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.'"
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.
Gawker's Hamilton Nolan moral compass is way off, but greed has a tendency to do that. It was not ethical to repost the suicide just a cheap very sad grab to profit from it. They could of edited the video and posted a great article with class, dignity etc. but when your moral compass is pointing towards greed well there's the results. I'll stop ranting now :)
in a world full of war for the purpose of promoting democracy where thousands of civilians die from the fighting or aftermath? Oh yah we don't directly see it so its ok.... Out of sight out of mind.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Showing a suicide live on air is, in my opinion, going to far. The feed should have been cut earlier. On the other hand, the local media in my current home town has a policy of ignoring suicides completely and there have been some which would have been reasonably high profile if anyone had known. The suicide rate here is over 3 times the national average but the issue is swept under the carpet in case it takes away from our sunny, happy image and damages tourism. My concern is that it takes away awareness of the problem and leads to fewer resources for those who feel suicidal.
No offense man, but people got so soft nowadays, especially in "civilized" countries. People from Western Europe, UK, USA, Canada et al seem to have become very sensitive to what they call "gruesome" images. But at the same time they watch Saw VII or whatever. Yeah, I know one's "the real deal" and the other is "fake stuff" but really, strictly from a visual perspective pretty much any live murder or suicide is less spectacular.
Grow a pair and realize you just watched some troubled complete stranger do something that's less gruesome than most thrillers/horror movies out there.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
So tired of the "Darwin" meme. It expresses a sense of smug superiority that is entirely undeserved.
strictly from a visual perspective
Unless the viewer is a psychopath (in the clinical sense) that is never how it works.
Grow a pair
Grow up.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
But Fox couldn't have known that it was about to air a suicide.
Yes, they absolutely could, and did. A five-second delay was added when the guy got out of his car (why then and not before, and why it wasn't a one-minute delay, I don't know) but for reasons unknown it was, apparently, the in-studio monitors that got the delayed feed instead of the viewers.
Want to avoid this in future? Put a one-minute delay in - at least then it will be obvious if you've mis-switched it. My impression of American news hints that this happens often enough that it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a special circuit added for this sort of thing. Then you've also got the added advantage of not struggling to narrate events as they happen - the gallery can clue you in on what's coming up, and you can even advise sensitive viewers to look away if something surprising but non-fatal happens.
Of course, you could always try not appealing to lowest-common-denominator literal car-crash television in the first place.
<satire>PS Imagine how much worse the outrage would be if the guy had waved his wang at the helicopter.</satire>
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I could have been much, much worse it could have been a woman exposing her breasts after she got out of the car. Then Fox News would be in real big trouble.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
The good news is that invoking the Darwin meme doesn't make one immune from it.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
No offense intended. But do you watch all breaking news containing chases? It's at least the impression I get over here in the EU. Loud narrators commenting on some trivial incident. This man who put the gun to his head is quite tragic but the event as a whole is likely to be trivial compared to news items that affect more people. Not criticizing you personally, but have you been conditioned to watch this genre which is produced cheaply? Wouldn't you rather watch a program where people have gone the extra mile to produce valuable content? Without or with minimal commercial breaks? Like BBC does?
(Disclaimer: I'm not a british citizen but I highly appreciate what the BBC does.)
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Hemingway ruined english class for pretty much EVERYONE. Don't put him in the same class as Cobain.
Fixed that for you.
Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
Smug superiority? He was a criminal that killed himself after putting the lives of many innocent people at risk. Most people ARE better than that piece of human garbage.
That's funny, because the societies that protect the weak tend to be the strongest in the world, while those that persecute the weak tend to end up in the dustbin of history. Perhaps this is because a compassionate society that cares for its weaker members makes everyone stronger. And perhaps mental illness doesn't hurt society nearly as much as the traits of indifference and contempt.
Honestly, the thing I find most distasteful about the whole episode is the sanctimonious hypocrisy of both the oh-so-apologetic talking head and the oh-so-outraged critics.
They televise high speed police chases because televised hunting of humans for sport is illegal in most other contexts. That's just bread and butter airtime filler, not even worth mentioning; but suddenly everyone is oh-so-shocked when one such chase comes to an unpleasant end(as many do, although usually because of a crash which is rather more sanitary from the air). If the most overtly adversarial collisions of suspects and police are going to be just another flavor of live entertainment, suck it up and be honest about what you've been doing all along when something visibly messy happens. If you don't actually want that, then maybe a different flavor of 'news' would be in order...
The music industry, in attempting to sell the world "the next nirvana" was what ruined POP MUSIC during the 90's. If that's all you listened to, that's your fault. Kurt Cobain was an artist in the truest sense of the word, caring about nothing other than creating what he saw as art.
He may also be simply pulling it out of his ass. It may have some truth to it if you either limit it to the 20th century or later or if you exclude those enslaved from being categorized as weaker members of society, but without those provisos, it's almost laughably false.
Up until the 20th century, social safety nets didn't really exist. The closest to it were debtors prisons, indentured servitude and even outright slavery. And it's hard to argue that Roman, Egyptian and the European Monarchy societies aren't the strongest in history given how long the period was when they were the dominant societies on earth.
That's funny, because the societies that protect the weak tend to be the strongest in the world, while those that persecute the weak tend to end up in the dustbin of history.
Thats true... of the societies that protect the weak from the strong. That is, from being victimized by the strong.
That is not and never will be true concerning protecting adult people from themselves. In that case, there is no victim. Pretending that there is amounts to treating chronological adults like mental and spiritual infants. The only effect it can have is to cripple and retard their ability to deal with reality, make sound decisions, and actually live life. In fact that would be a living death. It would destroy the joy, meaning, and purpose that life has to offer.
It also makes it easier to institute a totalitarian cradle-to-grave state, because adults who cannot deal with reality and make good decisions need some kind of authority to tell them how to live. That's bad for everyone.
Perhaps this is because a compassionate society that cares for its weaker members makes everyone stronger.
Sometimes compassion requires the fortitude to respect the way people want to live (or not live) their lives, and to restrain your urge to appoint yourself the judge and jury concerning how they should deal with life.
Besides which, if there are no sometimes dire consequences and no bad examples, how do you expect someone to mature into a person who is fully human? You can't do that if you cannot make your own decisions and reap the consequences. No matter how hard you try.
And perhaps mental illness doesn't hurt society nearly as much as the traits of indifference and contempt.
I hate to break it to you but there are plenty of criminals who are not mentally ill (i.e. not legally insane). Some people are simply evil and they understand fully what they are doing. Your compassion is wasted on such people -- they interpret it as weakness and exploitability. In fact the more sociopathic types will let you believe you're doing good so long as they can take advantage of you. You have to have the judgment to tell the difference. There is no algorithm for doing so.
To speculate, did you ever think that by the time the chase ended, perhaps this individual preferred death over being pounded in the ass by Bubba for a couple of decades? Maybe you would have chosen Bubba, but you must admit someone else might not.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Oh, censorship is now okay if you don't like what is shown. This is why DMCA and such exist - because people are willing to compromise free speech.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Is it compassion to force someone that wants to die to live?
I agree with your indictment of the US prison system, but I wanted to zoom out and try to answer this question in isolation.
I can understand the argument that if the person is a legal adult of sound mind, they are due a certain amount of autonomy over their life. However, people who commit suicide are rarely of sound mind. Decisions made in the heat of the moment are often not what you really want.
IMO, it's compassion to help end the suffering of someone who is terminally ill and in pain and wishes to die. It is also compassion to protect a mentally ill person who is at risk of self-harm from the worst effects of their illness.
Whether this case is closer to the former or the latter, I'll leave to a moral philosopher to judge.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
why does it need to be removed? if you don't want to see it - don't watch it.
if you don't want other people to see it - 1. don't post links to it and 2. stop trying to control what other people can and cannot willingly see.
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
The problem that a lot of people have with this attitude is that it sounds like you're making excuses why nothing needs fixing. Most people don't turn to crime because they are inherently evil. Most people turn to crime because life dealt them a bad hand.
I find people will find or create whatever perception is convenient for them, with "convenient" meaning they do not have to change their perspective. Bonus points if they get to tell someone else how wrong they are, perhaps with condemnatory vitriol.
To say "nothing needs fixing" misses the point. Governments tend to become tyrannical. That's just a fact and has been a repeating pattern throughout history. Does that mean we just give up and submit to tyranny? No. It means we need constant vigilence. Crime is the same way. No, what people want is some kind of simple, easy, painless, one-shot Final Ultimate Perfect Solution that brings Heaven to Earth. They will remain disappointed.
If you want to talk of attitudes that are tiresome, this "life dealt them a bad hand" nonsense is a good start. I have both read about and personally known people who grew up under terrible conditions. Poverty, child abuse, neglect, gang violence, you name it. Some of it frankly makes me want to puke.
The people fitting that description whom I have met also happen to be some of the noblest and most kind-hearted individuals I have ever known. They didn't use their rough life as an excuse to menace and victimize others. They seem to understand that victimizing others just creates more people who will have the upbringing that they had, and they don't wish to perpetuate it.
So we are left, then, with what you seem to find inconvenient. There is at some point a difference between the criminals who had a rough life and think it's okay to create more victims, and those who had horrible upbringings and became wonderful people in spite of everything. What is the difference then? I say it's the nature of the person. Some struggle against the evil that was placed inside of them and lose. Others are victorious. It's a mysterious thing. It doesn't lend itself to the easy answers we always want. Why is that so hard to accept? We have become so arrogant as a society that we think we can scientifically explain every last detail of the universe?
I love logic. Logic works for problems within its domain. This isn't one of them. This requires a more organic understanding, spiritual if you like, though that's a rather loaded word these days, since people think that's something you get from a book, a leader, or pretty much anywhere except inside yourself.
Like I said, sometimes a rabid dog needs to be put down. You can speculate about where rabies originally came from, but you won't find any ultimate answers.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein