They are not all just healthy people with trivial problems that put across this view. That is a bit of a generalisation. I have my doubts it is consciously orchestrated propaganda either. However, in some instances it probably is, dependent on the agenda and bias of the media outlet involved. It is likely more simply an editor going, "Okay we need a positive news story to offset a school shooting resulting in a massacre, find me one. Because we want our reader to get the happy dopamine hit that brings them back so we continue getting ad revenue and maintain reader retention."
The journalist responds, "Well I have a story between brown-eyed dog rescued from sewer grate after 14 hours, or former suicidal teen spreading a positive message of hope and recovery from depression?"
The teen in question is probably very genuine in their desire to spread a message of hope and recovery. Personally, I see nothing wrong with that. If you are rationally suicidal you likely won't care, or think that is nice for them, but my issues are not theirs and their solutions do not apply to me. Or I have already exhausted those avenues. If you are ambivalent it may have some value that recovery is possible and no doubt the article will suggest avenues you can take if you are affected. If you haven't done so you may well be willing to try.
However, the teen in question may well have fallen into the trap that because they recovered then everyone can. But you also see the same trap in reverse of that here. I never recovered, so no one can. Both are a belief ultimately shaped by personal experience then erroneously applied universally as if we are all the same. Both though can be refuted by demonstrating examples of the opposite. Which is pretty easy to do. Hence belief and not fact.
At no point though is an editor going to want a story about a suicidal person that endorses suicide. (The exception maybe is issues surrounding euthanasia.) This is a very divisive issue, lots of ad revenue to be had there alongside public interest and delicious drama of life, death, ethics, religion and everything in between. If you can whip it up into an increasingly extreme frenzy all the better.
Media then may well take sides dependent on who their paymasters are and what their demographic of readers generally consist of. Outrage sells. Misquoting a studies conclusion and whitewashing issues with the actual methodology helps. Or referencing a scientist or expert but never citing who the fuck they are, is also a golden tactic! Citing some impressive-sounding organisation that happens to be a thinktank backed by singular moneyed interests all colluding to create a pretence of an authority on a subject will definitely lend legitimacy to whatever tribe you wish to endorse. Bit of clickbait here and there to provoke outrage resulting in no one reading anything but angrily filling up the comment section. Also, printing statements made out of context is even better!
Some will try and remain neutral and present what is happening. That approach though is starting to seem rarer these days and will likely offend every one for not endorsing one tribe over the other or be so bland they go bust and only the extremes of the pendulum of increasing stupidity get reported as sensational enough to pay attention to.
I digress.
I can explain why in my country of Airstrip One, home to serfs and toffs the U.K. Why suicide is generally downplayed and why you will not see much of anything endorsing suicide as a valid response to the horrors this world can inflict.
There is an awareness of suicide contagion and pressure to reduce imitative acts or face liability issues. What constitutes encouragement of suicide is also pretty vague in law here. It is why stories on suicide are generally vague themselves and plenty is often omitted or sanitised. They are obligated to do so as they don't want to run afoul of regulatory bodies either. There is though some leeway dependent on public interest. The suicide of Epstein is one such example as the detailed how of it is important due to the wider ramifications.
I suspect it is similar in other countries but I can't comment on them.
As for if poverty is increasing or decreasing, what measure of poverty is being used? Absolute poverty or relative poverty or both? What time frame is it being measured between?
Sometimes I think statistics and the framing of statistics should mandatorily be taught in school. But I don't see such a dangerous idea gaining traction. Because then people will see through the bullshit of rhetoric when figures are plucked out the arse end of nowhere. Their anger may well move away from scapegoats and soundbite phrases. To the powers that be, feeding you shit and telling you to like it as your world burns around you. It is okay for them as they have a flame retardant suit and plenty of supplies.
