I complained to the BBC about them referring to this site as Pro-Suicide. It's funny reading them try to scavenge reasons to justify their position:
I wrote:
I'm writing today about the inaccurate description used to describe the website
https://sanctioned-suicide.net/
Which I believe has been intentionally misreported for the sake of fuelling a story rather than balanced fair reporting.
In the article it describes the forum as pro-suicide. This is inaccurate by both the written intent from the owners o the site as 'pro-choice' and also the content inside it.
I appreciate the content on the site may be highly emotional and controversial but this does not forgive inaccurate reporting.
As mentioned the website states it to be pro-choice and not pro-sucide. But also:
1. Encouraging suicide is against the forum rules.
2. The forum includes a recovery section, this contradicts the BBC claim, and conveintianty never reported on.
3. The recovery section has the largest library of recovery resources I have seen, a testimony to the caring members who created it.
4. The members themselves in my experience are incredibly caring and want the best for others - they do not push suicide but rather understand other peoples plights and other a symthetic voice and understanding which they could not get outside the forum.
Respecting someone descison to commit suicide does not constitute as pro-suicde.
It's possible that bad actors may have infiltrated the site who may unfortunatley have encouraged suicide (I do not know this as fact, but only conceding the possibility), but this does not make a site pro-suicde. As I'm sure your aware that all social media platforms have experienced bad actors with tragic outcomes - this however does not fully define the platform but highlights the risks across the internet.
I look foward to your response, and hope you will amend the statement from pro-suicide to pro-choice, and in future articles or content ensure the correct terminology is used. As conserving the pro-sucide claim would break your policy to both accurate and non-biased reporting.
Many thank
R
Then the rubbish they spewed
Thank you for contacting us on the BBC News Website.
We are grateful to you for having taken the trouble to write in and share your views with us. We always welcome the opportunity to review our content.
I have looked carefully at the article you sent us.
We did not name the website featured. In your complaint to us you suggested that it was Sanctioned Suicide – which has been described as an internet forum known for its open discussion and encouragement of suicide and suicide methods.
You have stated that the website does not promote suicide without declaring any connection with it. It is described on Wikipedia as being 'widely called pro-suicide', which is backed up by a number of references.
A University of Padua study concluded the website could "be referred to as 'pro-suicide' given the large amount of content [about]… information on methods, dosages and how and from whom to acquire the correct components or substances.
"Email contacts of potential sellers can be found on the site," the study says.
It concludes: "30% of the topics found in Sanctioned Suicide are related to methods, substances or tools used to commit suicide. Users appear very preoccupied with the topics of suicide and methods, so much so that even topics concerning hobbies are also related to these themes."
We are satisfied that our reporting is duly accurate and does not raise any issues relating to editorial standards.
We take great care to approach these sorts of articles sensitively and advise readers affected by any of the issues they can find information and support on the
BBC Actionline website, https://www.bbc.co.uk/actionline/.
We very much value your feedback and thank you again for getting in touch.
All feedback is welcome and is shared with senior editors to keep them aware of readers' concerns.
Kind regards
Steve
"It is described on Wikipedia as being 'widely called pro-suicide', "
Yeah by you pollocks, which then offer media share lol