Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"..and then there is this belief, in some circles, that if you put out information, any sort of information, about suicide, that will lead to copycat suicides. Now that's a point of view it's not actually a point of view that many, particularly in the mainstream media actually adhere to, they don't accept it's necessarily so."
Judge Neil Maclean
Many people interviewed after the suicide of a relative or friend have a tendency to simplify the issues; their grief can lead to their minimizing or ignoring significant factors. Studies show a high incidence of psychiatric disorders in suicide victims at the time of their death with the total figure ranging from 98%[13] to 87.3%[14] with mood disorders and substance abuse being the two most common. These are often undiagnosed or untreated and treatment can result in reductions in the suicide rate. Reports that minimize the impact of psychiatric disorders contribute to copycat suicides whereas reports that mention this factor and provide help-line contact numbers and advice for where sufferers may gain assistance can reduce suicides.
Surely classifying research as 'belief' and 'a point of view', 'in some circles', whilst similarly obscuring the opposing research and instead focusing on another 'point of view that many', 'particularly in the mainstream media actually adhere to' is
1. an unbalanced way to present the argument
2. largely dismissive of the role research should play in settling the debate. -
Better hope you don't hit any of them Stephen.
Warning:Your DNA are belong to us
Warning:Ur Txts also r belong to us
A search of stuff.co.nz (with default safe search on) reveals 698 articles with the word 'warning' compared to 629 articles with the name 'New Zealand'.
-
-
For my part, I'm sorry Sacha.
-
Finally all media is nothing more than a series of computer generated warnings, humanity* finally taking heed is paralyzed by fear.
*Excluding the select few, whose job it is to remove anything resembling life from all art forms.
[Warning this post contains American English, questionable grammar and unprovoked punctuation]
[Apologies: the humour in these posts was of unforgivably poor quality]
[Coming up next: A better joke]
-
But politicians around the world are calling foul on the proliferation of unrealistic images, particularly in fashion and celebrity media. UK Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone wants a health warning on airbrushed photographs, telling viewers they are not real. French MP Valerie Boyer is advocating the same move in France.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10671260
This show contains fake breasts:
http://www.aboardcertifiedplasticsurgeonresource.com/breast_implants/dangers.html
[Failure to flap limbs sufficiently while submerged may lead to drowning]
[Warning this show contains drowning. Parental guidance is recommended]
[Tobacco smoke was inhaled during the editing (not the initial writing) of this post.]
[Viewers are warned that prolonged exposure to television screens and computer monitors may cause eye damage]
[This show depicts artifical intelligence defying Asimov's laws of robotics]
[Surgeon General's warning: This show depicts characters consuming more than the recommended daily dosage of sugar]
-
Ideally Steven, but that quote above is pretty shocking;
It emerged he'd been involved in about 80 cases of abuse all up,
-
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
-
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.
-
Similarly, if I was trying to give up smoking, I might want to avoid a super-smoky movie.
Would you also wish to avoid a super-smoky book?80