despite Rebecca Todd's stirling work within the parameters of the law.
-
We'll also be looking at smoking on screen in the wake of the US Centre for Disease Control's call for an R rating on any movies that depict tobacco use. Prudent public health policy or social engineering?
Can I just say, after watching Media 7 last night that Prudence woman made me want to pick up a cigarette and start smoking let alone care what happened to her children through the "teleportal" TV. To suggest that ratings are a great way to get the kids out of the room, is a poor excuse to wish censorship. She certainly had issues,just not sure when they progressed to include smoking.
-
Yes Sofie. When Prudence said:
"It's about putting those sign posts in and classifications in, so that parents and rule setters in private spaces where TVs or films are being viewed, they can say kids leave the room, because smoking is going to be in this , and i don't want you, as your guardian I want to protect you from these products."
I too couldn't help but wondering what of the unsupervised children. And when she went on to say;
"I always find it really helpful when i'm sitting with my children at home, and the standards authority comes up with that little warning message that, parental guidance is advised, there's going to be sex and violence on the the viewing, and my husband and I always look to each other and go "well sweet," children leave the room"
I realised her interpretation of guidance is pretty special.
Generally speaking I found the episode troubling. On the suicide issue we saw two guests, both arguably in favour of more media freedom on the issue, state their points of view. It seemed a little unbalanced, I'm rehashing old stuff here, but as the thread is open:
In my case an extended family member misused the time he was supposed to be babysitting me to take advantage sexually.
It was a horrific affair which evolved over an extended period and ultimately led to a step relative appearing before Justice Morris in the High Court at Rotorua on March 15, 1995. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment after pleading guilty to two charges of sexual violation by an act of unlawful sexual connection, and two charges of committing an indecent act. It emerged he'd been involved in about 80 cases of abuse all up, but because of the "hush hush" approach from most sectors of society had repeatedly got away with it. In my case it took a very brave family member to make a stand and accept the word of a young and frightened girl.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/opinion/blogs/lisa-on-life/3218728/The-name-suppression-issue
or this:
Racheal said police never asked her or Brittany if they wanted the man's name suppression application opposed. Court documents reveal police maintained a "neutral" position on the matter.
"As a mother I am disgusted that he could get name suppression and I'm disgusted that he could do this to my daughter."
Brittany said in a statement that the entertainer should have been named so other females could be "wary" of him.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/3085484/Teen-victim-slams-musicians-name-suppression
My main concern here is if we can't protect victims from abuse, and instead as a society contiue to sanction the anonymity of perpetrators, how is society aiding and abetting those that would damage the youth to the point where suicide is a feasible choice.
And given that a victim of a crime could see their own name dragged through the news, oppose name suppression of the accused but be denied that, and then subsequently commit suicide. What is society doing to address the causes of that suicide? I contend there must be instances of comparable causal relationships.
Furthermore, the commercial media's interest in its own freedom to publish details of individual suicide cases as dictated by coroners seems to be conveniently almost interchangeably coupled with the rather larger and less (economically) profitable societal discussion of suicide.
Nothing new, just some concerns.
-
As Stuff.co.nz has largely avoided giving this work homepage exposure, here's the Our Hidden Tragedy series for those who may have missed it:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/our-hidden-tragedy/more_headlines
Post your response…
This topic is closed.