Consider the larger / longer term picture as to what is or is not censorship, if it is or is not a net benefit / net risk, and if that means the number of suicides over any extended period (say for example 50 years) has been definitively modulated by the media industry.
Quote:The media has an important role to play in influencing social attitudes towards and perceptions of suicide and mental illness.
As to this claim, I would ask does the media have the whereforeall to be able to rationally justify their balancing act versus the risks to freedom due to runaway censorship, especially when you add in the argument that even if the veracity of the claims as made in your first quote can wholly stand up to disciplined, third party, unbiased, double blind, scientific scrutiny, that does not mean the number of suicides over any extended period (say for example 50 years) has been definitively modulated by the media industry because the potentially suicidal people in question may well have simply found another rationale at some point, if not through the suspect media.
Quote:.....the media industry has been actively involved in helping to reduce suicide rates and addressing stigma and discrimination associated with mental illness.
As to this claim I would again suggest that does not mean the number of suicides over any extended period (say for example 50 years) has been definitively modulated by the media industry, and I would suggest again that the potentially suicidal people in question may well have simply found another rationale at some point, if not through the suspect media.
Also as mentioned I suggest the value of these potentially suicidal people would need to measured against the risks to freedom due to runaway censorship, difficult though that may be.
I think we are all familiar with the risks of good intentions (let alone ill intentions) and the "law" of unintended / unexpected consequences from an historical media / censorship perspective.
I would prefer to err on the side of freedom, for the above given reasons even if some can argue a casualty exists in some shorter term sense, between media presentations and suicides.
However I am not suggesting that the media industry (at least the relevant sectors) does not (or at the least should not) have an obligation for being factual and accurate, as does our various governments, militaries, courts, police forces etc. As to how well these obligations have translated into pragmatic real world efficacy over say the last 100 years worldwide I am not overly impressed.
I can fully see why the media industry does not want to be painted as an instigator of suicides, and I can fully see why the media industry would take great pains to present an image of responsibility in that regard, as may well various governments, militaries, courts, police forces, etc.
Consider: I suggest it's fair to say that the reason the media industry wishes to (at the least) give the impression of not being an instigator of suicide is that suicide is not considered moral. Thus I present to you again, given you have not responded in kind as of yet: by that token any number of censorship endeavors can be rationalized from the violent acts in TV cartoons on up.
If we agree that violence is not moral (at least of the gratuitous type), then what of the violent acts in TV cartoons? Do they not deserve the same considerations as do the claims made by the media industry, as per suicide?
Does the media industry have an important role to play in influencing social attitudes towards and perceptions of violence? From your sources they make the claim they do as far as suicide is concerned, thus why would it not apply to violence (at least of the gratuitous type)?
I for one am not convinced that the media industry presents violence "responsibly" in as much as they do not appear to give violence (at least of the gratuitous type) the same considerations as they appear to give suicide. Do you think they should?
I for one am not convinced that the media industry presents sexuality "responsibly" in as much as they do not appear to give sexuality the same considerations as they appear to give suicide. Do you think they should?
Consider: oftentimes you can watch on television the killing or hurting of another human being in quite gory detail, and oftentimes in the context of questionable regard to the moral / ethic considerations. However the presentation of human secondary sexual characteristics is much rarer (let alone primary sexual characteristics) and when these sexual characteristics are presented it's not unusual for it to be done in such a fashion as to infer immorally. Is this a good example of the media industry acting so-called "responsibly"?
To get back OT (if that is even possible with such a wacky thread) I would add that I for one do not necessarily consider suicide to be an act that must / should always be prevented nor do I necessarily consider suicide to be negatively moral.