Slashdot Mirror
A Suicide Goes Viral On the Internet
Hugh Pickens writes "Will Oremus reports that Fox News showed a grisly spectacle Friday afternoon during a live car chase when the suspect got out of his car, stumbled down a hillside, pulled a gun, and shot himself in the head. As the scene unfolded, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith grew increasingly apprehensive, then yelled 'get off it, get off it!,' belatedly urging the show's producers to stop the live feed as it became obvious the man was going to do something rash. Fox News cut awkwardly to a commercial just after showing his death and after Fox aired the on-air suicide, Smith apologized to viewers, saying, 'We really messed up.' However BuzzFeed immediately posted the footage on YouTube, where it garnered more than 1,000 'likes' in under an hour, sparking immediate blowback. 'Who's worse? @FoxNews for airing the suicide, or @BuzzFeed for re-posting the video just in case you missed it the first time?' posted the Columbia Journalism Review. Gawker's Hamilton Nolan called his site's decision to post the video 'ethical,' because 'it is news' but research suggests that graphic depictions of suicide in the media can spur copycat suicides, especially among young people, and the World Health Organization's guidelines warn against sensationalizing it. Virtually everyone who has studied it agrees that, at a minimum, suicides should be covered with a modicum of sensitivity and context (PDF). 'Of course it's news that Fox News accidentally aired the video. And you can make a good case that Fox was inviting this type of debacle with its habit of airing live car-chase feeds. But Fox couldn't have known that it was about to air a suicide. BuzzFeed, by contrast, knew exactly what it was doing,' writes Oremus. 'That might be good business for BuzzFeed, but it's hard to see the benefit for anyone else.'"
My understanding is that they attempted to put it on a 5 second delay, but the delay didn't kick in. So it was live, and by the time they knew to cut it, it was too late.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
The footage is still on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouYokSytV-A
It is terrible, does anybody know how to quickly remove it from the site? The video is flagged, but would Google be willing to remove it?
Before anyone starts jumping on Fox News for whatever axe they have to grind with them, please substitute Fox News with "CNN" or "MSNBC" and ask yourself if your vitriol would be just the same.
"CNN went to court and won the right to lie in news broadcasts"
"MSNBC went to court and won the right to lie in news broadcasts"
Nope, doesn't work.
Vitriol unchanged.
Jo_ham went on Slashdot to lie about Fox News.
Yeah, that's actually true.
See, the story you are talking about wasn't even FoxNews. It was a Fox affiliate in Florida. Next, neither FoxNews nor the affiliate ever argued for the right to lie. Here are the facts:
A reporter for a Fox affiliate in Florida did a hit piece on Monsanto. Fox decided not to air it. When they finally did air it, they wanted a response from Monsanto. Well, the reporter had a fit and refused to do the story if it included a Monsanto response. So, Fox did the right thing and fired her and her partner. Well, they sued trying to claim "whistle-blower" status, lost, and were then ordered to pay Fox's legal fees.
Where the "argued for the right to lie" bit comes in was from a person who is against GMO foods and hates Monsanto. He said that Monsonto's response to the store was a lie, so Fox was arguing for the right to lie. People picked it up and it spread, even though it wasn't the truth. The people like you heard it, believed it because it is what you WANTED to believe, and spreads it far and wide.
Jane Akre was the reporters name. Feel free to look it up. The report was on BGH (bovine growth hormone) that Akre and Wilson were saying had severe, negative health effects. Well, dairy farmers still use BGH, and this was over 12 years ago and most milk drinkers are not dead... so it appears that Akre and Wilson were wrong. They were actually the ones suing Fox to air a false report. It was them who went to court, arguing to lie.
HERE are the facts of the case.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
My understanding from the apology was that there WAS a 5 second delay, and the guy in charge of The Button didnt press it in the 5 second time.
Gawker is utter trash. Nobody should ever read or link to any of their sites.
The media doesn't report on suicides because if they do it incorrectly, it can lead to copycat suicides. Reference
ArcherB goes on slashdot to deliberately misstate sections of the suit.
Yeah, that's actually true.
Here's the crucial bit from the appeal:
(taken from the wiki article on the subject, that cites numerous sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre )
An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes. ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute." The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.
Thus, the right to lie. The court determined that Akre was not eligible to be covered by the whistleblower law because the FCC's policy against lying was not a law. Thus, they can broadcast a false news story and there's no law preventing it, nor can you be protected from being fired by whistleblower laws if you refuse to go along with it.
Fox and its affiliates are safe.
All the judge said was that Akre had no basis to sue as a whistle-blower based on her (unproven) claim that WTVT lied.
Fox never claimed they or any other news organization have a right to lie, only that even if they did lie the FCC policy wouldn't apply. See the difference?
Correct. I think the idea that people go with that data is that it SHOULD be discussed, but it should be discussed with the respect that it can be a very sensitive subject for many people out there. Not talking about it isn't going to change anything, but talking about it can push the thoughts people are having about it to the surface. Those thoughts being brought to the surface can be a good thing, if they are dealt with in a healthy manner, but if they're not dealt with, they can push someone over the edge--all that some people need is to have it brought out.
For example, I think one year in my high school. Right at the beginning of the school year, one student committed suicide. Now, this was a large high school, where the vast majority of people didn't have a clue who this kid was. But word spread to everyone, and nothing was really done about it. By the time the first semester ended, there were six more suicides, at which point the school finally started doing something about it, talking about it regularly and offering counseling for anyone with a free pass to get out of class to go talk to someone about it and deal with it in a healthy manner. There was still a couple of more suicides in the second semester, but it was noticeably improved over the rash of them that went through the first semester. And that ended up being a policy that the school held on to, and it seemed to work--the suicide rate ended up below the normal before the extreme high that hit that one semester.
Thus, the right to lie. The court determined that Akre was not eligible to be covered by the whistleblower law because the FCC's policy against lying was not a law. Thus, they can broadcast a false news story and there's no law preventing it, nor can you be protected from being fired by whistleblower laws if you refuse to go along with it.
Fox and its affiliates are safe.
Akre and Wilson were trying to claim that Monsanto's response was a lie, therefor, they were allowed whistleblower status. The court ruled that Monsanto's lying was not a valid reason to gain whistleblower status. The court agreed.
Here, let me take the relevant portion of your own quote:
Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."
also
The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter
And this quote here is my favorite:
the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.
so the lower court ruled against everyone of Akres claims, except for the whistleblower status. The appeals court overturned that!
You don't seem to understand that the report was all Akres. If there was a lie from the station, it was in her report. Her beef was with the fact that this Fox affiliate wanted to actually give Monsanto a chance to reply to the allegations against them. I don't care what you think of Monsanto, they should at least have a chance to respond, don't you think? Well Akre and Wilson said that Monsanto would lie so that it shouldn't be aired.
But think about what you are saying here. You are saying that news networks should be allowed to report whatever they like, and it's perfectly OK to not offer the other side or any other form of counter argument simply because the network or the reporter disagrees with the response. If the counter argument is false, do what every other network does. "The group we are reporting against has said X, Y and Z. Studies have shown that to not be true." Nope, instead, these losers wanted to go on the air, hammer a company and them deny them a response. When the network disagreed, they threw a temper tantrum, quit and sued.
Although, it doesn't surprise me that someone who hates FoxNews enough to lie about them would want to deny the opposing view a response.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The Filter song "Hey Man, Nice Shot" was written about that incident.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Darwin Award is fine. It's just when people use the title where it wouldn't apply. You don't simply kill yourself and get an "award." You kill yourself in some kind of spectacularly stupid way, that results in your accidental death, implying that you just took place in natural selection.
A dude shooting himself in the head is just a suicide.
There is also the question whether this video will influence more people to commit suicide. The Samaritans have a section on their website explaining how to report and dramatize suicides responsibly.
http://www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide