you should be in touch with Cara Powers at project think different in boston. google that!

I suspect that as the coverage increased, certain aspects to the story were latched on to more than other details (such as the social problems among the youth of Bredgen).

There have even been reports about the suicides from a social media perspective — i.e. the common thread being that most or all of the suicide deaths actively participated in social media (hence the reference to Bebo).

I didn’t include that portion in my breakdown here, but, it is definitely worth researching as well.

I have not looked at the reports of these cases, so I can’t grade the media’s performance. My guess is that it could have been better…

Even assuming the worst on the part of the media, I do believe that the media has a duty to report on the situation. At the most surface level, another harmful aspect of discourse on suicide is the lack of it. It is a taboo subject, which makes it more difficult for suicidal people to seek the help they need.

But further: to me 17 suicides in one locale suggests that there is a social problem. If we were talking about other kinds of self-destrucitve behavior of young people in other locales, the news coverage would be all about the responsibility of parents and how the community needs address the problems that everybody knows it has.

I know how painful it is lose a loved one to suicide. A very dear friend of mine took her own life the summer after we both graduated from college. I am not suggesting we blame families suffering these losses. I am suggesting that responsible journalists have a duty to report the events and to investigate the component parts of the situation(s) that may have led to these terrible losses.

The acts of suicide and the media coverage of those acts might only be part of the story.

Personally, what I am leaning towards are guidelines that facilitate awareness of the issue, while still considering the impact social implications.

It is not clear that the suicide reports by the media in this case were completely sensationalized (or only so). What is clear, however, is that there is legitimate concern regarding the impact due to the way suicide is sometimes glamorized in the media.

We need the media. Plain and simple. We do, however, need an objective, unbiased, narrative of events that provide insight and education. It is our prerogative to critically analyze any message, as well as the media’s responsibility to maintain social awareness.

I read recently on the BBC about the recent death threats on the cartoonist who drew the images of Mohammed which agitated Muslims around the world.

How did the paper respond? They RE-PRINTED the offensive cartoons and declared that it was more important that they defend the right to free speech than it was to respect cultural and religious (and deeply divisive) differences.

Is the suppression of offensive speech any better than the freedom of offensive speech?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… argh.