The interesting part about those scientifical results (in my last threads) is discrepancy on how the media portrays suicide forums. I have read a lot of articles about suicide forums. And all most every (or all) are alarming and talk very negatively about them.
I normally have a high trust in media but this is really questioning it.
Those postive arguments are barely made in the societal discussion (probably because the media is the intermediary. )
There are some reasons why the media has the incentive to demonize suicide forums.
One part is the virtue signaling. It is easy to portray a group as evil in order to gain trust and reputation. Especially if the group barely has a lobby or interest group in their favor.
It can be used for a "good" and interesting story. In the NYT article it was all portrayed in a black-white scheme. But real life does not work like that. They don't show the complexeties of this very ethical topic suicide. Normally if you talk about such a sensitive topic nuances are essential. But the media ignores it. In my opinion the article of the NYT was very sensational. Unherd.com pointed some aspects of their kind of framing/presentation out.
On Twitter I read that the NYT female journalist wrote something like "as a mother I am shocked that such a place exists". In my opinion this resembles emotional manipulation. (Almost) every individual has (living) relatives. (e.g. a mother). Is now everyone who has relatives prohibited to commit suicide? It should evoke the feeling of responsibilty to all parents to shut this website down. But as many studies show people have suicidal ideation before they join a suicide forum. And it is doubted of many experts whether the internet increases suicides at all.
They only choose experts to talk about the issue who agree with their demonization of such websites. This is a false balance. The research of suicide forums has a lot of gaps. But this is not told in their articles. The most modern studies I read disagree vehemently of the depiction of suicide forums as death cults.
PLEASE @New York Times I want to have an answer why did you choose to portray us like that if the empirical data contradicts your narrative. For me it seems like you wanted just to make cheap money with a sensationalistic story that serves your anti-choice propaganda. You the good ones against the evil members of a death cult. This is arrogant, immoral and self-righteous. You do a lot of damage if you report about this topic in such a way. You are further stigmatizing the topic. As I read in one Austrian empirical study the best kind of suicide prevention is to destigmatize the topic. And you are doing quite the opposite.
Here is one of the empirical studies I read.
What do you think why does the media use this framing or this kind of story-telling?
I normally have a high trust in media but this is really questioning it.
Those postive arguments are barely made in the societal discussion (probably because the media is the intermediary. )
There are some reasons why the media has the incentive to demonize suicide forums.
One part is the virtue signaling. It is easy to portray a group as evil in order to gain trust and reputation. Especially if the group barely has a lobby or interest group in their favor.
It can be used for a "good" and interesting story. In the NYT article it was all portrayed in a black-white scheme. But real life does not work like that. They don't show the complexeties of this very ethical topic suicide. Normally if you talk about such a sensitive topic nuances are essential. But the media ignores it. In my opinion the article of the NYT was very sensational. Unherd.com pointed some aspects of their kind of framing/presentation out.
On Twitter I read that the NYT female journalist wrote something like "as a mother I am shocked that such a place exists". In my opinion this resembles emotional manipulation. (Almost) every individual has (living) relatives. (e.g. a mother). Is now everyone who has relatives prohibited to commit suicide? It should evoke the feeling of responsibilty to all parents to shut this website down. But as many studies show people have suicidal ideation before they join a suicide forum. And it is doubted of many experts whether the internet increases suicides at all.
They only choose experts to talk about the issue who agree with their demonization of such websites. This is a false balance. The research of suicide forums has a lot of gaps. But this is not told in their articles. The most modern studies I read disagree vehemently of the depiction of suicide forums as death cults.
PLEASE @New York Times I want to have an answer why did you choose to portray us like that if the empirical data contradicts your narrative. For me it seems like you wanted just to make cheap money with a sensationalistic story that serves your anti-choice propaganda. You the good ones against the evil members of a death cult. This is arrogant, immoral and self-righteous. You do a lot of damage if you report about this topic in such a way. You are further stigmatizing the topic. As I read in one Austrian empirical study the best kind of suicide prevention is to destigmatize the topic. And you are doing quite the opposite.
Here is one of the empirical studies I read.
https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/making-a-case-for-the-right-of-suicide-forums-to-exist.82475/
What do you think why does the media use this framing or this kind of story-telling?
Last edited:
