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.'"

Comments

Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the best form of population control , and do involve a bit of Darwin. Can we atleast not interfere in this one? Already we interfere with him by using medical stuff

Re:Copycat suicides

[fm6]

So tired of the "Darwin" meme. It expresses a sense of smug superiority that is entirely undeserved.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

Murder is "at best" a form of population control, and certainly involves "Darwin" - the strongest murderers survive. Can we at least not interfere in this one?

Let's face it: suicide happens. You'll get far more suicides happening by not talking about it than you will by revealing the truth to people - even if a few copycat suicides in the immediate aftermath are inevitable. Hint: people don't just kill themselves because they've seen a death, but may simply have seen a method for doing something they wanted to do anyway.

Mediterranean and Middle Eastern countries are far less hypocritical with the news than Anglo-Saxon countries, frequently showing gruesome injuries or cadavers. If you're going to report the "news", it cannot just be the things which echo your opinions or which make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

tl;dr We cannot be as Victoria who pulls down the shutter to her Royal Train when travelling past the Dark Satanic Mills which society has built.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, nobody who dies from suicide could possibly have ever contributed anything to the benefit of society.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face it: suicide happens. You'll get far more suicides happening by not talking about it than you will by revealing the truth to people - even if a few copycat suicides in the immediate aftermath are inevitable. Hint: people don't just kill themselves because they've seen a death, but may simply have seen a method for doing something they wanted to do anyway.

This is true, but they've noticed correlations between different ways that suicide is discussed and the suicide rate following it. The suicide rate tends to go down if it is discussed in a way that includes urging people who are thinking about it to get help. However, when someone's glorified for their suicide and no one says to get help if you're thinking about it, suicide rates tend to go up. Of course, that's all just correlation, not causation, but it is interesting.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! Kurt Cobain was MURDERED, dammit! It's a goddamn cover up! Don't buy it!

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

That's understandable - people who wanted to do it might be pushed over the edge in the few days after. But, looking again at context, I'm not sure that the statistic is very useful. In the long term, does a graphic depiction of suicide cause people to talk about suicide more? And does that cause people to get help?

Of course things can be horrible for first/third party survivors of the immediate copycat methods, but would they have eventually attempted suicide anyway? IOW does anyone seriously think that not talking about suicide stops people ever killing themselves?

In the long term, it seems better to confront reality rather than to pan away the moment someone might be in danger of revealing it.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

Cobain ruined music for pretty much all of the 90's. Don't put him in the same class as Hemingway.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Kevin Fishburne]

The good news is that invoking the Darwin meme doesn't make one immune from it.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the results of real evolution?

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

It is entirely best that the weak-minded remove themselves from the lifestream. That you do not seem to understand this puts you in the camp of the weak-minded. Please find a gun and do us all a favor.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Mitchell314]

Not to mention life choices != the gene pool. If you make a choice that greatly increases your chances at removal from the gene pool, that does not mean you are removing a set of genes responsible for the lack of survival until reproduction.

tl;dr: Grandparent doesn't understand natural selection, in addition to being a pretentious prick.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Sephwrath]

Who said weak minded... it's the weak, and YOU posted anonymously... so... well... draw your own conclusions...

Re:Copycat suicides

[asmkm22]

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.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true, but they've noticed correlations between different ways that suicide is discussed and the suicide rate following it.

We should punish the "quote on quote" professional (NOT done the with quotes) NEWS (end quote) organization that aired it.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Auroch]

Hemingway ruined english class for pretty much EVERYONE. Don't put him in the same class as Cobain.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Snaller]

Could we have your name and address so we can make sure not to help you WHEN you get sick and infirm.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Copycat suicides

[AK Marc]

Suicide is a pretty stupid way, and does manage to remove ones self from the gene pool (especially since most suicides are done pre-procreation).

Re:Copycat suicides

[pla]

So tired of the "Darwin" meme. It expresses a sense of smug superiority that is entirely undeserved.

Get over it - The rest of us have gotten tired of modern society depriving Darwin of his due. We have too many goddamned people on the planet. The more that remove themselves from it, the better.

In this case, we get a double win, because the taxpayers would have ended up having to pay for food, housing, medical care, and basic cable for this waste of flesh for the next few years. This could only get any better if we see a wave of copycats trying to make the news - Bring 'em on, boys! I'll gladly give you my attention for your 15 seconds of fame as payment.

Good riddance.

Re:Copycat suicides

[AK Marc]

From looking at different cultures, it seems the suicide rate decreases when it is talked about continuously, as opposed to the US way of talking about it everywhere for 24-48 hours after each one then silence until the next.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice ad hom.

Re:Copycat suicides

[blue trane]

The fact that suicides keep happening is evidence that memes > genes.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

There are better ways: colonize space. Economic reasons are not valid, since Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

I think you just want to be mean for its own sake, and are using economics as an excuse. Don't worry though when we take that excuse away, you can still be mean on the internet without physically affecting people's lives for no good reason.

Re:Copycat suicides

[macinnisrr]

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.

Re:Copycat suicides

[TFAFalcon]

Is it compassion to force someone that wants to die to live? Let's look at the person who committed suicide here - he was probably going to prison, and knowing US prisons death might have been a less cruel alternative. So why not let him die on his own terms?

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

Committing suicide doesn't seem to have stopped them from contributing to society.

Re:Copycat suicides

[fm6]

The more that remove themselves from it, the better.

Since you feel so strongly about it, why don't you kill yourself. I don't suppose your genes would be missed either. My guess: you have a big ego that says your life is more important than anybody else. Which gets me back to the smug sense of superiority.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

You said:

Copycat suicides are the best form of population control.

Proceed.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Culture20]

When a society is successful, it finally has the luxury of protecting its weakest members. You may have your cause and effect reversed.

Re:Copycat suicides

[fm6]

The bad news is that proving your stupidity by invoking brainless memes doesn't cause immediate death,

Re:Copycat suicides

[fm6]

I got a flamebait and a troll, but they were still overwealmed by insightfuls. Maybe Slashdot is finally growing up.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

That first part didn't make any sense.

And some lives are worth more than others. We take years from peoples' finite lives, with imprisonment, all the time. We execute people. We war with enemies. I'm afraid our species has agreed that different lives have different value since the beginning of our history.

The "life" of the guy that shot himself in the video was worth less than most, according to both him and most of the rest of the world. I know it's polite to argue otherwise, but it's the only rational observation.

So while I applaud your politeness, and appreciate that you feel strongly about it, your conclusions are inconsistent with reality.

Re:Copycat suicides

[russotto]

Hey, maybe those people were just pissed off at society taking their contributions and treating them like dirt, and decided to go on strike in a rather final way. If that's the case, trying to stop the suicide is just strikebreaking.

Turing particularly got the short end of the stick; Van Gogh famously sold only one painting in his lifetime, not counting "sales" to his brother. He also ate his paint and likely wouldn't have produced what he did if he wasn't crazy already.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the real story here. Not that he committed suicide, but that he'd rather die than get caught (again?). Every law we have and every rule we enforce is about being a deterrant to going to jail. When death is more attractive than jail, laws no longer mean anything.

They'll want to control how much this video gets around for this reason. It's not about people seeing a suicide, it's about the awareness that death is a more viable solution than jail for many.

It's a video embodiment of "nothing to lose", and that sort of thing scares the people who have much to lose rather shitless and for good reason.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

Your statement does not make sense. You are claiming POP music was ruined and then blame someone for only listening to POP music. What is your point with that? You liked pop music and thought it died with Nirvana? Pop music is by definition popular music. It is what it is regardless of how it became the most popular or the current trend among most people at the time. There are some good and some bad but there is always alternatives if you don't want what is shoved down your throat by the music business. Nothing died with Cobain other than Cobain and him making more music. There are many people just as dedicated to nothing but making music and the art of making music for hundreds of years before and for the next hundred years but because you may not like what they make or never heard of them because they are not "pop" does not mean they do not exist.

Re:Copycat suicides

[vga_init]

In all seriousness, though, while people do kill themselves sometimes, evolution does play a role here. People who are resistant to suicide are more likely to reproduce and spread their genes, so the problem of suicide is not likely to ever be a serious problem on a mass social scale, or even a threat to the survival of our species.

Re:Copycat suicides

[pla]

Since you feel so strongly about it, why don't you kill yourself.

1) I have not chosen to do so - Yet. If (when) I get a terminal disease or crippling disability, I have no qualms about ending it all rather than suffering pointlessly. This putz did choose to do so, making a fairly rational choice to die rather than enjoy a prolonged stay with the notoriously rapey US penal system.
2) I currently contribute to society by virtue of belonging to the 53% who do pay taxes. As opposed to our corpse-of-the-day, who had just gotten busted for carjacking - And keep in mind an armed carjacker, meaning he counts as "only" a carjacker and not a murderer by the pure luck of not having met the wrong guy in the car he jacked.
3) If I "feel strongly about it", I do so only out of annoyance, to see so many hypocrites railing against the "news" (for lack of a better word to describe what Fox broadcasts) showing this guy dying. Yet we actively go to other countries to kill brown people and we pay to see far more gory scenes in movies as pure entertainment; FFS, this only made the news because Fox knows their audience wanted to see something "exciting" happen. So many people suddenly "care" about this worthless POS, yet if Fox hadn't broadcast it, 99% of them would never even have heard about it - Just as they didn't notice the other 2700 suicides that day.


My guess: you have a big ego that says your life is more important than anybody else.

I can think of tons of people far more important than me. I act as little more than a cog - A productive member of society, but no one special. So... Bzzzt. Better luck with your next baseless assumption.


Which gets me back to the smug sense of superiority.

Gets you back to it? You didn't mention it before that random aside. Anyway, call me crazy but yeah, I do kinda consider myself a bit better than a carjacker. And if that bothers you, ask yourself which you'd rather run into in a dark parking lot - A callous bastard, or a murderous thug.

Re:Copycat suicides

[causality]

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.

Re:Copycat suicides

[icebraining]

That seems hard to believe, since the elderly have an higher suicide rate than the average. Got any sources on that?

Re:Copycat suicides

[causality]

Not to mention life choices != the gene pool.

I agree with the literal meaning but I don't share your desire to dismiss the idea entirely.

Life choices tend to represent life style. It's more of a cultural matter where upbringing and social environment intersects with the degree to which that person is an individual. People who get themselves killed (deliberately or accidentally) are not affecting the gene pool very much.

What they are doing is providing an example of what one who follows that life style ("path" if you like) can expect. For example, you can look at the kind of life the average crackhead has and that alone will convince a rational person not to become a crackhead.

What they are doing is removing their influence from those who may not be so individualistic, who may copycat because someone else did it, who are impressionable rather than rational when shown a bad example.

Call it mental or social or some kind of non-physical unnatural selection.

Re:Copycat suicides

[causality]

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.

A lot of people have this perverted sense of compassion that involves sympathy for the Devil himself, so that they may show everyone what a great and noble person they are. The compassion would rightly be for those he endangered. The criminal himself is not a victim.

And there also seems to be a great deal of denial about the fact that once in a while, a rabid dog needs to be put down. No one wants to put it down, but it cannot be reasoned with and it can only pose a threat. Ideally "put down" means imprisonment and rehabilitation so they can go on to live a decent life, but sometimes it happens the way this story did. It's a harsh reality that seems to drive many into some kind of fluffy-bunny world where nothing is ever truly bad. Those very same people can sleep soundly at night only because the police and military are willing to do their violence or threat of violence for them. But they like to forget that.

Re:Copycat suicides

[icebraining]

Supposedly, they are only hypocrites if they personally supported the "killing of brown people". The fact that the majority of the country did or not support the wars doesn't make them hypocrites.

As for the gory scenes in movies, you do realize that nobody actually dies when that happens, right? I don't know about you, but I personally happen to respect real people more than I respect characters of fiction, and that includes watching their deaths.

So many people suddenly "care" about this worthless POS

I have no idea if this is true, but have you considered the fact that they may not actually care about him, but about not wanting to be part of a society that live broadcasts people's suicides, or live chases for that matter?

Personally, I don't live in such society and I can tell you that I'm pretty glad for that fact.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

The suicide rate tends to go down if it is discussed in a way that includes urging people who are thinking about it to get help.

Suicide is not to be avoided at all costs. It doesn't even have to be sad. It's among the few remaining taboos of the Western society.

It should be possible to commit suicide without spoiling other peoples' lives (or day). People crash their cars and hurt innocents. People jump in front of trains and make other people clean up the mess and miss their appointments. People hang themselves and make their loved ones find them. People try to end their lives but end up only injuring themselves badly.

Our culture should somehow incorporate ethical, clean ways to end one's life. Maybe a government office where you have to show up three times at two-week intervals expressing (confidentially) your unvawering intent of committing suicide. On your third appointment you are given a pill that takes you out without pain and without risk of surviving. A note would be delivered to the family.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "culling the herd"

Stupid people do stupid things... like killing themselves. People who are serious in their "suicide attempts" succeed. People who are obnoxious and manipulative "attempt" suicide but fail (because they are not really trying, they are just manipulating others more forcefully).

it is morally wrong to try to stop a suicide or to grieve over one. In trying to stop one, you interfere with somebody's free will. In grieving one, you insult the choice freely made. In trying to stop one, you are interfering while a creature (that is clearly unfit to survive) tries not to survive; this is an offense against evolution.

Let the lemmings leap off the cliff... in fact, make them signs and well-lit, well-paved streets leading to the cliffs... In fact, we should probably have a police force to help the lemmings off the cliff (the police being more fit to survive and all that stuff)...

We're all into evolution here on Slashdot aren't we? If not, then I guess we're all (begin spooky haloween voice)anti-science(end spooky haloween voice)

Sorry, but I am always so very amused by people who adhere to the most impersonal and violent belief system imaginable suddenly going all squishy when some individual creature (which should be just one insignificant creature in a herd of evolved animals) malfunctions and dies... Surely a creature that takes its own life is even more of an evolutionary screw-up than one that is killed and eaten by others (and is thus at least a link in the food chain). What's the problem here for slashdotters? What's wrong with it? Why should we look away? Why shouldn't we air it? Why is it even bad that it happened?

Re:Copycat suicides

[fm6]

People who spout "Darwinian principles" always seem to have a really poor notion of how evolution works. If there were any survival value to being "resistant to suicide" than why do we still have people killing themselves? People are more complicated than that.

Often depressive tendenciers are part of complicated, creative personalities that manage to accomplish great things before they have a depressive attack and kill themselves for no good reason. Iris Chang. Jeremey Boorda, Del Shannon, Gary Webb, Kurt Cobain, David Foster Wallace. These people all did stuff that made life better and more interesting for other people. When they offed themselves, a lot of people were pretty damned sorry about it, and with good reason.

And they all lived long enough to have children. So much for "evolution".

Probably the guy on Fox was just having a bad day. (I don't know anything about that episode, and don't want to.) In other words, like most suicides, he was just screwed up. Is just being screwed up bad for your species? Then I guess half the people on Slashdot should probably kill themselves.
.
People who smugly devalue the lives of others are not making a good case for the value of their lives.

Re:Copycat suicides

[fm6]

Oh jeez, you're one of those 53% idiots. Your tendency to swallow political cliches without any sanity checking does not argue for your intelligence. If we had a eugenics comitttee that allocated the right to reproduce, you'd clearly be on the bottom of the list.

Fortunately, the Nazis made that approach to social engineering unfashionable (pretty much their only positive contribution to evolution), so you're free to reproduce. Which is fine with me, because it's perfectly possible for your children to be smarter than you. Just keep them away from the TV set and find someone to teach them a few critical thinking skills.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Pseudonym]

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.

Re:Copycat suicides

[okmijnuhb]

What the Darwin Awards are missing is that the person may have already procreated prior to dying in a spectacular way.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Will.Woodhull]

Generally the living regard their status as better than the alternative, so from their point of view, they are entitled to feel superior to those who have offed themselves in obviously stupid ways.

But I do see that the Darwin meme is often an expression of "I haven't been that stupid, yet." It really is not appropriate for anyone under 40 to use it.

Now get off my lawn...

Re:Copycat suicides

[Will.Woodhull]

There are harsh words in parent post. Not really untrue, but very harsh to the delicate ears of slashdotters.

But rather than Darwin awards, the better method of population control is to support the GLBT in their efforts to establish gay marriage rights, and so on. Each gay marriage removes TWO individuals from the reproductive circus. We need much more of that happening.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Pseudonym]

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 tacit assumption that society is working on here is that anyone who wants to commit suicide by definition has something wrong with them. Almost of the time, this is even probably true. (Sometimes that's even okay; consider voluntary medical euthanasia, which only makes sense if the patient in question does have something seriously wrong with them.)

There is no "pretending" in the case where someone is mentally ill, or otherwise not in control of themselves. A person in that state is not a fully functioning adult.

Having said that, there's an interesting question as to whether or not it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. But I'll leave that thought hanging there for now.

Perhaps this is because a compassionate society that cares for its weaker members makes everyone stronger.

[...]
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.

This is not a binary decision. Yes, we need people who learn from their mistakes, which is usually the only way to learn certain lessons. OTOH, nobody would advocate teaching doctors the importance of washing their hands by letting them discover for themselves that not doing so results in dead patients.

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?

All the more reason for society to protect the weak from the strong.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Pseudonym]

A lot of people have this perverted sense of compassion that involves sympathy for the Devil himself, so that they may show everyone what a great and noble person they are. The compassion would rightly be for those he endangered. The criminal himself is not a victim.

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'm going to assume that we're not talking about crimes of opportunity and victimless crimes like drug possession or use, and concentrate on the people we really think of as "criminals" and who are accurately defined by that title. These criminals are, generally speaking, either good people for whom crime was the easiest option, or bad people who weren't affluent enough to become CEOs.

Either way, society has to take at least some of the responsibility for creating most criminals.

If things had been even a little different in your life, you could have been this guy. No amount of using distancing language like "Devil", "not a victim", and "rabid dog" changes the fact that there but for the grace of $DEITY go you.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is still a perfect example of evolution in action, and hence Darwin-Award-worthy. He had the urge to commit suicide, and prevented himself from breeding - so, to the extent that it's genetically determined, the urge to commit suicide is now slightly rarer in the human gene pool.

Re:Copycat suicides

[causality]

The tacit assumption that society is working on here is that anyone who wants to commit suicide by definition has something wrong with them.

You so very conveniently ignored the final stanza of my post.

We do not know for sure, and that includes you, but I doubt seriously that this man was planning from the start to kill himself. It was a rash decision he made when he found out that most criminals who engage in high-speed chases do get caught and he wasn't going to be the exception. At that moment, it could not be undone, he had two choices and only two choice: get pounded in the ass by Bubba and anyone else who thinks he has a pretty mouth, possibly for decades, or take the suicide route. He chose door number two.

Why would he have even bothered with the chase if he just wanted to die? Think about it. Someone who plans from the start to shoot himself has no reason to run from the cops. I believe that if he had gotten away from them, he would have tried his luck as a fugitive.

Re:Copycat suicides

[causality]

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.

Re:Copycat suicides

[causality]

The "life" of the guy that shot himself in the video was worth less than most, according to both him and most of the rest of the world. I know it's polite to argue otherwise, but it's the only rational observation.

Time and again it happens that people quickly abandon rationality the moment it doesn't say what they want it to say.

This is especially true for any sort of "what would other people think of me if I were truly honest about this?" type of issues. Because to most, what other people would think and winning their petty approval of who you are is far, FAR more important than rationality, than making sense.

The real irony is that if their opinion were worth a damn, if they were any kind of person worth taking seriously, they would respect your opinion whether or not they agreed with it and approval would be removed from the equation. But such people, which I call actual adults, are quite rare.

Re:Copycat suicides

[causality]

So you see then the hyper-emotional, irrational style of "argumentation" from what are nowadays average people. That one was merely their de facto representative.

The way average people think is entirely at the mercy of what they like and dislike. He didn't personally like what you said, therefore in his mind, you must be objectively wrong. It follows (in twisted, perverted emotional "logic") that anything he says against you must therefore be in accordance with rational thinking.

You might not believe it, but deep down, if you dig deeply enough, it's a roundabout way of declaring oneself a sort of "god", and you definitely don't blaspheme "god" or you suffer "god's wrath" (usually some kind of belittling or degrading tone). It is dressed up in the language of pseudo-rationalism of course. The giveaway is that it's full of personal attacks instead of an explanation for why your position is faulty.

Most of the human race operates this way. It's why nothing ever really changes, even when it does. Oh and the killing of a bunch of brown people who aren't really a threat to us, that's "legitimized" because a "bigger god" in the form of government has approved it. Put the right symbol behind something and lots of emotional thinkers will get behind it. Advertisers exploit this every day. The hilarious thing is that people who do not understand this will whine about "yeah well it works even MORE on YOU since you are daring to criticize it!" yeah well manipulation tends not to work so well when you know that you are being manipulated, you know who is doing it, and you know what they want to gain from doing so. But of course they're "god" and I am not, so what do I know...

Re:Copycat suicides

[causality]

People who smugly devalue the lives of others are not making a good case for the value of their lives.

So you speak of people who peacefully post opinions on a Web site as equals to people who steal cars, wave guns around, lead police on dangerous chases, and finally off themselves when they realize arrest is otherwise unavoidable?

Is this more of that "oh no, all lifestyles are perfectly 100% equal, just different" garbage? I guess the average mass murderer is really just misunderstood?

What you devalue is the fact that this man had choices to make and he chose poorly. You act like that just "happened", as if he had nothing to do with it. It's a war against individuality and you have apparently chosen the wrong side.

Re:Copycat suicides

[causality]

This is true, but they've noticed correlations between different ways that suicide is discussed and the suicide rate following it.

Sometimes I think that the ability to collect detailed statistics about social issues is one of the worst things that ever happened to society.

Re:Copycat suicides

[zippthorne]

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.

You make some interesting points, but this "prison rape is part of the punishment" meme is particularly worrisome. First, there is the tacit assumption that prison rape is common, or at least significantly more common than base-rate rape. If true, we are not designing our prisons and guard procedures responsibly.

Next, and perhaps more disturbing, is the idea that this is ok, and even expected. After all, everyone in prison is a subhuman criminal and therefore deserves any treatment they get no matter how terrible, right?

This idea is so ingrained that it's even made light of in comedy movies (Office Space, for one..)

Re:Copycat suicides

[fm6]

So you speak of people who peacefully post opinions on a Web site as equals to people who steal cars, wave guns around, lead police on dangerous chases, and finally off themselves when they realize arrest is otherwise unavoidable?

Well, yes, actually. Because (and this is the part you're not paying attention to), I'm arguing against people devaluing the lives of other people.

Re:Copycat suicides

[fm6]

Is this more of that "oh no, all lifestyles are perfectly 100% equal, just different" garbage?

No, I don 't think becoming, say, a murderer, is just a "lifestyle choice". I might even concede that society has the right to punish the murderer extremely and permanently.

But that's punishing the murderer for what he does not for what he is. You can't control what people are. Societies that try are commonly known as totalitarian. I assume we're both against that?

Anyway, it's a long way from saying, "A murderer deserves to die", to "a suicide is a loser who has done society a favor". Punishing murderers is about society protecting itself from dangerous people. Discounting the lives of suicides is ignorant, stupid, and expressive of a smug sense of superiority.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you measure success? It's when that society protects its weakest members. Your point may be circular.

Re:Copycat suicides

[SA_Democrat]

No sure what planet you live on, but on mine, GLBT people have and raise children. (Hint fertilisation of an egg doesn't require a man and a woman to share a sexual encounter). From your somewhat weird point of view, you may be interested to know that children raised by parents who are homosexual, are less likely to be homosexual themselves. If you see that as a problem, you should probably take all of the children away from the hetero parents.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

So tired of the "Darwin" meme. It expresses a sense of smug superiority that is entirely undeserved.

A sense of smug superiority? Well, if not being unhinged/stupid enough to lead cops on a wild car chase then blow my own brains out makes me "smugly superior" then I guess I am. As are the vast majority of people.

OP's comment may well be cold and harsh, but there's a modicum of truth in there.

Oh, and let's face it, this is the USA. If he hadn't shot himself in the head I'm sure the cops would have done it for him. The guy clearly had a death wish. Let's not take that away from him.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Explain how the USA is the world's no.1 economy and superpower then?
You guys don't give a shit about your "weaker" members of society.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

..and where his next fix was coming from.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Suicide is a pretty stupid way ..."

It has nothing to do with intelligence. You know nothing about Suicide, so pretending you do is especially offensive. Calling someone stupid because they killed themselves is patently absurd.

Re:Copycat suicides

[In hydraulis]

Ad hominem and Godwin in one.

You lose! Good day sir!

Re:Copycat suicides

[fm6]

Good lord. You have an entire argument about inferior certain people are, and when I point out how your arguments bounce back on you, I'm the one being ad hominem?

If you parse my post a little more carefully, you'll notice I wasn't calling you a Nazi.. I was citing the Nazi's ironically. Subtle concept, I agree, but I'm sure you can grasp if if you concentrate.

Re:Copycat suicides

[AK Marc]

Smart people do stupid things. You are stupidly confusing a stupid act with a stupid person. You must be stupid.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Hognoxious]

They aren't missing anything. They've just taken into account the roughly 50% chance that any offspring will have the retarded gene.

What's more: http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/rules1.html

"Removing ones genes from the pool clearly has less merit if the genes have already been passed on to several offspring, unless you can rely on the offspring to also find creative ways of eliminating their genes before they reproduce. Thus, a weighting factor should be applied to the criteria, giving maximum benefit to a victim who has never procreated, decreasing as the number of offspring increases."

In short, don't believe everything your pastor tells you, fatty.

Re:Copycat suicides

[AK Marc]

That seems hard to believe, since teens have a higher suicide rate than average. Got any sources on that?

Re:Copycat suicides

[icebraining]

Yes: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a8.htm?s_cid=mm6128a8_w

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

Kurt Cobain was a whining brat. Just because he was your hero during your angsty years doesn't mean he was an artist. Unless by artist you mean douche. You have no idea what art is if you think Cobain was good.

He is the perfect example of what you should never let your kids know exists.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Zero__Kelvin]

Again, you don't have the slightest understanding of suicide, so STFU. Furthermore, you specifically claimed that it supports darwinism by removing stupid people from the gene pool, so you sound especially stupid trying to claim that you were not saying the people were stupid for doing it. Claiming that most suicides are done pre-procreation was just the icing on the cake of your ignorance and stupidity. Go back and read what you wrote and then your last reply so you can finally understand why everyone keeps calling you an ignorant idiot all the time.

Re:Copycat suicides

[AK Marc]

Again, you don't have the slightest understanding of suicide, so STFU.

I have a degree in psychology. What's your training?

Furthermore, you specifically claimed that it supports darwinism by removing stupid people from the gene pool, so you sound especially stupid trying to claim that you were not saying the people were stupid for doing it.

I think you are working really hard to find things to complain about. I never said that the people removed from the gene pool are stupid. I said it is a stupid act, and removes the people who did it from the gene pool.

Claiming that most suicides are done pre-procreation was just the icing on the cake of your ignorance and stupidity.

Really? Well, not a single person has posted something that directly contradicts it. What percentage of suicides leave surviving progeny? I've seen and had quoted to me statistics about age, but none are collected, as far as I can tell, about whether they had children.

Go back and read what you wrote and then your last reply so you can finally understand why everyone keeps calling you an ignorant idiot all the time.

Nobody has called me an ignorant idiot in this thread, let alone do so on any regular basis. And I stand by what I said. Killing yourself is a stupid act. Killing yourself when you don't have children removes you from the gene pool. Thus, that does qualify every suicide for a darwin award, even if not the "official" one.

Re:Copycat suicides

[AK Marc]

More middle aged suicides than make it in the press, where I guess every teen suicide makes the news, and none of the others, unless caught on camera, or a woman murder-suiciding her children. So the next question is what percentage of each has children? There's nothing that says an 18 year old is necessarily childless and an 80 year old has one or more...

Re:Copycat suicides

[Zero__Kelvin]

"I have a degree in psychology. What's your training?"

I can spot a lying idiot from the other end of an Internet connection.

" I've seen and had quoted to me statistics about age, but none are collected, as far as I can tell, about whether they had children."

So you concede that you were talking out your paper asshole when you made the statement. At least we agree on something now.

"Nobody has called me an ignorant idiot in this thread, let alone do so on any regular basis."

I guess you cannot read, since I called you exactly that in this thread. Furthermore, I guarantee you plenty of people call you that all of the time.

"And I stand by what I said. Killing yourself is a stupid act. "

And for the win, the proof that you are not a qualified psychologist, and that you now contradict yourself and once again, re-assert that the person is stupid for killing themselves after saying you didn't say so and calling me stupid.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Will.Woodhull]

Gee, what can I say? I failed to state that to 5 significant figures, the number of potential parents removed from the reproductive circus in every committed gay or lesbian relationship is 2.0000 Does that now make you happy?

Also, 97.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Silly rabbit. Get off of my lawn.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

What the Darwin Awards are missing is that the person may have already procreated prior to dying in a spectacular way.

Procreation in a spectacular way would qualify for the Darwin awards for awesomeness.

Re:Copycat suicides

[AK Marc]

I can spot a lying idiot from the other end of an Internet connection.

Well, like so many other things, you are wrong. However, there is no way to prove it, is there? Should I email you a photo of me next to my psychology degree? But then, I expect it wouldn't change your mind about anything, so not worth my time. You are wrong on every count and don't even bother to read what I wrote.

Killing yourself is a stupid act.

And for the win, the proof that you are not a qualified psychologist, and that you now contradict yourself and once again, re-assert that the person is stupid for killing themselves after saying you didn't say so and calling me stupid.

You are failing to differentiate between a stupid act and a stupid person. Further, it contradicts nothing I've previously said. And I fail to see how it proves I'm not a qualified psychologist. "Stupid" is not a technical term, and most psychologists are against suicide, and such a decision is to be frowned upon, and many people express such disapproval with negative words, such as "stupid". Thus, I would argue that saying suicide is "stupid" is consistent with psychological tenets.

Of course, what you say to some jackass on the Internet who calls you a liar for telling the unpleasant truth is different than what one says in a clinical envoronement. Here, put this one through your BS meter

When I was in high school, before any psychology degree (or a BS in BS, as I like to call it), there was gentleman named Andy was well known to have psychological problems, having been in and out of school for various reasons. One day, he walked up to me and asked me to help him kill himself. He expressed that he was interested in doing so in a manner that didn't look like a suicide so that his family could collect the insurance. As we were on the 3rd floor, near a window, I offered the suggestion that a fall from the 3rd story would likely be fatal, especially if one landed on the sidewalk, and told him that we'd have to come up with a plan to make such a fall look like an accident and not a deliberate jump. He agreed it seemed plausible, and we parted to go to class. I kept a little of an eye on him as he went to his class, and mine was the other way. I walked straight into the principals office and sat down. I told the principal, "Andy just asked me to help him kill himself." As a general smartass, I had a reputation as such. She asked, "Are you serious." I said "Yes." She said, "Thank you, I'll take care of it." I went to class. I told nobody else what happened. He wasn't in class the next day, or the next 6 weeks after. When he did return, I was worried he'd be mad at me, but he approached me after he was back in school to thank me.

So, BS, or not BS? I made sure to add in sufficient adjectives and such to make it seem plausible. I've heard that if you make someone see the scene in their head, they'll consider it true, even if false. Just to make sure it wasn't too easy for you.

Re:Copycat suicides

[causality]

You make some interesting points, but this "prison rape is part of the punishment" meme is particularly worrisome. First, there is the tacit assumption that prison rape is common, or at least significantly more common than base-rate rape. If true, we are not designing our prisons and guard procedures responsibly.

I think it's fucked up and I think that prison administrators who don't do everything possible to discourage it, prevent it, and severely punish anyone who does it are just plain evil.

However, it certainly does happen. Think about it. An inmate is locked in a confined environment with a bunch of people who have already demonstrated lawless and/or violent tendencies, some of whom may be in prison in the first place for raping someone, with little else to do all day except pump iron and establish what are basically sub-groups or gangs with a hierarchical structure. In a place with no women.

Next, and perhaps more disturbing, is the idea that this is ok, and even expected. After all, everyone in prison is a subhuman criminal and therefore deserves any treatment they get no matter how terrible, right?

I hope this never, ever happens, but if you yourself were facing a long prison sentence, are you telling me the possibility of being someone's bitch would never cross your mind? Prison is a dog-eat-dog environment full of aggressive people. It is not an environment where you can keep to yourself, mind your own business, and be left alone. Hell, that's quite difficult to do in regular society because so many people have no life of their own, are meddlesome and self-important, and must insert themselves into every little trivial situation.

This idea is so ingrained that it's even made light of in comedy movies (Office Space, for one..)

If this stereotype were completely 100% baseless and entirely the product of someone's imagination, it would be one of the few I've ever heard of.

At any rate, if you read my previous post and thought I approved of this, you grossly misunderstood what I said. I deliberately made no comment about it one way or the other, except to mention that someone who has already shown he makes rash decisions might have also considered it. Furthermore, I am not one of the mindless sheeple who repeats a meme with no concept of where it came from. The fact that this is ingrained only reinforces the point I was making.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Alex Belits]

Same reason why Sparta was at some point.

Re:Copycat suicides

[causality]

So you speak of people who peacefully post opinions on a Web site as equals to people who steal cars, wave guns around, lead police on dangerous chases, and finally off themselves when they realize arrest is otherwise unavoidable?

Well, yes, actually. Because (and this is the part you're not paying attention to), I'm arguing against people devaluing the lives of other people.

This man devalued his own life. In exactly the opposite way that people who truly respect themselves don't allow themselves to become obese.

But if either of those standards are failed, then there comes the need for excuses.

Re:Copycat suicides

[causality]

But that's punishing the murderer for what he does not for what he is. You can't control what people are.

No, *I* cannot. I can only control what I am. A murderer likewise chose to be what he is.

Societies that try are commonly known as totalitarian [wikipedia.org]. I assume we're both against that?

Yes, we are. Those societies spiral out of control because what they're trying to do is not actually possible.

Anyway, it's a long way from saying, "A murderer deserves to die", to "a suicide is a loser who has done society a favor". Punishing murderers is about society protecting itself from dangerous people. Discounting the lives of suicides is ignorant, stupid, and expressive of a smug sense of superiority.

This is why context must be considered. Someone who murders five people and then turns the gun on himself is indeed doing us all a favor. There is nothing smug about it. The rest of us are better off without him.

This man who off'ed himself merely endangered others. His suicide was just a completely selfish act because he preferred death over facing his crimes. No one forced him to take what he perceived as the easy way out. He willingly chose it. He discounted his own life and nothing you or I may say is going to change that fact.

The real smug sense of superiority is to believe that holding a particular opinion changes one bit the reality of the situation. It's also rather smug to assume that I value my particular opinion about the man's life and what it is worth more than the opinion of the man himself. It was his call to make. I would have told him to face his punishment like someone with a spine and try to turn his life around, but he didn't ask me.

Re:Copycat suicides

[fm6]

I have no idea who you're taking about. Nor am I making excuses for anybody. I'm simply attacking the smug assumption that people give in to depression and kill themselves are simply inferior life forms who deserve to die.

I'm not a Christian, but Mathew 7:1 seems appropriate.

Re:Copycat suicides

[fm6]

Well, speaking of context, how about paying attention to the context I was actually talking about?

Re:Copycat suicides

[Princeofcups]

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.

Except that one of the sources of his depression was that he would be seen as a thief who stole other people's music. There was at least one lawsuit pending when he suicided. That's not a "true artist." It seems that people that vote you up are not able to differentiate the talent of a band that made a few good albums, and the one member who was all angsty and garnered all kinds of attention.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Pseudonym]

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.

I know people from that kind of situation too. However, I don't know about you, but my acquaintances are a highly biassed sample. I generally don't mix with habitual armed robbers. Pretty much everyone I consider a friend is kind hearted, and that includes the ones which had shitty upbringings.

Having said that, many of them are, while not necessarily criminal, still not very well-adjusted, and still have unresolved or partly-resolved problems which have the effect of sometimes hurting other people, even if they intend otherwise. PTSD often breaks up relationships, for example, if the other party isn't wise to it. (I've been the other party. No, I will not elaborate.)

I can easily see how some of this could spill over into criminality if not checked. There are many anti-social methods which people use to keep some psychological semblance of control of a life which is perceived to be out of control. That's one of the key reasons why some people develop eating disorders (to keep control over what people put into their mouths), but it's also one of the key reasons why some people become abusive partners (to control someone else).

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.

Or, to put it another way, it's the luck of the draw. That is, life dealt you a bad hand.

It's interesting that you said "the nature of the person", where I'm concentrating on nurture. What I actually find the most inconvenient is that there is, when you get down to it, no good evidence to call this one either way. The character of a person is undoubtedy a product of both nature and nurture. At the moment, we don't know of exactly where the boundary between the two lies, and it would be highly unethical to find out experimentally.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Pseudonym]

You so very conveniently ignored the final stanza of my post.

You're right. I'd already addressed that point elsewhere in the thread, and so skimmed over it here. I probably shouldn't have done that.

However, I don't think this changes anything I said. I don't think he set out planning to kill himself, and I didn't even imply that I thought that. I think that decision was made (as I put it) "in the heat of the moment". I doubt there was very much rational weighing up of costs and benefits going on at all.

Having said that, the issue of sexual assault in prisons is an important one. It's literally a joke to many people; in fact, it's one of the few types of "rape joke" that's still socially acceptable. No legislator wants to talk about it lest they be seen as "soft on crime" in a society based around retribution rather than justice. Hell, police in the US will actually use it as a threat!

If you're right about this guy, fixing that problem would have resulted in not only less sexual assault in the world, but also fewer innocent people's lives being endangered and one less suicide here. How is that not win-win?

Re:Copycat suicides

[sincewhen]

What I don't understand is how people can rationalise prison rape as an acceptable part of the punishment, yet not be concerned that the rapist and the victim will be let back into society after their terms are served, and expect them to be well adjusted, upright citizens.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Alex Belits]

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.

Government elected by people who believe governments are evil, become evil. It's people like you who are the problem, no, the disease. Of all possible things, this is a discussion about suicide, and it just happens that the best thing you can do for everyone else is to kill yourself.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

2) I currently contribute to society by virtue of belonging to the 53% who do pay taxes.

You don't really believe that 47% do not pay taxes, do you?

You do realize that virtually every single person in the US pays *some* taxes - sales taxes, state income related taxes, state property taxes etc.? And the 47% figure refers specifically to federal income tax?

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

There was at least one lawsuit pending when he suicided.

Are you suggesting that he was killedded?

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

i believe that smug superiority is entirely deserved.

if they take themselves out of the gene pool it shows they were inferior.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

given that rapists are sent to prison, and thus theoretically there is a higher ratio of rapist per capita in prison than in the general population...

then it would surprise me if the rate of rapes in prison is lower than the base-rate outside of prison.

Re:Copycat suicides

[quantaman]

That's the real story here. Not that he committed suicide, but that he'd rather die than get caught (again?). Every law we have and every rule we enforce is about being a deterrant to going to jail. When death is more attractive than jail, laws no longer mean anything.

You really think he was making a rational informed decision?

Re:Copycat suicides

[zippthorne]

They should be rare because prison should be a controlled environment and we should be taking pains to make sure that the opportunities simply do not exist. It should be extremely difficult to commit additional crimes while in prison. Especially particularly heinous crimes.

Re:Copycat suicides

[causality]

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.

Government elected by people who believe governments are evil, become evil. It's people like you who are the problem, no, the disease. Of all possible things, this is a discussion about suicide, and it just happens that the best thing you can do for everyone else is to kill yourself.

As the Founding Fathers observed and wrote about more articulately than I am likely to, and as any decent history book will demonstrate, governments tend to start out with some of the noblest of intentions and then, like all other non-permanent things in this Universe, they start to decay and fail. The failure mode of government is to become increasingly tyrannical and authoritarian, until finally they either collapse under their own weight or are overthrown. The best guard against this is to have limited government which recognized as fundamental various human rights, to give people the ability to participate in said government, and to have as much as possible come from local levels.

Your hatred and vitriol is not really against me, for I have done you no harm. I merely speak the truth concerning the reality of human affairs that you seem desperate to deny. You are merely descending into the realm of "shoot the messenger, that will make the facts go away". No, it won't. My personal death isn't going to stop the USA from becoming increasingly authoritarian, for example. Your great faith in the goodness of government isn't going to stop it either. Large numbers of people standing up and demanding that it stick to its founding principles is the only thing that will do that.

I know it's increasingly trendy on Internet forums to tell other people to die, to kill themselves, etc. You probably think that makes you sound intense and edgy and badass. No, it makes you sound like a pathetic, weak little shell of a man who has no real argument, just a lot of anger and a desperately insecure need to blame it on someone else. I don't hope that you come to any harm at all. I hope that you prosper and come to see your current condition as beneath you, or at the very least, that you mature enough to recognize as unhealthy your hatred of those who have done no harm.

That's the difference between you and I.

Re:Copycat suicides

[causality]

Having said that, the issue of sexual assault in prisons is an important one. It's literally a joke to many people; in fact, it's one of the few types of "rape joke" that's still socially acceptable.

I have a rather expansive sense of humor. In a non-serious context many completely tasteless jokes could be funny, particularly with alcohol involved. But in a serious context, actual rape of actual human beings is not remotely funny. It's demoralizing that so many people think it is.

No legislator wants to talk about it lest they be seen as "soft on crime" in a society based around retribution rather than justice.

You especially see this "soft on crime" bullshit when it comes to non-violent drug offenders who have not victimized anyone. Making the punishment actually fit the crime, or even admitting that sometimes the law invents crimes where no real crime has happened (that is, there is no victim) is what you would expect from a competent and responsible legislator. We generally don't have those. We have approval whores who will pander to anyone if they think it will get them elected. I'm not sure they even have their own beliefs, principles, and convictions. If they do, they certainly don't have the backbone to stand up for them.

Hell, police in the US will actually use it as a threat!

I know that particularly after 9/11 it has become fashionable to glorify police and celebrate their great "heroics". This is sometimes legitimate, but I deal in facts. Police themselves are often violent people. They certainly like to be in control. The kind of power they have is most appealing to sociopaths and fevered egos. You could say it's irresistable. Sociopaths are notorious for their ability to blend in with normal people by saying or doing anything in order to be seen as virtuous.

I have personally met both police officers and firefighters. It's much easier for me to respect someone like a firefighter because their job doesn't provide so many reasons to push people around and act like a tough guy, and I would not hesitate to point out that anyone willing to run into a burning building has some serious balls. It's no surprise to me that police would say or do just about anything they can get away with (which is a lot more than you or I could get away with) if they really want to make someone comply. It seems they can blatantly break the law and inflict violence with the loss of their job being the most severe consequence they are likely to ever face.

If you're right about this guy, fixing that problem would have resulted in not only less sexual assault in the world, but also fewer innocent people's lives being endangered and one less suicide here. How is that not win-win?

In the case of someone who is sent to prison in the first place for having raped someone, I really don't have a lot of sympathy for them having to find out just how unpleasant it is to be the victim. But if we are going to consider that a "feature" and not a "bug", then make it part of the official sentence. That would, of course, be both barbaric and crazy. At least it would also be honest. This "turning a blind eye" bullshit has to stop though. I don't care what the prisoner did to get there, we as a society have to be better than those we condemn. Otherwise, on what basis do we condemn them?

I don't know for sure that prison rape is why he would have rather killed himself, but I strongly suspect it ran through his mind. Plenty of bullying and beatings and things of that nature, short of rape, do go on in a confined environment full of violent people such as a prison.

The picture you paint is certainly a win-win. This guy could have served his time, maybe learned a trade or job skill, and tried to turn his life back around. The stigma of a criminal record would be difficult to overcome. Mainstream America generally doesn't admit that people can chang

Re:Copycat suicides

[Alex Belits]

Your "Founding Fathers" had no experience with any form of government except Monarchy. Their perspective is hopelessly outdated and limited, and it takes either an enormous idiot or intellectually dishonest person to treat their writings as anything but historical curiosities.

Re:Copycat suicides

[causality]

Your "Founding Fathers" had no experience with any form of government except Monarchy. Their perspective is hopelessly outdated and limited, and it takes either an enormous idiot or intellectually dishonest person to treat their writings as anything but historical curiosities.

When the USA descends into tyranny please act surprised, will you? I couldn't tell you how much I would like to be wrong about this, but all the signs are there.

And I like how you just gloss over what I had to say about wishing death to people you've never met and know nothing about. I suppose you couldn't comment on that, after all you might lose face if you gave any sort of honest answer. At least, to someone who would say such a thing, a statement like "hmm you know I shouldn't have said that, I was out of line" would equate to losing face. To me, it would equate to being man enough to take responsibility for your own actions and would only increase my respect for that person.

"But but I don't like that guy, personally I hate him, I mean after all he expressed an opinion I disagree with ... so I can't show him that much decency, I mean if I did that I would lose ten points" that's about how the thinking goes. It's some kind of puerile emotional "logic" designed to protect ego. It's also a path to misery. I would feel like a prisoner within my own life if I couldn't overcome that. Enjoy whatever smug superiority you can convince yourself of.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Alex Belits]

When the USA descends into tyranny please act surprised, will you?

USA is a tyranny, and always was -- except, of course, businesses are higher than the government in its hierarchy. This happens precisely because of people like you, and there is no hope to change it to anything else.

Re:Copycat suicides

[Anonymous Coward]

There are harsh words in parent post. Not really untrue, but very harsh to the delicate ears of slashdotters.

But rather than Darwin awards, the better method of population control is to support the GLBT in their efforts to establish gay marriage rights, and so on. Each gay marriage removes TWO individuals from the reproductive circus. We need much more of that happening.

Not universally true. Gay men can still donate sperm. Lesbian women are still fertile (and some go on to be mothers). Bi people swing both ways, so also aren't removed. Trans-gender, well, perhaps.

Re:Copycat suicides

[vga_init]

If there were any survival value to being "resistant to suicide" than why do we still have people killing themselves?

It's because the rate of suicide is low enough to be carried by the gene pool--it's not high enough to threaten the population as a whole. Yes, evolution does stipulate that that life be able to survive somehow--suicide is no exception to this rule. All I'm saying is that evolutionary theory gives us an actual reason to believe that mass suicide will not happen. I mean, sure there are always some people killing themselves, but I think the notion of copycat suicides going epidemic because of online videos is a load of nonsense and is contrary to what we know about biology.

Personally I think you're over-philosophizing this.

Re:Copycat suicides

[fm6]

It's because the rate of suicide is low enough to be carried by the gene pool--it's not high enough to threaten the population as a whole.

Dude, evolution is something that happens to the populatin as a whole. If suicide doesn't have any effect on the gene pool, then there's no evolution going on.

Personally I think you're over-philosophizing this.

I'm not philosophizing at all. I'm pointing out your poor understanding of how evolution works.

Re:Copycat suicides

[vga_init]

You do realize that you're failing to disagree with me, right? I said that the rate of suicide is low enough to be carried by the gene pool, and your following statement "if it doesn't have any effect on the gene pool, there is no evolution going on" doesn't contradict my statement. Death in any form affects a gene pool, be it slight or immeasurable; populations in which a small percentage die from a particular disease may develop immunity to the disease... not because the disease was going to wipe out the population, but the individuals in the population which more successfully resisted the disease were overall healthier and produced more offspring, thus affecting the gene pool. Individuals that have a strong tendency toward suicide edge themselves out of the gene pool, whereas those whose genome make them more resistant to suicide have a better chance at propagating their genes. This process happens over several generations. Evolution functions in a way that mitigates suicide, which is my original statement and I stand by it. Yes, suicide, still happens--it's just limited, but you are apparently the one who has no grasp of evolution to insist that it's an all-or-nothing situation (either everyone must commit suicide or nobody).

Now let's say for some reason suicide increases the chance of reproduction. For example, spiders who get eaten after mating--to reproduce means to die, but then they have a better chance at having offspring. Because it helps in successful reproduction, evolution has made this behavior common and ubiquitous among the species (in this species nearly all males get eaten after mating). Among human beings, the rate of suicide is actually very low--we're talking a fraction of a percent. Why isn't it more common? Why not 10%? 50%? 80%? Evolution. Learn how it works.

Re:Copycat suicides

[BeanThere]

Actually I think there's more to this than you think - I suspect most suicides are probably the result of someone being treated like shit by some asshole for years. And actually, if you think about it, it is precisely the suicide victim who deserves to live, and precisely the tormentor who deserves to die.

Smugly and derisively pointing out suicide is a form of Darwinism is something you would only hear from the type of person who treats others like shit.

Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[LehiNephi]

Good point. It also sounds like at least some of the folks at Fox were trying to prevent the footage from going live, and they apologized immediately afterward. Buzzfeed, on the other hand, deliberately posted the footage with full knowledge of its contents.

I think Fox has the moral (relative) high ground here.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[amiga3D]

Nah, I think it unlikely for the opportunity to be passed up. They actually screwed up so it's even legit.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[jo_ham]

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.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN and MSNBC are politically correct so they deserve a free pass. If it had been on MSNBC almost no would have ever seen it.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Hork_Monkey]

Great job of taking that one sentence for your axe grinding.

I bet you bitch about Fox News deliberately taking things out of context, too.

You added nothing to the discussion about the actual topic, so please do the rest of us a favor and go play somewhere else.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[bondsbw]

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.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Plumpaquatsch]

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.

The questions remains: why did they air that chase anyway? Because its journalism? Or because its sensationalism? Did they show it because they thought the guy would just stop the car and surrender, or because they hoped for some nice crashes (where you could pretend that nobody died) that they should over and over again, spinning it off into some Fox reality show? Sure, other channels would (or actually) have done the same - but its still not really news.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[ArcherB]

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.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[LordLimecat]

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.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is either airing an issue?

Kids can be flooded with unlimited fictional violence on TV, movies and video games but the real thing is suddenly objectionable?

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[MrL0G1C]

Yes, I've been disgusted at the BBC for posting video clips on their website in a sensationalist manner, the clips aren't particularly newsworthy, they've sunk as low as the worst tabloids.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they aired it because it was exciting, and statistically, suicides are rare.

On April 30, 1998, I decided to ditch the latter half of the school day with my girlfriend. On the news was the long, drawn-out suicide of Daniel Victor Jones [ WARNING: GRAPHIC! ] who was an AIDS patient protesting, on the Los Angeles' 710 freeway, teh lack of care he received through an HMO. The part that the video does not show is that he gets in his truck with his dog before he sets the truck on fire, then runs out of the flaming truck shutting the door behind him so that his dog dies in the inferno.

Then, he gets his shotgun and blows his head off. All of this was televised LIVE on the news, which caused the news networks to actually put counselors on the air after the incident, it was a huge shitstorm.

As for me, I felt sick to my stomach for the rest of the day. My girlfriend said, "well, that fucker deserved it. Let's go get some KFC. " I told her, "you want to eat right after watching a grizzly live suicide?!" She said, "Yeah, why not? He deserved it, burning his dog like that. Let's go to KFC."

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[ThorGod]

please substitute Fox News with "CNN" or "MSNBC" and ask yourself if your vitriol would be just the same.

No, the vitriol wouldn't be the same (though it would be horrible for any network). Fox News has been the media arm of the Republican party for as long as Fox has been on cable. It has a decade long history of pushing Republican-approved propaganda. All of its past offenses and lies add up. It's easier to be MORE outraged at Fox, all other things equal, because Fox has been doing this for longer than anybody else.

Some might argue that CNN has been around longer than Fox and should be held to account for its years of "liberal bias". I disagree. CNN's bias (if it exists) has never been as extreme (truly outrageous) as Fox News' bias. It would be outrageous if CNN showed something like this, but that outrage wouldn't be added onto over a decade of journalistic abuse.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[jo_ham]

I replied to your AC troll pre-emptive defence of Fox News that aims to set up the high-school-quality debate technique that says that anyone who criticises Fox in the following discussion is somehow wrong because you already brought that up and "owned" the argument. (I assume that was you bravely not logging in, since you've taken the time to reply to a comment "that added nothing to the discussion" yet somehow was additive enough to be worth replying to, and in your haste to reply you forgot to check the bravery box).

"Hey guys, let's discuss topic X, but before we do, I know what you're all going to say so if you say that X sucks then you just don't get it! This debate is only allowed to have opinions I agree with!"

To reply directly to your guesswork over what I think of Fox News; no I don't usually bitch about them taking things out of context, I just assume they always do wherever possible. I save any bitching for egregious lies or the hilarious times where they don't understand grade school maths and create pie charts that add up to more than 100%, or for their fairly typical hypocrisy (for example, criticism of the president during Bush era = unamerican, unpatriotic hate speech, criticism of the president during Obama era = constitutionally protected free speech and show of patriotism).

They're a toxic propaganda channel funded by wealthy special interests who pay well for the truth to be heavily distorted, hence the lawsuit over the right to lie. If they'd lost that suit it becomes very difficult for them to carry out their primary mandate. I have much more than "one sentence" to draw on for my axe grinding - I don't type out everything in my head every time I post a message. I'm not sure how else to address that point.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd still take it over 'news' about what some royal visit entailed. Even without the headshot.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[milkmage]

Nah. Watch the video... Abc showed everything up to the final moment and the anchor was saying "get off it" so they had the delay because they saw it in the studio first. Human error. They didn't hit the button in time.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[PReDiToR]

Sure. Let's air car chases that cause death, mayhem, destruction of property and recklessness by criminals; glamourising their Darwin-award-worthy lifestyles, but no way on this green earth can we show sex or nudity because children might be watching.
Natural and essential procreation that done wrongly can lead to STDs and AIDS (most agree), we're leaving to kids in the playground to speculate over. How to get away from the cops and spend years in a jail where you might get raped and/or murdered (if you survive the chase) we're televising internationally.

<I don't want to live on this planet anymore.jpg>

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[jo_ham]

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.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Gordonjcp]

I was going to post a longer comment about sensationalism and reality, but then I remembered this:
http://everything2.com/title/The+Projectionist%2527s+Nightmare

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[milkmage]

I remember that one. You can see it in Bowling For Columbine (the violent scene montage)

Extremely graphic. "Puff of pink." Literally blew his head off on live tv.

This incident was rather tame in comparison

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[djlowe]

She said, "Yeah, why not? He deserved it, burning his dog like that."

I agree with your girlfriend and would like to subscribe to her newsletter.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Peristaltic]

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.

Not necessarily. While I'm not on a bandwagon for or against BGH in this post, keep in mind there are a lot of possible outcomes on the continuum between "alive" and "dead" when considering the effects of long-term exposure to low-dose hormones and other organics. Implying that the death of first and second generation exposures is the only possible noteworthy outcome in this particular case does not help any argument for or against the use of BGH.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[ifiwereasculptor]

Of course they aired it because it was exciting, and statistically, suicides are rare.

Sure, but why was it exciting? Only because there were lives at stake. No matter how you frame it, that's why people tune in. That's also why you have so many medical and police shows on TV but so few accounting shows - people are more interested when lives are at stake, even in fiction. So you can't just say "oh, but it rarely happens" when this sort of possible outcome (death) is precisely why the guy was being filmed in the first place. Otherwise you might as well follow some random lawful driver with a camera and narrate his actions ("seems like he's now stopping at a drug store... what is he buying? Is that anal lube? Do we have a confirmation that it's anal lube? Oh, ok, it's just toothpaste. Right. Back to him, he's about to leave the drug store and I don't want to miss the moment he brushes his teeth, when we'll find out if he flosses or not.)"

I'm not even against showing that sort of thing on TV. It's happening in a public space and people want to watch it, so let them. But this meaningless dance of "oh, we're sorry, we didn't really mean to show you what happened" is borderline unbelievable for a "news" channel that have been showing (and speculating on) every detail of the chase up until that point.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Give it up. If the poster is not competent enough to understand that the point in question was a local Fox affiliate and NOT FOX NEWS, and Fox News the parent corporation was defending themselves against an employment "wrongful termination" and not attempting to get the right to lie in the news, his comments aren't worth a damn anyways.

BTW, the lawsuit did not say Fox news could lie in the news, it said the fact that the affiliate wanted the reporters to was not grounds for wrongful termination. Their leaving was voluntary and not forced. The case was in Florida about reporters doing a story on hormones in milk and the producer wanted the story toned down and a partial retraction or they would sue because at the time, the claims the reporters were using had been scientifically disputed on several areas. Two or three reporters refused and attempted to become even more hostile towards them and were terminated. They files wrongful termination lawsuits claiming they believe what they were asked to do was the same as lieing and lost. Hence now Fox News went to court to get the right to lie in news broadcasts when it was originally the right to edit news reports before they were broadcast and control the content representing them to avoid lawsuits.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yeah. We should trust a two-bit blog run by a heavy Romney-backer, supporter of voter suppression and global warming denier? You Fox apologists truly do live in your own reality.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mills.htm?csort=y
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/

Domain Name:CAMPAIGNFREEDOM.ORG
Created On:06-Jan-2006 19:23:40 UTC
Last Updated On:06-Apr-2012 20:25:49 UTC
Expiration Date:06-Jan-2016 19:23:40 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions, LLC (R63-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:17910704-NSI
Registrant Name:Mark Mills
Registrant Organization:IGOTITHOSTING
Registrant Street1:PO Box 152075
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Tampa
Registrant State/Province:FL
Registrant Postal Code:33684
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.8509424445
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+1.8509427354
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:domains@yumasol.com

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Latinhypercube]

BUT they are NOT the same. Or even comparable. Fox is a wholly owned propaganda arm of the republican party. There is NO equivalence. Fox is not even remotely interested in FACTS. This argument is exactly like mistakenly assuming there is equivalence between republican positions and democrat. The republican party has no interest in TRUTH. The republican party is owned and run for the 1%. They exist only by coercing their below average IQ voters, consisting of ignorant religious and racists voters from the bible belt and other less developed states, to vote against their own self interests.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[fafaforza]

Chases get ratings, and that's part of how stations pay for themselves. And most chases I've seen on live TV do not result in any deaths, so it's not correct to say their intentions were to air it to show death.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[i_ate_god]

i_ate_god was quoted on slashdot as saying:

"don't hate the player, hate the game"

in response to comments blaming a party for following a law.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[couchslug]

Car chases don't convey useful info, they are nothing more than fap fodder.

I'm fine with them showing the suicide. That's what happened.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[DougInNavarre]

They air live car chases just like the other news outlets because that's what people want to see. (Not everyone, just the ones that think reality TV shows are entertaining). There used to be websites that would send text alerts to your phone whenever there was a live chase being broadcast. So I just have to assume there is a large populace that want to see them and probably hope for just this type of outcome.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[tomhath]

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?

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[ljw1004]

You're being pretty misleading. I'm basing my reply solely on the facts outlined in your citation.

* What is a "right to lie"? -- it would be a patchwork of regulations saying things like (1) if you lie then this in itself isn't grounds for court action against you, (2) the government isn't allowed to pass laws that limit your lying, (3) if you lie and someone tries to report you for it, then they have no legal protection for making their report.

According purely to your citation, the Fox affiliate in question WTVT successfully argued point (3). In other words, they legally established one part of the right to lie on air. Akre lost her case because she thought there should be protection. WTVT successfully established that there wasn't protection.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[ArcherB]

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.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Greyfox]

Well in the case of CNN or MSNBC, no one would likely be watching to see it in the first place!

But seriously, how many graphic depictions of murder and death were aired on prime time that very night? If you didn't know the footage was really and that someone was actually dying, it would most likely be less grisly than the shit you see on an average night of CSI. But the violence isn't so funny anymore when it's real? Perhaps we should think about our values as a society. It seems rather hypocritical to imagine all manner of mayhem, and then turn away in horror at the sight of a little real mayhem. If you think it's terrible that you might accidentally see some guy splatter his brains on the ground on the news, imagine what your average soldier goes through in an average day in Afghanistan, and yet we're fine with demanding that of them.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[XanC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not defend Fox News, or any other media outlet. Your comment is clearly a diversion of reality reminicent of subtrifuged psychotic ramblings of a burned out Jerry Garcia. Like no other news organization doesn't apply the same rhetorical dung placed on the screens of America. Grow up and think for yourself and quit implying Fox News is the only liars out there. You appear to look like Hitler's youth given your self righteous super left wing blithering statements above. I will not waste my time logging in, but I will not allow this statement to pass unfettered.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[fahrbot-bot]

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.

On the other hand, the guy could have killed himself because he realized he was on Fox News. I know I would.
Just saying' ...

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[jo_ham]

You didn't log in, so my statement passes unfettered.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it okay to show Bear Grylls mudering animals needlessly? You know his camera crew's got a pack full of Power Bars. It's completely gratuitous. At the very least, if he wanted to show survival techniques, he could catch and release the animals.

Once I saw him in a tunnel in Vietnam I think it was, on his way to a helicopter waiting to take him out on the other side, pull a frog out of a hole and eat it raw. That was totally unnecessary.

Put him on trial for murder.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it would be.

In fact, I work for one of the networks you just stated. And attended a "course" talking about this kind of thing -- deaths, nudity, murders, and so forth. Programs are supposed to consult w/ legal and ethics before airing clips with questionable content, and they very well may be told "no", or to edit the clip so that the moment of death/killing/suicide/whatever is removed.

The general standard is that if you need context to raise a point of discussion, then you can show parts of the clip that do so, but never, ever, EVER are you to show the moment of death, and you're to be careful about how often you show such things in general because, in part, you want to be respectful of the dead and of their family/loved ones.

I know the idea of "what bleeds, leads", but even if you go with that (and the presenter tried his/her best to say the network did not) you can still do so in a respectful manner. Showing bodies in the streets in Libya or post-Katrina may be necessary for the story; but you don't have to linger on it, or show it multiple times an hour to have a story.

Fox fucked up by showing this live -- if they'd had a tape delay of even a few seconds they would've been safe. But BuzzFeed fucked up even more by linking.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

It certainly wouldn't be the first time live broadcast television has done this, and it certainly hasn't only been Fox News. I remember seeing a broadcast several years ago from KTLA (not sure who they were/are affiliated with) of a man who had blocked traffic on a Los Angeles free-way. Surrounded by a cordon of police cars, he unfurled a banner over the side of the overpass he was stopped on, reading 'HMOs are in it for the money', moments before unsuccessfully attempting to blow himself up by igniting a propane canister in the cab of his pick-up truck. Failing that he stepped out of the cab, his clothing burned to tatters, and removed a shotgun from behind the front seat, burning his hands on the hot metal of the gun, he shot himself in the head beneath the lenses of the hovering news helicopters, and to my and my family's horror. This occurred all the while his dog was running around with him, barking. This happened nearly 20 years ago and I can still picture it in detail. The only issue now is that in the age of the internet, videos of such events can remain available to be watched ad infinitum, rather than being deleted from tape or relegated to a vault in the back of a news room somewhere.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Auroch]

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.

No, I blame fully blame fox. They claim to be a professional organization, when they're clearly not acting professionally most of the time. So when they don't do their job properly, it should be punished.

If an unlicensed doctor was performing surgery correctly, they'd get in trouble. But if they did it wrong? They'd get skewered.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Auroch]

Why is it okay to show Bear Grylls mudering animals needlessly?

Because they're animals, not people.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Auroch]

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.

That's a nice job to have. How bad at your job do you need to be to mess it up?

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Baloroth]

Why is either airing an issue?

Kids can be flooded with unlimited fictional violence on TV, movies and video games but the real thing is suddenly objectionable?

Yes, because there is a world of difference between fictional violence and real violence. It's like the difference between a drawing of a nuclear weapon and an actual nuke. Anyone who can't distinguish between fiction and reality need to get some help, and fast. Airing real violence, especially alongside fictional violence, helps to blur the distinction between the two and reduce the natural aversion humans have towards violence, which makes people more likely to actually commit violence in the future (note that so long as you can distinguish between real and fiction, all the fictional violence in the world won't make you more likely to commit actual violence, since fictional is nothing like real violence, being, you know, fictional.)

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[__aaltlg1547]

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.

It would be a shitty thing to do no matter who did it.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[blue trane]

You don't speak for me.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough with the dumb persecution complex already. It'd be deplorable on any network of course, but this kind of crap is what we've come to expect from Fox.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[manaway]

Sure, other channels would (or actually) have done the same - but its still not really news.

TV news hasn't been the dictionary definition of news for decades. When news stations aren't various flavors of the same propaganda popsicle, they are car chases, sports, and celebrity updates. The circus part of bread and circuses.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[MostAwesomeDude]

Well, dairy farmers still use BGH, and this was over 12 years ago and most milk drinkers are not dead...

What a horrible misrepresentation of the truth. Many large retailers refuse to sell milk from dairies where bST is used. For example, here in Oregon, Tillamook products have no bST. Neither does any milk sold at Safeway or Wal-Mart, two of the biggest grocery chains in the area, and many other grocers like Albertson's, Fred Meyer, Market of Choice, and so forth promote and market bST-free milk. I don't actually know where I would go if I wanted to obtain milk from a bST-using dairy.

This stuff's banned in the rest of the modernized world. Banned in the EU, banned in Canada... Over half of all milk sold in the USA is bST-free, too.

While you might be technically accurate on the rest of your post (which I highly doubt but don't feel like getting into), you are straight-up wrong on BGH/bST.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[joocemann]

I think that Fox, just like most of our mainstream media, are so fixated on the inflammatory and absurd instead of the productive and positive, that it is nearly impossible to avoid these kinds of scenarios.

You take a media system primarily driven by shock/awe/horror/fear (obviously the scared viewers hang around for commercials), and combine that with high profitability, and what do you expect? A perfectly censored viewing of something horrible?

We know there are pedophiles out there. We know there are horrible tragedies out there. We know that somewhere, someone at a workplace, did something unethical. And yet the news persists to demonstrate these rare (compared to the whole population) events and fixate on them. Eventually, what were small tragedies with few people inflamed/affected, become big talked-up national debates with wide scale fears and social responses.

Ironically, good things are happening far more frequently, but even big-scale good things (like scientific progression, community efforts, etc) are ignored or understated.

-------------------

So you have a media that is basically focused, and profiting, on rubbernecking bloody car accidents (metaphorically), and then a dead body (something horrible) shows up on the live stream..... What did those highly attentive, can't-wait-to-find-out-the-next-horrible-thing, viewers expect to see? When you're the consumer, and you show these orginazations that you're going to pay the most attention when horrible things are on TV, what do you expect them to give you?

You'd better be sure that the intense watching of the gay-meth-sex scandal of that (south carolina?) governor, was part of the juice that drives these news organizations to show more scary stuff, like live police chases, molested catholic kids, etc etc etc.... You'd better be sure damn sure, as a viewer, that when you paid so much attention to the child molesting teacher in LA this spring that you asked to see more of that....

------------------

The major news organizations suck for not having an integrity beyond profit; that they will do what sells best over what is representative of real life.

The consumers suck for actually paying so much attention, getting scared, and then paying even more attention. People should be informed enough to know how their role as a consumer influences the values and actions of other elements in life. They should, also, spend less time in worry, seeking wrongs, and more time in reflection and planning, seeking positive answers for the wrongs they acknowledge.
-----------------

I don't blame Fox (for this). I don't blame the site that echoed it. If you were watching the chase, you wanted to see something nasty, and got more than you may have bargained for. If you watched the echo, then you know exactly what you asked to see.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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.

I am going to be completely up front and honest about this. It's gonna show that I'm a jerk. But I do have an issue with the way this article is presented. The title of this story says a 'suicide went viral'. If my anecdote is any indication, I don't think that's quite true. I didn't seek out that video to watch a suicide. Instead I went to find it so I could see Fox News screw up.

The story I heard on the radio about this while driving home wasn't that a guy committed suicide, but that Fox News aired it and claimed it was accidental. The radio personalities were accusing Fox News of airing the suicide just to get ratings. Mainly they took issue with the delay only being 5 seconds and how anybody knows it could take longer than that to have it sink in what was happening.

No hard feelings if you think I'm a bad person for it, but yeah I'm always game to watch Fox News screw up. I'm not interested in digging up videos of people dying, it's not something I've ever Google or YouTube searched for.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Kids can be flooded with unlimited fictional violence on TV, movies and video games but the real thing is suddenly objectionable?

I bolded the operational word. If you want to argue with me please browse the images of Rotten.com before coming by to tell me Hollywood violence is the same.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

You're arguing with a bunch of "libertarians". You're wasting your time. Fox News is an oxymoron - everbody sane knows this. No point getting into the slop with this crowd.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[ArcherB]

While you might be technically accurate on the rest of your post (which I highly doubt but don't feel like getting into), you are straight-up wrong on BGH/bST.

I don't know. I've drank BGH/bST milk since I was a boy and my breasts fill out my bra just fine. What's the problem?

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Seumas]

Uh. Of course it would. Cable news -- all televised news, actually -- is completely and utter shit. As demonstrated by "durp durp look at this car chase" substitution for "news". It just happens to be that Fox was the shitty network to get caught on it, this time. There is little difference between what they were showing prior to the suicide and then showing the suicide, itself. Showing a rape is no less vile, as long as you cut away during the money-shot. It's still sensationalism, disgusting, chilling bullshit.

Fortunately, however, it was just a man shooting himself in the head on live television. It wasn't anything we Americans find off-putting, like a split-second of nipple.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess - you're a Jew, right?

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Seumas]

Because they're animals, not people.

I suggest you read some of the comment sections of articles on this chase/suicide. The typical response is that this guy -- that nobody knows anything about -- is an animal and deserved a bullet to the face. They're flat out cheering for it.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Seumas]

Suicides are not covered by the news. You may think of a particular story or two that you have seen which involves the report of a suicide, but as a general rule, they are not covered in your local news paper or your local radio station or your local television news. They are ignored. Journalists do not cover suicides. So, this entire event is one huge taboo.

I mean, not as huge a taboo as if someone had shown a breast on live television, but still kind of bad.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[ArsenneLupin]

Anyone who can't distinguish between fiction and reality need to get some help, and fast.

Tell that to those fascists that want to ban cartoon depictions of underage sex.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Type44Q]

He said that Monsonto's response to the store was a lie, so Fox was arguing for the right to lie.

Unbiased, not at all. Truth usually is biased, hence the "need" for paid shills (veritable fucking hoardes of 'em, if this site is any indicator). The fact is, an accurate portrayal of one of the most vile organizations on the planet is NOT going to come across as unbiased.

Sounds like some of Fox's employees actually possess[ed] a fucking soul. Imagine that!

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[xclr8r]

Car chases get broadcasted near live all over the U.S. this has been going for more than a decade.. even longer than O.J. and the white Chevy Blazer. L.A. and Dallas do it all the time. 5 seconds delay is too short in my opinion.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[xclr8r]

yes it would.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[cayenne8]

Damn....poor dog.

I mean, let the bastard off himself, but the poor dog....didn't deserve that.

:(

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention this is the classic "if they see X then they will do X" argument that has been full of shit yet used since the invention of film. I mean are you gonna ban the Deer Hunter because a few Darwin winners take themselves out the gene pool if they see it?

Ultimately we can NOT baby-proof the world, yet for some reason you have those that try. Do I care to watch the video? Not really, but it has the right to be out there for anyone to see, as long as they know what it is. I was quite proud that nobody started calling for taking The Dark Knight Rises out of theaters just because one sick person went batshit and killed people, this is NO different. If someone is so damned close to the edge that simply seeing someone else commit suicide is enough for they to do it themselves? Then frankly ANYTHING can make them do it, because the slightest breeze wil push them over the cliff.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[jo_ham]

My foreskin remains intact, therefore not a Jew, but what does that have to do with anything?

Also, re: your earlier comment that "You appear to look like Hitler's youth given your self righteous super left wing blithering statements above".

I wasn't aware that the Hitler Youth was a left wing organisation. I guess you learn something new every day. Thanks for that.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[cpu6502]

>>>Yes, because there is a world of difference between fictional violence and real violence.

Studies have shown the human brain does not distinguish the difference. It has the same chemical reactions to whatever it sees, regardless if it's real or on TV.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[cayenne8]

I"m surprised about the other part of the synopsis on this thread....that this will start a rash of "copycat" suicides...mostly among young people?

Geez...what gives?

I know there are troubled people everywhere out there...but they aren't the majority, are they??

People are going to see this...think its cool and do the same on TV??

I have a hard time believing this will set of a trend.....

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[manaway]

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?

This is a bad description of the "beef," and thus a straw man. Monsanto is not some wimp in an apartment somewhere, unable to have press conferences and buy advertising time and lobbyists. The reporters were being required to go through an unprecedented high number of revisions by their employer, attempts to remove substantive facts about Monsanto's actions and change the tone of the report. To change the report into something other than fact-based. In science this is called politicizing research, in news it's whitewashing or spin. The case went to court, which found the FCC's "law, rule, or regulation" doesn't include falsifying news (i.e. lying). Lawfully this doesn't make lying a right, but then it doesn't mean lying is against the law either.

What's the line in the constitution, about all rights not listed are reserved to the state and individuals? So I find in that context the court's decision did make lying a right; one reserved to people, states, and news corporations. Either way, fact-based reporting was not enhanced by this decision, though spin certainly was.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Hork_Monkey]

If you take the time to look, I was logged in for that post. You spent alot of time on personal attacks based on that one error, so you really are starting to sound like the news company that you hate so much.

Please re-read my post. As low as your reading comprehension seems to be, it's only 3 direct sentences. Let me break it down for you again:

• You take any opportunity to let people know you hate Fox News, even if you have to take someone out of context to bring it up.
• This adds nothing to the topic which is being discussed.

I seriously have no idea what orifice you pulled those assumptions about me out of three simple statements. I'll assume that anyone who disagrees or calls you out on something gets the same treatment of personal attacks and diarrhea of the mouth. No one cares about your opinions, so seriously- grow up.

Please go see a doctor. You have a bad case of being a total fuckwad.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[robot5x]

the problem with this kind of TV is that it is giving us all the impression that suicides, shootings, etc all happen far more frequently than they may actually do. Your point about accounting is a good one - there is little balance in entertainment nowadays.

If Fox are only showing car chases, shootings, hostage-takings etc, then those people who can't think critically about what they're watching will start to buy in to all this neo-conservative climate of fear bullshit. That's when we start to suspect our neighbours, and invite the government to indulge in warrantless wiretaps.

tl;dr - we need more accounting shows.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

All American. Yes, it'd be exactly the same.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[robot5x]

so isn't the problem more that this is the kind of thing many people actually WANT to watch?

let's be generous and say that Fox are just supplying what the market demands; is there a case to say that some kind of intervention is required in the entertainment free market to arrest this race to the bottom?

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[xs650]

My vitriol would be worse if it came from MSNBC or CNN, I expect better of them. That said, shit happens. Shep tried to do the right thing by having the scene cut and it didn't work. When you spend as much time on air as he does, something is bound to go wrong occasionally.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[fa2k]

I think Fox has the moral (relative) high ground here.

It's an interesting moral question, but I don't think the two actions should be compared to each other. Fox made a mistake and handled it somewhat badly but apologized. BuzzFeed made a concious decision to post something many people find objectionable, which possibly breaks the law and violates YouTube's ToS. On the other hand, they didn't trick anyone into viewing it, the people explicitly requested the video.

So tor fox it's about neutral, slightly careless. For BuzzFeed it's a question of how much free speech we should tolerate in private communication (as opposed to broadcast)

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who went through high school with some pretty dark thoughts I really don't have any sympathy:
If they're really stupid enough to think suicide is the answer because they watched it on TV, and don't have the brains to analyze the pros and cons of doing so for themselves, over a sufficient period to determine if this is really a choice they want to make, rather than an impulse brought about by a rough patch in their lives, then this is well and truly natural selection at work, and we should be cheering for that little bit of mop-up happening in our collective gene pool. Honestly I'd be much happier if those dumbasses on welfare with the 10+ kids from as many different mothers were the ones doing it instead, but if these guys are impulsive and stupid enough to do it after watching some guy on TV, then more power to them. We don't need that kind of element in society, and given the current state of mental health care in the US all they're got to look forward to as an alternative is either self medication, violence, depression, or a nice little stint in a mental hospital if they snap in too public a way.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[cykros]

This seems to be a problem with the way human psychology works (or perhaps it falls more into the field of sociology...they're not REAL sciences anyway...). I mean, nobody wants to watch boring news on tv, so they don't bother showing it. But as soon as you show exciting (read: scary) news on tv with any regularity, it's Chicken Little time. Perhaps it'd be best if people kept up with current events via a medium that wasn't geared to be a sense-maximized entertainment device, but we know that won't be happening as long as people insist on keeping their tv's around. And to boot, even print media is overly sensationalized as well (because again, people buy what looks exciting).

Yea. It's looking like as long as there's news, there's going to be an added message to it, which is the media through which it is conveyed, even if unintended. The solution to this problem remains elusive, but perhaps referring to McLuhan will help.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

since fictional is nothing like real violence

Exactly.

I mean, people should have a strong, emotional attachment to random jackasses in states they've never visted, whose lives they're unaware of, whose motivations are unknown.

Meanwhile, they should be entirely dispassionate with regard to fiction, because it's fiction. Doesn't matter that the people, whose lives, characters and motivations are well known, are far less two dimensional than some random.

Sorry, if seeing violence done to the latter does no harm, then seeing violence done to the former cannot possibly do harm, either.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

... cartoon depictions of underage sex.

Getting sex is important in most men's lives and given a choice they would prefer teen-aged women. Admitting a school-girl has sex contradicts everything society says about 15 year-olds (can prick-tease, can't fuck) and devalues the monogamous relationship that society demands. While there is an abundance of school-girls who like to fuck, exposing them to adult men who know how to magnify their carnal instincts, causes adult commitments that school-girls cannot fulfill.

It's not about ignoring the realities of precocious and lustful school-girls; it's about keeping the teen-aged and adult lives separate.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[tbird81]

Because it's exciting an interesting to watch. That's why movies have car chases.

Humans have a curiousity that has enabled them to invent tools and discover new places. We like to watch things that interest us.

This event wasn't staged, it wasn't set up. Why not show it? Why should we censor it because you're too delicate to witness real life?

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Toonol]

You're arguing about irrelevancies. You aren't addressing the point. That makes it likely you are incorrect.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[tbird81]

He could have avoided the chase and subsequent suicide/prison by not carjacking an innocent person.

And we can show sex and nudity, here: http://www.redtube.com/
Knock your socks off, show your kids. Is that the type of thing you want shown on TV?

I get your point regarding nudity. Those episodes of Survivor or WipeOut (not that I watch those shows) that censor bum cracks and cleavage are ridiculous. But it's only a small minority who complain about those. Sort of like the small minority who act indignant when a suicide is shown.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Toonol]

Thank you. That line of attack against Fox is normally taken far out of context by people who consider themselves, incorrectly, to be intellectually honest.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Toonol]

And, it's probably a very good thing that we DO have the right to lie. The alternative is far more dangerous.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Toonol]

Wow. You have no substantial argument, do you? If this was an argument in person, is this the point where your cheeks get red and you throw a punch?

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Plumpaquatsch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide

A spike of emulation suicides after a widely publicized suicide is known as the Werther effect, following Goethe's novel "The Sorrows of Young Werther".

That novel is from 1774, so its nothing new.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[luther349]

well when you air live criminal chases these things tend to happon. and slip-ups on live tv happen. when he pulled the gun the guy controlling the feed probably thought it was going to be a standoff until he went down far to quick for a 5 sec delay to stop.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[luther349]

or the guy watching the feed just didn't believe what he just saw and forgot to hit stop simple human error it comes with the fact of being live.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

They aired it for the same reason California has omnipresent news choppers waiting for car chases to begin.

As Shakespeare said, "As You Like It".

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[MysteriousPreacher]

the problem with this kind of TV is that it is giving us all the impression that suicides, shootings, etc all happen far more frequently than they may actually do. Your point about accounting is a good one - there is little balance in entertainment nowadays.

If Fox are only showing car chases, shootings, hostage-takings etc, then those people who can't think critically about what they're watching will start to buy in to all this neo-conservative climate of fear bullshit. That's when we start to suspect our neighbours, and invite the government to indulge in warrantless wiretaps.

Bingo! Which is why we as a society would benefit from schools having a stronger emphasis on critical skills, statistics and probability, and perhaps some media studies. Understanding a little bit about how mass media works is useful for spotting the games they play. It'd never get to the point where we all become immune to silliness and bullshit. What we can hope for is that we reach a critical mass, so we're better equipped to look out for one another when we do fall for something.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[gmhowell]

Ford Bronco, not Chevy Blazer. Yes, essentially the same thing, but only one of them experienced a spike in sales following the 'chase'.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Waccoon]

Indeed. We really don't show enough respect to young people or give them the credit for intelligence that they deserve. It's insulting to kids to suggest they can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

If you were told repeatedly at the age of 14 that you couldn't understand the difference between what's real and what isn't, or what's right or wrong, I think you'd be pretty childish and messed up by the time you were a legal adult.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[ClioCJS]

That's why it was very important that we stopped Beavis & Butt-head from playing with fire. We should always cater to the stupidest case scenario.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck that people need to see this shit, exactly how bad is our situation a young man like that would rather die than go to prison. hiding reality is censorship. fox isn't a good platform for this but suppressing this crap isn't gonna make it go away.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[jamesh]

>>>Yes, because there is a world of difference between fictional violence and real violence.

Studies have shown the human brain does not distinguish the difference. It has the same chemical reactions to whatever it sees, regardless if it's real or on TV.

Seriously?

I watched the latest Resident Evil last night, and apart from a few startling moments (quiet, then a sudden zombie roar that made me jump) the violence, gore, and the many fictional deaths didn't bother me at all.

A few days ago I was driving and passed an accident. There was a car with obvious collision damage on the front, and a girl lying on the road. No blood or dismemberment, but it really shook me up.

Studies have shown that there is a big difference between the brains reactions to fictional violence and real violence.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

How does that relate to drawn pornography again?

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[jo_ham]

Actually, when it comes to using the "post bravely" commenters, I just dismiss their arguments and claim victory. If they are not brave enough to log in, they clearly have no confidence in their statements, so why should I?

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[jo_ham]

I'm actually well aware it was an affiliate station - it's mentioned frequently in the articles cited.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[jo_ham]

You forgot to log in again! D'oh!

I also mentioned the affiliate station as the source of the case earlier. Not sure how that changes anything.

Hilarious how it's *my* comments that allegedly aren't worth a damn when you won't even log in. I guess that makes your comments worth even less? We'll say yes, that's the case. Unless you want to log in and claim them, of course.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[khallow]

But as soon as you show exciting (read: scary) news on tv with any regularity, it's Chicken Little time.

The thing here is that people naturally fear and worry. My take is that these emotions are a sort of immune response to the adversity of life. If you have plenty of bad things happen to you, then you have plenty of legitimate worries to occupy your time.

If you don't, then you don't stop fearing and worrying. Instead, you start obsessing over imaginary or unlikely dangers. Fox News and other other such agencies give you blood, but my take is that they don't in themselves create the anxiety.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[khallow]

You have to remember that the person may have been too shocked to push the button.

For example, a NASA project launched by balloon damaged a bunch of property and endangered members of the public. This could have been avoided by the guy who was supposed to trip the failsafe release for the balloon. But he didn't do so even though it pulled a crane through a fence and an SUV. Story is that he was paralyzed by horror through the accident and just failed to act.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Like those Brits who saw the Olympic logo as depicting Lisa giving head for Bart.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup definitely a keeper

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[SA_Democrat]

Yes. I'm saddened to say that I really feel for the dog. He probably had (to him) good reasons for the dog to die too, but burning to death is just horrible. I feel for anyone who gets into a position where suicide seems to be the only way out, but setting anyone or any animal on fire is just horrendous.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[cheekyjohnson]

Is that the type of thing you want shown on TV?

I honestly wouldn't care.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[cheekyjohnson]

You're arguing about irrelevancies.

That makes it likely you are incorrect.

What?

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Well, honestly I can say no, my "vitriol" would not be the same. And here's an example of why:
"As the scene unfolded, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith grew increasingly apprehensive, then yelled 'get off it, get off it!,'"
Just like with many industries, people who operate in front of and behind video cameras have trade slang, aka jargon. Professionals in these industries know the proper jargon, and I assure you that "Get off it" is NOT what you say when you need a feed to be cut. The simple fact that Smith doesn't know his own business, and that he and the crew in the operating booth don't already have contingency plans for such situations, is the reason this was aired instead of being caught by the time-delay which they WERE running.

If CNN and MSNBC (along with ANY other major news channel) displayed the same constant lack of ability and professionalism, then yes I'd give them the same amount of grief for it. But the fact is that out of all the major outlets, of any political persuasion, Fox is by far the most inept in its ability to deliver news.

And I say this as an Independent voter who tends to lean more to the Conservative side of issues, so don't confuse this with a Political bias because it's not. I am also not speaking to the issue of whether or not it should have aired.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[SeaFox]

Did they show it because they thought the guy would just stop the car and surrender, or because they hoped for some nice crashes (where you could pretend that nobody died) that they should over and over again, spinning it off into some Fox reality show?

Hey, that sounds catchy.

They could call it World's Scariest Police Chases and have Peter Coyote host it, and then make it a special pilot for a series called World's Wildest Police Videos.

But it's not 1997 anymore.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[fatphil]

> Because it's exciting an interesting to watch. That's why movies have car chases.

That could be why I find so many movies desperately boring. I was watching Total Recall (2012) last night, and it was just the same few people/robots chasing after the same couple of people over and over again. In what way was that exciting or interesting? (It evn had a scene which was just as awful as the pod-racing in Star Wars I.) I was more entertained by the unusual place my mouse cursor ended up being projected while watching the film.

If you want something interesting to watch, try "The Year of the Sex Olympics", from 1968, which quiet unambiguously and very accurately foretells the downward evolution of television that seems to be well under way - in particular regarding this story.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

you need to get some help, fast.

fucking paedo-psycho

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[mjrauhal]

"Yeah, why not? He deserved it, burning his dog like that. Let's go to KFC to eat some of the most mistreated production animals ever."

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually as much as I hate Fox News I believe in some personal responsibility including the responsibility of not killing yourself because you watched someone doing it on Fox News. Killing yourself because you are forced to watch Fox News is understandable.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Well stated, those were my immediate thoughts. This doesn't happen with real journalism, this happens with newstainment.

My question is, who is really to blame: newstainment or viewers? News networks need viewers to thrive and show whatever attracts attention. Was Fox simply providing to demand or pushing the edge? I'd like to think it's due to competition and manipulative broadcasting, but I see too many people that enjoy watching this type of content. Entertainment at someone else's expense/life is hardly a new concept (e.g., Roman colosseum).

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[davydagger]

furthermore

two words "Bud Dwyer"

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[company suckup]

But did any of those other networks show this? If not your statements means absolutely nothing.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Reziac]

I have known kids not yet old enough to talk who could distinguish fantasy from reality, and demonstrated it by how they "pretended" (such as giving a pretend gift to another person). And kids can compartmentalize fantasy and reality -- they can fervently believe in the tooth fairy, yet if an adult makes like it's real, the kid will be like "Don't be silly, there's no such thing".

I'd hazard that the inability to so compartmentalize and distinguish fantasy from reality is in fact not normal.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[celle]

" I told her, "you want to eat right after watching a grizzly live suicide?!" She said, "Yeah, why not? He deserved it, burning his dog like that. Let's go to KFC.""

    Please tell me you had the enough sense to not marry her.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember seeing that on the news when it happened. The worst part? It was Mother's Day. There's a good chance his mom may have seen it happen.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed.

"research suggests that graphic depictions of suicide in the media can spur copycat suicides, especially among young people,"

We can only hope.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[dave420]

Then where draw the line? Does "news" now include anything that might be of any interest to anyone? It was not representative of real life. It did not affect anyone else outside of the man's family. It did not warrant being on TV, as it helped inform absolutely no-one about anything of any actual importance to them.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[dave420]

In many sane countries kids are not flooded with masses of violence on TV, in movies, or in games.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was he bein pursued?

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

If seeing the difference means that they have to admit they were wrong, then I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is either airing an issue?

Kids can be flooded with unlimited fictional violence on TV, movies and video games but the real thing is suddenly objectionable?

Yes, because there is a world of difference between fictional violence and real violence...

Really? If you believe that to actually be true, then perhaps you should try and explain away the plot lines (which are usually based on real events) of most of the law enforcement type shows that are in the primetime spots today (Law and Order SVU, every flavor of CSI, etc.).

Don't even get me started on shows like Cops that can't even blur a line.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

It was no big deal. 6 million ways to die choose one

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[ArsonSmith]

dog died in fiery death, lets go get some chicken that died and are in fiery death.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me you dumped the psycho soon after. I'm assuming you did since you're still alive.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Hognoxious]

Perhaps it was the dog that gave him AIDS?

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[silentcoder]

>Of course they aired it because it was exciting, and statistically, suicides are rare.

This is true, you are only about 4 times as likely to die from suicide as you are from terrorism. Even if you're stationed in Basra.

Seems they can't stop talking about that either... guess Bruce Schneier was right: if it's on the news, it's NEVER going to happen to YOU. If it was common, it wouldn't BE news.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[ArsenneLupin]

Is that all you are able to do? Trying to intimidate people from behind a "safe" cloak of anonymity? Is that all the courage you are able to muster?

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[heefeneet]

Like those Brits who saw the Olympic logo as depicting Lisa giving head for Bart.

Yep. The Olympic logo sucked in more ways than one.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah she is too good for you.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[mibus]

Or not host it because it's disrespectful to the guy *in* the video, and his family?

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[heefeneet]

My foreskin remains intact, therefore not a Jew, but what does that have to do with anything?

Also, re: your earlier comment that "You appear to look like Hitler's youth given your self righteous super left wing blithering statements above".

I wasn't aware that the Hitler Youth was a left wing organisation. I guess you learn something new every day. Thanks for that.

He is probably a Republican, so his statement is correct. Hitler Youth is left of the GOP on the political spectrum. :)

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Something like these geniuses?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAVMJBLy-UU

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>Yes, because there is a world of difference between fictional violence and real violence.

Studies have shown the human brain does not distinguish the difference. It has the same chemical reactions to whatever it sees, regardless if it's real or on TV.

I watched the latest Resident Evil last night, and apart from a few startling moments (quiet, then a sudden zombie roar that made me jump) the violence, gore, and the many fictional deaths didn't bother me at all.

A few days ago I was driving and passed an accident. There was a car with obvious collision damage on the front, and a girl lying on the road. No blood or dismemberment, but it really shook me up.

Perhaps the case here is that with Resident Evil, you knew *in advance* that it was fiction.

Re:Calm before the hyperbole

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove it, prove it. You have a lot of conclusive statements on that pile of cards you just invented.

"helps to blur the distinction" I don't agree and you even contradict yourself later by pointing out how fake violence has no impact. I guess because you realized that people constantly attack video games with this same argument. maybe we should outlaw sports, because real violence happens during and around sporting events, being that violence is so bad and infectious.

"reduce the natural aversion humans have towards violence," What makes you think humans have a natural aversion towards violence? I think they obviously have a propensity towards violence, and we have to make up laws and codes of conduct, etc. to encourage them not to act violently.

"which makes people more likely to actually commit violence in the future"

I don't think it does. You've basically speculated all of this. Find some causal proof that witnessing real violence makes us confused between real and fake violence and makes us convert from being naturally peaceful and non-violent into violent creatures that can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. But that can? Very confusing.

Suicide happens,

[EMABrad]

and those who don't like it can just kill themselves!

Re:Suicide happens,

[XphX]

That's one of the more disturbing comments I've seen on /.

Re:Suicide happens,

[Anonymous Coward]

and those who don't like it can just kill themselves!

Not funny

Re:Suicide happens,

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you go out and shoot yourself in the head?

Re:Suicide happens,

[Giant Electronic Bra]

BEYOND not funny. Pretty much about as not funny as Buzzard Feed.

Re:Suicide happens,

[Anonymous Coward]

The nice thing is that he saved people a ton of money for the costs of jailing and trying him. I wish all criminals were so thoughtful.

Re:Suicide happens,

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch a few tapes where US soldiers kill reporters from an helicopter, it's much more fun.
Are you afraid he's going to hell?

Re:Suicide happens,

[ifiwereasculptor]

Seeing the mod war parent is going through, I have to ask: what is it with suicide that riles people up? The news air shootings all the time, and a lot of homicides are shown on camera - that's pretty much ok, it seems. But why are suicides a no-no? If you ask me, they're way less shocking, since no one is forcefully overriding anyone's will.

Re:Suicide happens,

[Qzukk]

That's because just about everyone thinks suicide is evil, selfish, wrong, etc. Unless you're a pedophile, then do everyone a favor and go shoot yourself.

Re:Suicide happens,

[cheekyjohnson]

Too soon (or something moronic such as that)!

Re:Suicide happens,

[wonkey_monkey]

That's because just about everyone thinks suicide is evil, selfish, wrong, etc.

Really? I don't. I just think it's sad.

Re:Suicide happens,

[Anonymous Coward]

But...won't SOMEBODY think of the LAWYERS

Re:Suicide happens,

[macinnisrr]

Totally agreed. What is "wrong" or "evil" about suicide? The only thing I can think of is the feelings of loved ones, which, in reality, is a pretty "selfish" thing to feel.

Re:Suicide happens,

[Hork_Monkey]

Nice name. We must be /. siblings.

I used to not think so until a friend of mine did it. The emotional impact was staggering. I was sad, but then I saw how his wife reacted, and I'm still mad at him for doing it. It's been 3+ years, and she still posts on his Facebook page as a way to cope. He did it at work, too, and it really had a major impact on everyone who worked with him. He was well liked, but there was still the normal gossip and jokes. Everyone was ever said anything felt guilty for a long time.

The thing is that everything about it is irrational. The act itself, and the stream of grief and guilt that follows.

I have to also mention that his life insurance policy didn't cover it. His wife had the funeral costs, credit card debt and 100k+ in student loan debt she now has to cover.

It's the most selfish act that a person can do. Even with mental illness to consider (he wasn't diagnosed with anything to my knowledge, but I have to think there were some issues), it's hard to forgive what he did to his wife and family(and he was a friend of mine).

Re:Suicide happens,

[Teckla]

It's the most selfish act that a person can do.

That's like saying your car was selfish for breaking down while you were driving it.

People who commit suicide are broken. Their brains are broken. Give them a break.

Re:Suicide happens,

[Anonymous Coward]

since no one is forcefully overriding anyone's will.

That gives the expression get a grip on oneself a whole new meaning.

Re:Suicide happens,

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you were kidding. Right? There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a pedophile. As a matter of fact, it's not a choice. I think you meant "child rapist," or "child molester." Pedophiles don't harm anyone when they haven't acted on their desires, and should be accorded the same dignity as any other human being that has done nothing wrong except to exist.

Yes, I'm biased. No, I've never talked, touched, coerced, or had sex with any child in any way and never plan to. I know that it's wrong, and I'm the one who chooses to not act on my desires. I feel rather proud of this fact, since it's not like I decided to be attracted to prepubescent boys. But I can make sure I am not ever in a position that would compromise my morals and my integrity. I will die eventually, like all of us, but it will not be by shooting myself. That might have been in the cards if I had actually done anything wrong with children, because I probably wouldn't be able to live with myself. Thankfully, that is not the case. I hate child molesters just like everyone else does.

Please be more careful with your choice of words next time. Just because pedophiles are the considered the lowest people on the totem pole in society, and they are constantly denigrated, hated, despised, cursed, sometimes murdered, tortured or raped... doesn't mean that they deserve any of those things when they can't help how they were born/whatever made them the way they are. (personally I think it's because I fell in love with my best friend when we were both 12, then he moved away and I never saw him again... probably had something to do with it. The first and last person I ever fell in love with.)

Thank you.

Re:Suicide happens,

[cheekyjohnson]

The thing is that everything about it is irrational.

I don't see anything inherently illogical about it. It's a choice just like anything else.

It's the most selfish act that a person can do.

But wanting them to stay alive for you and/or others isn't? I say there's nothing wrong with selfishness in some cases. Don't let other people's sensitivity/emotions control your every action.

Re:Suicide happens,

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I thought it was uproariously hilarious.

Perhaps you should just kill yourself since you have no sense of humor.

Re:Suicide happens,

[Hork_Monkey]

It's a choice that is generally significantly biased by an underlying mental illness. When you aren't in a rational state, you can't properly evaluate the consequences of that action.

I wanted him to stay alive because I cared about him. He needed help. I highlighted the aftermath so that others could see the aftermath, which is rarely considered or talked about.

It is the most selfish decision a person can make. However, they're usually not in the position to properly evaluate the consequences.

Re:Suicide happens,

[cheekyjohnson]

It's a choice that is generally significantly biased by an underlying mental illness.

Regardless of what mental illnesses we diagnose these people with, I see nothing inherently illogical about it. No more so than simply doing what you want to do (even if they can't evaluate the consequences, but for some people, that may not be true).

It is the most selfish decision a person can make.

Who decided that it is the "most" selfish? Almost everything humans do is selfish, anyway.

Elvis @ McDonalds?

[Anonymous Coward]

So BuzzFeed is an online Tabloid?

I give zero fucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I fucked your dad

whats the problem now?

[Anonymous Coward]

i only see win win situation here, a news organization not censor whats happening and the other hand copycat suicides? wtf, can we at least acknowledge we have a population problem?

Re:whats the problem now?

[Anonymous Coward]

shout out to all the old ogrish guys! We all know this video is spoofed, he was obviously shot by a drone

I committed suicide once

[Anonymous Coward]

Highly recommended. Would do it again.

U$tArds killing 'emselves,

[Anonymous Coward]

less stupid ppl in the world. No one is complaining.

Shocking to watch live

[slasher999]

Wife and I were watching this live. It was shocking to say the least. I'm sad to say I've now witnessed two suicides live on television over the years. Live television is difficult since people can be so unpredictable.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[war4peace]

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.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[fm6]

So why the fuck watch live TV? Why even bother with cable news? Every time you look at it, your IQ drops a point.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[muon-catalyzed]

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?

Re:Shocking to watch live

[wonkey_monkey]

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.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not for one second suggest that the same people that complain about violence on the news are the same ones that sit down with popcorn to "enjoy" a horror movie.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[amiga3D]

It is suprising that he shot himself. It's more common for them to come out and pretend they have a weapon or if they do have one, to act as if they are about to use it against the officers. Suicide by COP is the most often used method in these cases. If you subscribe to the usual /. view then his problems, whatever they are, are over. It makes one wonder why more don't choose this way out. If this life is all there is then, when it becomes unbearably fubared, oblivion is an obvious and easy way out.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[dr_dank]

Was R Budd Dwyer the other one?

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

No, watching people die has always been traumatic. That's why it makes for blockbuster movies. However, when watching a movie, you know it's fake. It's still jarring, bur your brain processes it as "not real". I suggest you learn more about psychology. There's a reason we no longer show executions live.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Nidi62]

If this life is all there is then, when it becomes unbearably fubared, oblivion is an obvious and easy way out.

There's always a chance, no matter how small, that life can get better. There's zero chance that death can improve.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

Very true!

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

This might be a shocking experience (especially due to the implied "nothing bad can happen" context you're in while watching TV) but ... think how you would feel about being just 1m away from a real suicide, unable to prevent it, unable to get the sound of breaking brones out of your head, unable to get the smell out of your head and -last but not least- unable to get the picture of the utterly helpless subway operator out of your head. In other words: Get some perspective.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[bruce_the_loon]

DMCA. Serious here, try and file a fake DMCA if you really want to get it off Google. Or let Fox know and get them to file a real DMCA as it is their footage. I'm sure they'd like to dump it.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[yotto]

If this life is all there is then, when it becomes unbearably fubared, oblivion is an obvious and easy way out.

There's always a chance, no matter how small, that life can get better. There's zero chance that death can improve.

Yeah but what if your life sucks AND you're really really lazy?

Re:Shocking to watch live

[FudRucker]

Death improves too, all that smelly rotting flesh eventually goes away and you have nice clean bones

Re:Shocking to watch live

[BetterSense]

Less spectacular?

00:45 flying chunks of skull FTW

NSWF obviously

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2Bkk7pmFdU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Re:Shocking to watch live

[SpaghettiPattern]

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.)

Re:Shocking to watch live

[jfdavis668]

Oh, I watched that live. That was sickening. Not the shooting, but the blood running out of his head afterward. For those that don't know, he was the Treasurer of Pennsylvania. He was under investigation, and called a press conference. Then shot himself on live TV. The video crew was shocked, and didn't respond. The real sick part was the cameraman continued to follow the action, filming him slumped against the wall, bleeding from the nose. The blood flow was considerable. I would not recommend watching it, but it is floating around the Internet.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Your opinion may vary, but it is shockingly different. I am a big fan of gruesome horror movies - the gruesomer, the better. It's great
Having taken a look at some real death footage once or twice, I find it to be very uncomfortable to watch

Realistic or not, a fake murder is VERY different, and not just because you _know_ it's fake. It's because fake deaths are overplayed/overdramatized.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

try and file a fake DMCA

That would be a federal offence.

Anyway what's the big deal? Blurry image of a guy in the desert. Blur moves another blur. Blur falls to the ground. Whoop.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow up.

You're asking a young, male, self-assured (at least on a forum) douchebag to "grow up"? Good luck with that.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Rockoon]

The real sick part was the cameraman continued to follow the action

Why is that the real sick part?

His job was to film what happened. What happened was unexpected, and apparently so 'revolting' that people of less character such as yourself would have completely lost it.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[bhagwad]

I think I can pretty much sit through a real person commiting suicide without being seriosly perturbed.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[bhagwad]

I just watched it. Kind of boring. The most interesting part was the reaction of the anchor.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[bhagwad]

I've seen animals die. Seeing a human die is not any different.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[dr_dank]

The Filter song "Hey Man, Nice Shot" was written about that incident.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[spire3661]

Turn in your geek card NOW. Seriously, what you are suggesting is a serious crime and an abuse. At the end of the day its jsut a human ending his life, not something that needs to be banned. Obviously its not something we want to broadcast to everyone, but going ot youtube is a choice. There is nothing wrong with morbid curiosity at this level.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the viewer is a psychopath (in the clinical sense) that is never how it works.

Oh look, another person on the Internet pretending to be a psychologist, and he's calling people who aren't as offended about something as him psychopaths! What a shock...

Grow up.

It looks like you disagree with me; therefore, you should grow up!

Re:Shocking to watch live

[couchslug]

"Unless the viewer is a psychopath (in the clinical sense) that is never how it works."

Citation needed.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[wonkey_monkey]

It's too much of a stretch for you to believe that watching someone getting shot in the head in full knowledge that it's a special effect, then watching the same thing in the full knowledge than a human life has just ended and having an identical (non-)emotional reaction isn't normal?

What a world.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Inda]

Whilst that's true, life wont get any worse with death.

Imagine you think you've hit rock bottom, only for the next day to be even worse. Can you handle another day if it gets worse still?

Must be a horrible situation.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[war4peace]

You need to go back to History 101, my friend. the world's history is full of people killing other people, and themselves, sometimes at the same time. It even happens right now in some part of the world. You would call them savages. They would call you wimp. Amazingly, I think both parties are wrong at the same time.
What you need to realize: we're facing different views and different cultures and there's nothing more to it. It's really THAT simple.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[war4peace]

I have watched plenty deaths caught on camera (as a former civilian consultant for police departments, related to digital footage technicalities). Also, when I worked for a TV station I had to record footage of car accidents, fires, drownings, aftermaths of suicides of various sort (for police records, there was a contract which had us take footage in gruesome detail and share it with the police department). I have developed a thicker crust than most people do, and that allowed me to examine the situations without being shocked.
They're shocking to watch because they are rarely seen. If you see a couple every other week for a couple years, it becomes a banality, so to speak.

Also from a financial perspective, whenever some criminal schmuck decides to take his own life, your government saves up to a few millions which otherwise would be spent on trials, imprisonment and whatnot.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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" [...]

I'd guess the real difference is less "reality vs. fiction" and more "people make a choice to watch Saw VII" (hopefully) knowing that they're going to see something gruesome. They'd probably willingly watch real carnage if they could get over the social stigma. The BuzzFeed "likes", to me, says that there are people out there who already have.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[nebular]

I saw the video. Honestly, it's pretty tame. The camera is far away so you don't see many details, just the guy pointing something to his head, then falling down. Fact is we've all seen JFK's head blown open so something like this isn't too shocking other than the fact it was live and a suicide. I feel sorry for the guy's family more than anything, they shouldn't have to see this once, let along the number of times it will show up on the internet.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

he's calling people who aren't as offended about something as him psychopaths!

Poor choice of words, since being disturbed by something is very different from being "offended" by it. People's capacity to be disturbed by real-life violence is, in fact, a damned good benchmark for their level of psychopathy.

Differentiating between fictional and real violence in one's affective response is a different issue; some people are deeply disturbed by both, and others have cognitive deficits which make it hard for them to tell the difference. But a person who's unmoved by both real and fictional violence is pretty much a psychopath by definition.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[war4peace]

No, mate, the viewer might just be better in sync with how the world really is. You have no clue. Most people have no clue, and that's because their eyes are blind shut by a "world" of fake. If you live in a densely populated area (NY, LA, SanFran...), chances are that there's a murder less than 20 miles from you every single day, not to mention rapes, crippling beatings and the like.
With the advent of digital cameras pretty much everywhere... expect the reality to hit you in the head more and more often.
You live in a made-up world of pink and birds. Whether you want to take the red pill and wake up is up to you.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[nebular]

I've seen it. And the blood was the horrible part, but I don't remember the cameraman following the action so much as just leaving the camera pointed at the same place. I figured it was on a tripod (it was a press conference) and so the cameraman just didn't do anything (or maybe even looked away)

Re:Shocking to watch live

[war4peace]

On the other hand, keeping world violence hidden from people leads to people who have no idea how real world is.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

I probably am a psychopath then.
I've never had myself tested, but if this is the reaction a psychopath has to some stranger kicking it, then I must be one.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the link. I was having trouble finding it.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[wonkey_monkey]

No, mate, the viewer might just be better in sync with how the world really is. You have no clue. Most people have no clue

If "most people have no clue" then how can that be how "the world" really is? Surely, by definition of "most", more than 50% of "the world" isn't like that at all?

expect the reality to hit you in the head more and more often.

What reality? That horrible things happen? I actually knew that already. But most people's personal reality in the civilized world is going about most of their days more-or-less happily with little more to worry about than whether there's enough milk for the morning. Yeah, shitty things happen, and if you want to obsess over them (as the news channels seem to do) - and if it comforts you to believe that you're not one of the "sheeple" - go ahead.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor choice of words

The word does not matter; it's all similar nonsense.

People's capacity to be disturbed by real-life violence is, in fact, a damned good benchmark for their level of psychopathy.

Yet another person on the Internet pretending to be a psychologist! Greetings, friend!

There are plenty of people who would feel bad if someone they actually know died (which shows they're not sociopaths) and yet don't care much (if at all) if some random person they've never met dies. Yes, it's entirely possible, and yes, I am one of those people. Yet, I myself become sad at the thought of me hurting another stranger, so I am no sociopath (no matter what people pretending to be psychologists on the Internet say). Don't agonize over every death; it's meaningless.

But a person who's unmoved by both real and fictional violence is pretty much a psychopath by definition.

No, you just lack imagination.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

How the times are changing. Just 15 years ago there was rotten.com, and no other site would touch that kind of material with a ten foot pole. Now it gets thumbs up on YouTube.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

So why the fuck watch live TV? Why even bother with cable news? Every time you look at it, your IQ drops a point.

No problem since the median IQ is 100 by definition anyway and most people are watching, it evens out in the end.

BTW, I did not know that chases are broadcasted in the US. I thought that this practice was purely fiction.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Toonol]

Bull. Some people are just psychologically strong enough not to be bothered. We know suicide happens; it is only a shock if you haven't really understood and reconciled that fact. That fact that you've observed it doesn't increase or decrease how bad the suicide is, so why should it be traumatic?

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Znork]

We're walking dead anyway, so the only question is really whether you're better off dead now or dead later. For some people the net experience is unlikely to be favourable (in case they are even capable of experiencing positives). They could conceivably be better off doing a lot of drugs, but sometimes there's just no point in delaying the inevitable.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Sardaukar86]

I'm SO glad people like you are there to protect the world from itself. Where would our society be without you do-gooders?

Censorship is obscene.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[wonkey_monkey]

That fact that you've observed it doesn't increase or decrease how bad the suicide is, so why should it be traumatic?

Because humans aren't the rational beings you seem to think they ought to be. Death disturbs us in any form - even (crazy though this may seem) when it happens to other people - it's a terrifying concept. I mean, we invented religion, of all things, so we wouldn't have to worry about it. Even I, an atheist, am crossing my fingers that I'll wake up afterwards, somehow resurrected - preferably by a planetful of nubile women who need help procreating, but I'll take what I can get.

Some people are just psychologically strong enough not to be bothered.

Some people aren't bothered by cutting other people into little pieces for their own amusement. Not really sure I'd call that a "strength," either.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[ClioCJS]

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.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[war4peace]

What reality? That horrible things happen? I actually knew that already. But most people's personal reality in the civilized world is going about most of their days more-or-less happily with little more to worry about than whether there's enough milk for the morning. Yeah, shitty things happen, and if you want to obsess over them (as the news channels seem to do) - and if it comforts you to believe that you're not one of the "sheeple" - go ahead.

No, you don't "know" it. It's a vague expression that has been carefully filtered of all garbage and trickled down to you with care, God forbid you might see a bit of blood here and there. As a result, you're "shocked" when you accidentally see a bit of true world.
the world is composed of both people happily minding their business and people frantically killing others (or themselves). I prefer to be properly informed of both, so that my view won't be biased. Thankfully, I managed to know both the shadow and the light.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Hork_Monkey]

I'll agree with something like a gunshot to the head, but most deaths are not immediate.

I've never seen a human die, but I've seen one in a tragic accident that was very lucky to live. The screams and cries still make me shudder.

Animals have evolved to hide pain, as they are more likely to become prey when injured. In general, they are quiet yet aggressive in a traumatic accident and close to death.

Source: My wife is a veterinarian.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[psiclops]

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.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more common for them to come out and pretend they have a weapon or if they do have one, to act as if they are about to use it against the officers.

Or they step out of the vehicle, comply with orders and are shot anyway.

Do you really think that policemen in the heat and fury of a chase are going to act rationally?

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

The Filter song "Hey Man, Nice Shot" was written about that incident.

Huh? I thought it was Nice "Shirt"

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, why force them to censor it? Maybe some people (myself included) were curious after they saw this story and immediately looked it up? I don't see what the big deal is, it's not like people aren't killing themselves every day. There's no point trying to ignore it and pretend it doesn't happen, some of us are actually curious about how things things happen and aren't going to go to bed crying at night just because we watched someone shoot himself. I don't really see why some people's finding it inappropriate means the rest of us can't have access to the information. If it bothers you, don't watch the video - it's not on live television anymore.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

And to add to that, I honestly think these things should be viewed more. It's like how they won't show war footage of the kids who are maimed and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they did I guarantee there would be a lot less people warmongering in the name of patriotism and such. The world should be shown as it is, not how we wish it to be.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty of people who would feel bad if someone they actually know died (which shows they're not sociopaths) and yet don't care much (if at all) if some random person they've never met dies. Yes, it's entirely possible, and yes, I am one of those people.

I wouldn't be quite so proud of that, or smug about it, if I were you.

(BTW we're talking about seeing someone die and being unmoved by it, not just the hypothetical idea of "someone random dying". If you can see someone get their head blown off or get burned to death and respond with little more than a shrug, then it doesn't really matter what label we affix to your condition -- bottom line, you're just a creep.)

Also, you're aware of the irony of accusing other people of pretending to be psychologists, but then opining on your own mental state, yes? If you're playing by your own rules, then you should be silent, for you have no standing to express an opinion on the matter.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[jampola]

*tumbleweed*

Re:Shocking to watch live

[wonkey_monkey]

As a result, you're "shocked" when you accidentally see a bit of true world.

If you want to talk about vague expressions, what is this "true world" you keep talking about? You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

not just the hypothetical idea of "someone random dying".

But it is; it's still just a random person that I do not know. Nothing you say will change that.

As long as we're telling other people (strangers, no less) how they feel and diagnosing them with various mental disorders, I hereby diagnose you with schizophrenia and asperger's syndrome. Also, you don't really believe anything you just said.

then it doesn't really matter what label we affix to your condition

I responded to a specific comment; don't change it now!

bottom line, you're just a creep.

Oh, well, sorry for not agonizing over a stranger's death. You don't seem to have a good opinion about me, and that saddens me greatly!

Also, you're aware of the irony of accusing other people of pretending to be psychologists, but then opining on your own mental state, yes?

Telling you what I feel is quite different than some random person on the Internet that I've never met telling me how I feel and then proceeding to diagnose me. I know I feel empathy because I have felt it before and continue to do so; even a real psychologist couldn't make that go away.

If you're playing by your own rules

You completely misunderstood my rules, it seems.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[war4peace]

True world is simply reality, which is quite a bit more than that sugar-coated censored crap that's being fed to you on TV.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's gone. But it's still on LiveLeak: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ba_1348861909

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

But most people's personal reality in the civilized world is going about most of their days more-or-less happily with little more to worry about than whether there's enough milk for the morning.

Most of those people's personal reality is a result of them putting on blinders and ignoring the bulk of what is actually happening around them. Try living without a car, and you'll realize the world you live in is drastically different from what you though when driving everywhere. Most people have a LOT more to worry about than whether or not there's enough milk, but you don't see them because you've insulated your life from most things which shock or otherwise bother you. So when something like a suicide manages to get through your filters, you get shocked and offended. Most of us who have never led such a sheltered life shrug because it really is not all that exceptional.

and if it comforts you to believe that you're not one of the "sheeple" - go ahead.

Hahaha back at ya, buddy. If the only thing you have to worry about is your milk than you are the "sheeple" in reality. But go ahead, be about your business, nothing to see here, move along people nothing to see here.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not normal.
Keep in mind YOU specified a NON-emotional reaction. As such, no, you should not have the same reaction because the two situations are not the same.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

Realistic or not, a fake murder is VERY different, and not just because you _know_ it's fake. It's because fake deaths are overplayed/overdramatized.

Um, by definition if it's realistic then you can't tell if it's fake or not by looking at it. If you can, then it's not realistic.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

who would have thought that a guy in a car chase could be unpredictable?

You and your cunt wife got what you deserved watching this filth.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[cheekyjohnson]

Some people aren't bothered by cutting other people into little pieces for their own amusement.

But I'd say not agonizing over a random stranger's death (which is important for no reason whatsoever, apparently) is quite a bit different than cutting someone up. Your lack of feelings towards someone's death typically doesn't kill someone, for instance.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

It's so "terrible" that you, in your bullshit crocodile-tear mewling, post the link to the vid on ScrewTube? What a douchebag asshole!

Re:Shocking to watch live

[Anonymous Coward]

war4peace, I think you are mentally ill. You have some very bizarre viewpoints that aren't really compatible with normal people. Get help.

Re:Shocking to watch live

[war4peace]

I will disregard you're an AC, so I'll respond.
Your message proves me right. Go live in your pink world, please, where you feel safe and there are no monsters. Or so you think.
I wonder what would you do if you witnessed a car crash with people getting severely injured. You'd probably promptly faint and not be able to help them. Or at most keep the distance and call 911, risking them to die because you can't help them anyway (there's going to be lots of that bad, scary thing called blood).

Nothing is about benefit for anyone else.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything I repeat everything is about making money. There are no other goals as far as I can tell.

they knew it was possible

[bmo]

... because Shepard Smith, in his apology, said they inserted a 5 second delay, which is what it's there for.

Someone not hitting the switcher fast enough was bound to happen sooner or later, given Fox's practices.

--
BMO

Re:they knew it was possible

[Anonymous Coward]

5 second seems like a very short reaction frame. 10-30 would be more appropriate...

Re:they knew it was possible

[bmo]

Most places use 7 to 10 second.

I've never heard of 5 second delay until now.

--
BMO

Re:they knew it was possible

[ilsaloving]

At least it wasn't Bill O'Reilly giving the report. Instead of apologizing he would be clapping and proudly announcing that that's one liberal vote that Obama wouldn't be getting.

Re:they knew it was possible

[bmo]

There is only one person i know of on Fox that has any redeeming qualities, and that is Shepard Smith. But he doesn't make up for the rest of the derp on that network.

He deserves better.

--
BMO

All things considered...

[EMABrad]

We baby this country. Media censorship creates a population that's oversensitive to real issues like suicide, and it leads to people being offended by things they simply don't like. To censor things like this is silliness.

Ethical Not...

[kbsoftware]

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 :)

Re:Ethical Not...

[couchslug]

What's "unethical" about posting Public Truth.

Why should that NOT be shown?

Yes, really.

Re:Ethical Not...

[macinnisrr]

could have. not could of

Re:Ethical Not...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it can be described just as easily. Images are not needed. Yes, really.

Duh.

You and Gawker stay classy now.

Re:Ethical Not...

[kbsoftware]

There's a difference between posting public truth and posting sensationalism.

what is sad is 1000 likes

[Anonymous Coward]

Sick fuckers.

This book should be going viral . . .

[sgt_doom]

A Secret About a Secret That is Veiled by a Secret

This Machine Kills Secrets, by Andy Greenberg

-----Unauthorized Book Review-----

Privacy on the Internet can easily be a life or death proposition: whether it was Yahoo and Jerry Yang outing a Chinese pro-democracy activist to the Chinese government, the secret police of Bahrain disappearing protesters, or the extraordinarily long incarceration and sleep-deprivation torture of Bradley Manning, the outcomes can be enormous!

When events work positively, lives are saved and movements flourish in Myanmar, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

Andy Greenberg's monumental book, This Machine Kills Secrets, delivers mightily. Greenberg has exhaustively researched the story --- and the back story --- providing the reader with the ultimate bird's eye view of the unfolding story of WikiLeaks, Internet privacy and the corporate and governmental battles waged against them --- this is one kick ass book --- and Greenberg gets everything right!

This is no David Wise or Eamon Javers misinformation trope, this is the real deal, my Wolfen friends.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0525953205

For those who wish to stay current, the sites below may be of interest.

I-Sites:

http://www.privacysos.org/blog
http://cryptogon.com/
http://www.narconews.com/
http://www.globaleaks.org/
http://www.cryptome.org/
http://www.whistleblower.org/
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

You can't show suicide

[future assassin]

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.

Re:You can't show suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't show coffins coming home from the war any more either.

Re:You can't show suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

But they don't directly show people dying. It may be implied, or there might be a dead body, but they aren't going to show a live death. Same usually goes for suicides. Especially live. It's known that sensationalizing suicides and even mass murderers can spur more. Honestly, this is only local news, and should try to be kept that way. It doesn't deserve widespread audience. This isn't war, where it's about the US in general. This is a suicide, it's local news.

Fox really messed it up this time. It's amazing how they didn't cut it, despite it being clear something was going happen, and with the delay they usually put on live feeds for this very purpose. They're probably going to get hit with a fine.

But after it was out, there's nothing that could be done. People have morbid curiousities. If I was Buzzfeed, I wouldn't have uploaded it, but someone definitely would have anyway.

I have photos of a man falling to his death in an accident at a public event. I can't bring myself to delete them, but I'm not going to share them. I'm sure there are photos out there of it anyway.

Re:You can't show suicide

[future assassin]

You know what that means, they know the war they are fighting is unjust so they just hide the dead.

Re:You can't show suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

Any more? It was the Bush administration that wouldn't show the transfer cases. They aren't coffins.

Re:You can't show suicide

[Stoutlimb]

I wish they would stop showing gruesome murder victims too. Especially that old one of that guy nailed to a piece of wood. Yuck.

Re:You can't show suicide

[couchslug]

Suicide is taboo because /Sky Fairie wants live worshippers.

"If we pretend it's not real we won't contemplate it."

That's also why Assisted Suicide is mostly taboo no matter how much suffering it would alleviate.

Re:You can't show suicide

[fafaforza]

A bit of difference, don't you think? As the summary said, it has been shown that seeing suicide can influence others, therefore that footage is withheld to protect other troubled people. Unless you do want to push people with depression or chronic pain over that last hurdle towards death.

Re:You can't show suicide

[WGFCrafty]

They don't show coffins coming home from the war any more either.

Untrue. That was a rescinded Bush policy.

Re:You can't show suicide

[Dutchmaan]

Yeah... and it's pronounced "tom-MAH-toe" not "to-MAE-to"!!!!

Re:You can't show suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

No they just didn't want a bunch of liberal cocksuckers using pictures of the coffins of dead American service personnel to further their own political agendas.

Re:You can't show suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

Well duh! Only live worshippers can put money in the baskets that get passed around.

Re:You can't show suicide

[artor3]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Causing the deaths of thousands of people doesn't make it okay to profit from the suicide of another. And make no mistake, that is what's happening here. They air these chases as ultra-low-budget action movies to draw eyeballs and sell ads, knowing full well how these things can end.

Re:You can't show suicide

[future assassin]

No they just didn't want a bunch of liberal cocksuckers using pictures of the coffins of dead American service personnel to further their own political agendas.

Riiight they don't want to ruin their own political agendas. You got that right dear hypocrite.

Re:You can't show suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Aren't you a little old to believe in "promoting democracy"? Those words are used to explain things to children (and, sadly, the child-like geopolitically-retarded economically-retarded masses), similar to Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Democracy is mob rule, and any popular dictator (a dictator cannot stay in power for long without being popular) can call "their land" a "democracy", like in North Korea.

USA's wars are fought for greater Economic Freedom - that's what "American Way" is all about! That's why USA fought a Revolution, and what made it different from any other New World or Old World nation. Only a handful of tiny nations come close to USA in Economic Freedom (and other aspects of freedom), and mostly thanks to USA's influence. Any war where a rabid socialist government (no matter if they wave the flags of Communism, National Socialism / Fascism, Islamic Socialism / Ba'athism, Peronismo, Somali WarlordXism, etc) is replaced with a less socialist one is, under the circumstances, a just war.

Now, back to the story at hand. USA isn't perfect, and has its parasitic infirmities / socialistic aspects, including government licensing and regulation of mainstream media. It's a constant struggle for freedom - fighting Saddams abroad, as well as our own little Saddam-wannabes in Washington DC... The sole rational purpose of government is violence, and the sole rational target of this violence is socialism large and small (including petty street thugs trying to "tax" your wallet).

In a pure free economy, a media institution is subject only to contractual agreements with its customers / partners / sponsors, if any, with no prior restraints to showing you whatever the hell it wants. Competition (including from everyman with a camera-phone and a Web-site) ultimately encourages an information-rich society where an individual can see whatever the hell s\he wants to see.

--libman

Re:You can't show suicide

[Hork_Monkey]

I would think ratings is the bigger driver. It's been 10+ years, so they only cover the wars when something "major" happens.

I would prefer it being shown every night primetime just to keep it in the forefront of everyone's mind. Just or unjust, we as citizens need to be held accountable for those we elect.

I'll not get into the debate(s) about elections, voting power, corruption, etc. That's its own set of topics.

Re:You can't show suicide

[PPH]

Kids. This is what happens when you forget your safe word.

Re:You can't show suicide

[malv]

The people would go crazy if they were exposed to the truth of what keeps empires alive.

Re:You can't show suicide

[Murasaki Skies]

That should count as a suicide, too (as well as a murder), due to acceptance on the character's part in spite of having superhuman powers, including foreknowledge of the event, which could've let him at least make a strong attempt to not be killed. That is, of course, assuming that the character had free will. Lalala...

Re:You can't show suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

There is much much more truth in what you say than the current 3 points your post has got suggest.

That /Sky Fairy controls our lives a hell of a lot of more than "He" should, and doesnt do half the good things He's supposed to do if He really is the powerful Sky Fairy He's made out to be.

Re:You can't show suicide

[Livius]

That guy was convicted of sedition. Your criminal justice system at work!

And, unlike terrorists today, he got a lawful trial.

Re:You can't show suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because someone who posts with the name "future assassin" is probably the best one to lecture everyone on civility. The world is actually quite different than the one under your rock.

Some Middle Ground

[cluedweasel]

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.

Re:Some Middle Ground

[kae77]

I work with youth, and so I feel your pain on this one. In my local town last year there was nearly a dozen suicides, and none of them were broadcast or publicized in any way. That being said, the research, professionally and anecdotally, shows that if you broadcast or glorify the person who has committed suicide, there will be others. Almost do a disproportionate level. Even without the broadcasting, there were copycats or others suicides that were clearly and directly linked to prior ones. It has a lot to do with developing minds, and how some teenagers have a fragile sense of self-worth. Their social setting drastically affects the way they view the world, and if all they want is to be noticed, and they see someone who has committed suicide being glorified, or even lifted above the situation, some people take action to get the same attention. It's a tricky line to walk, and one that is very much in contention. One thing to make clear though: Just because it's not publicized doesn't mean it is swept under the rug. Counsellors, friends, communities are very much involved in those who are left in the wake of a suicide, and that effort goes unpublicized as much as the suicide itself. It is a long, hard journey for everyone involved.

Re:Some Middle Ground

[perbu]

According to an episode of This American Life suicides often inspire other suicides except in situation where it has somehow gone wrong and has led to a gruesome death or mutilated corpse or something similar. In Norway, where I live, there is a policy of not commenting on suicides if it can be avoided. So, whenever a random 18 year old boy or girl kills him/herself it goes without notice in the media. If a minister kills himself it is of course reported upon. I think the media in your town has gotten it right.

Re:Some Middle Ground

[Anonymous Coward]

The media doesn't report on suicides because if they do it incorrectly, it can lead to copycat suicides. Reference

Re:Some Middle Ground

[misexistentialist]

What about all the other news, 99% of which sets a bad example? Clearly suicide is the exception, because it is so self-evidently the right thing to do.

Re:Some Middle Ground

[nick0909]

I agree there has to be some middle ground. Completely ignoring it and pretending it doesn't happen doesn't seem right, but we don't need to glamorize it. I used to be a photojournalist and shot pictures of a murder scene at a local college. We had a ton of pictures and the editors and I decided to run one that we considered in the middle of the road from everything I had shot. It was a wide shot of the whole scene at night with detectives and the street corner, and if you looked closely you could see a sheet covered object in the street. It was the person that had been killed, but small and off-center in the frame. Our goal was not to present a grotesque image but to show the scene as it was. A few people complained that it shocked them, and my best answer to them was I am sorry, but I am also glad you are shocked, we all should be shocked that someone was murdered on our campus. We can't just hide the fact that bad things happen, but we can take a minute to sit back and judge how we should present it. Live coverage doesn't allow that to be done.

Re:Some Middle Ground

[couchslug]

" 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."

Without a statistical breakdown of WHY each suicide occurs, a high rate means very little.

If the population are old, sick, etc, then suicide can be a reasonable choice as opposed to slow, lingering agony/insanity.

Re:Some Middle Ground

[naroom]

Wish I had mod points. Great reply.

Re:Some Middle Ground

[der_pinchy]

Thats some mighty fine projecting couch slug.

Re:Some Middle Ground

[CODiNE]

Statistically old people have the highest suicide rate. It's just a reasonable guess, lots of tourism... hidden underside of high suicides. Florida sounds like what he could be talking about, but they tend not to do it in dramatic ways that get a lot of attention. Usually they just stop taking their medicine and it's not entirely clear if it was intentional or not.

Checking here shows that no state has a suicide rate 3x the average and only Wyoming has just about 2x the average. Looking at the top 10 states, none of them seem strongly linked with tourism. They mostly look like rural places.

That's all statewide, he didn't specify state but rather his town... so a particular town could be 3x the average and not skew the stats for the whole state.

Checking HERE it turns out Las Vegas has the #1 suicide rate of all US towns. That actually matches the original poster's story better than a tropical retirement tourist trap type place. Las Vegas definitely wants to be thought of a a city of lights and glamour, not the place you're most likely to kill yourself after gambling away every cent you own.

How long before executions are shown live?

[Joe_Dragon]

How long before executions are shown live?

Re:How long before executions are shown live?

[theskipper]

Dunno, I sent that exact question to foxnewstips@foxnews.com yesterday but haven't received a reply yet.

Guess they're still thinking it over.

Re:How long before executions are shown live?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? The commercial value alone tells us what to do.

Keyword: recall

Re:How long before executions are shown live?

[bhagwad]

Does one really care? Living creatures die all the time. I bet you've crushed your share of spiders and insects. I've also seen a few animals expire before my eyes. Those were more traumatic to me than watching some blurry stranger shoot his brains out.

Re:How long before executions are shown live?

[Erikderzweite]

Live executions need to happen, otherwise we won't get the Running Man show ever!

Re:How long before executions are shown live?

[spire3661]

I honestly think that if we are going to commit state-sponsored murder we should force the masses watch what is done in their name.

Re:How long before executions are shown live?

[cheekyjohnson]

Because you're not as offended by something as I am, I hereby deem you to be a sociopath.

Re:How long before executions are shown live?

[geekymachoman]

Maybe in some years, someone makes an all-suicide-channel and uses it to "balance the stupid fucking budget".
Maybe we'll have people signing in, if the channel gives them some free appliance.

Youtube George Carlin for reference.

Re:How long before executions are shown live?

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't even tell if he did shoot his brains out.
The video was so blurry it could have been someone pointing a gun at their head and pretending to die.

Re:How long before executions are shown live?

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before executions are shown live?

I'd buy that for a quarter!

Re:How long before executions are shown live?

[isorox]

How long before executions are shown live?

It will be pay-per-view. This was just to test the waters, and there was less outcry than a "trouser malfunction", which leads to there being less outcry for pay-per-view executions vs pay-per-view porn.

news porn

[Anonymous Coward]

At least FOX apologized - in Greece it was in most channels (we are not so sensitive about that kind of stuff as you are in USA).
But yes... that kind of stuff, while are indeed "news", it's better to be aired in the "news porn" time zone!

After 9/11, why the fuss?

[Anonymous Coward]

We saw thousands of people die in the towers that day, live on TV. Is a single individual with a gun really worse?

Re:After 9/11, why the fuss?

[Anonymous Coward]

We saw thousands of people die in the towers that day, live on TV. Is a single individual with a gun really worse?

Indeed, and more than once instance of people jumping out of windows before the second tower fell. I still think about the guy in the blue sweater, not because it effected me emotionally, but because every year they seem to replay 9/11 footage that shows it. The replay of the video isnt focusing on the guy either, its just one of many things happening in the video.

My thoughts often go to his family, who surely are reminded every year that he jumped to his death rather than face the fire or the now very real threat that the tower he is in will also collapse. "He always looked so nice in that sweater."

Re:After 9/11, why the fuss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mild Babylon 5 spoilers... there's a point in one episode where Captain Sheridan has a choice. He can die by nuclear blast, or jump to his death in a canyon. He jumps, and a lot of people seemed to be confused about why he would choose to do this. JMS explained it as the fact he was dead either way, but jumping gave him a few more seconds of life, during which he might figure out a way of avoiding death. It's a TV show, so the chances of that are much higher, but really, if you're going to die for sure one way, but have a 0.000001% chance of surviving the other way, why not take it?

Re:After 9/11, why the fuss?

[Toonol]

I haven't watched any Babylon 5... so I'm curious. Did Captain Sheridan die, or did his risky plan work?

Re:After 9/11, why the fuss?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, he died, but he gets better.

FOX Did It Deliberately

[Anonymous Coward]

And it wasn't Smith's fault. _All_ live feeds are supposed to have at least a five second delay, which is under control of the production crew. This is to prevent just these kinds of incidents. Also, Merkins don't like nipples, so it prevents those showing as well.
    If the five second delay fails, you don't get the live feed out of the console- you get nothing.
    Yes the signal can be routed around the delay, but that takes an intentional act.
    Smith, who is just about the only reasonably ethical on air FOX personality, is taking this hard.

It's All Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so long as they didn't air a video which is offensive to Muslims. Then the President would be arresting them and demanding the video be taken down.

"The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam."

Second Airliner

[Anonymous Coward]

So they shouldn't have shown the second airliner striking the other tower on 9/11? Clearly it could have happened since it happened before, so they should've seen it coming and cut away. It was a suicide AND a homicide.

Get off it, people. Much as I dislike Fox News car chases get aired and people do unfortunate things. Covering things live and being caught by surprise happens. THIS. IS. REAL. NEWS.

Fox could and DID know what they were airing.

[santax]

Those 10 seconds delays aren't electronics lag.

Re:Fox could and DID know what they were airing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those 10 seconds delays aren't electronics lag.

Geez, it's not like it was a nipple or something. This was Jack Bauer stuff and it's A-ok because everyone likes 24.

What is so bad about showing suicides?

[wisnoskij]

What is so bad about showing suicides?
It does not even sound like they showed it insensitivly, it was just footage of the event (it is not like the anchor was yelling "do it").

Re:What is so bad about showing suicides?

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Because somewhere in the hypocrisy of America, we have been programmed to believe that showing real life versions of certain things on television is somehow inappropriate, yet real life versions of other bad things are acceptable. It seems in most cases, people aren't prepared to deal with real life, or real death. We're kind of a nation of pussies now, for better or worse...

Re:What is so bad about showing suicides?

[Jon Stone]

The problem is that it encourages other people to commit suicide too.
http://www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines/advice-media-copycats-and-social-contagion

Re:What is so bad about showing suicides?

[wisnoskij]

And showing car chases encourages other people to do the same, reporting about murders, thefts, and serial killers also.

But in real life, these are not normal people who suddenly decide to do these things because the news reported it. Does the overall suicides over a long period of time go up when a suiside is shown? or does it just bunch a bunch of people together in a short period of time.

Re:What is so bad about showing suicides?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is so bad about showing suicides?

Because if you get on TV for suiciding, or creating a situation where suicide is a likely outcome, some people will suicide just to get on TV.

Re:What is so bad about showing suicides?

[artor3]

For the same reason it's bad to show streakers at sports games. If you give someone nationwide publicity for doing a bad thing, more people will do that thing.

Re:What is so bad about showing suicides?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man, that would have been great. "Blow it off! Blow it off!"

Re:What is so bad about showing suicides?

[wisnoskij]

But regardles of what longitudinal statistics would or would not show, if there are any that website sure was not pointing them out, the main issue is not do more people die but does it have any negative effect at all on the 99% of us normal people.
I think Robert A. Heinlein said it best "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." (paraphrase of quote from The Man Who Sold the Moon (1950)).

Regardless of if showing suicides pushes some deeply disturbed individuals over the edge or not is beside the point. There is not a thing under the sun that could not possibly push someone over the edge into some violent act. If you are so worried about the dregs of society then round them up, put them in straight jackets and padded rooms, and keep them doped out of their minds for the rest of their short and horrible lives.

Re:What is so bad about showing suicides?

[shilly]

As ever, the Heinlein version has a bit more pep: "The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak". The version you quote is sometimes attributed to Mark Twain (of whom Heinlein was a big fan, of course). Heinlein also had some interesting views on suicide, per Time Enough for Love. But he also recognised that what got shown on TV was frequently bonkers and vile, so I'm not sure where he'd have stood on this topic, in the end.

I'm pretty sure that he would have vehemently disagreed with your next paragraph, though. He had a very unRomney-esque sense of empathy with people in difficult circumstances. I much prefer this quote from him, which captures his spirit a lot better: "People who go broke in a big way never miss any meals. It is the poor jerk who is shy a half slug who must tighten his belt"

Re:What is so bad about showing suicides?

[Toonol]

So? Should all ideas be held up to the same standard?

Beer commercials have killed more people than all televised suicides and murders, if that's the case. Shouldn't they be censored too?

Re:What is so bad about showing suicides?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is so bad about showing suicides?

Because if you get on TV for suiciding, or creating a situation where suicide is a likely outcome, some people will suicide just to get on TV.

And that's a "bad thing" ... why ? (yes, intentionnally taking the extreme view)

As long as they didn't influence it, it's OK

[Animats]

The question is whether TV directly influenced the suicide. That doesn't seem to have been the case here. This was apparently a failed crook who didn't want to go to jail.

It would be different if someone was attempting suicide to get attention, as in threatening to jump from a building, and that was covered on live TV. Then coverage would directly affect the odds of someone jumping.

Re:As long as they didn't influence it, it's OK

[Jon Stone]

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

Re:As long as they didn't influence it, it's OK

[ToadProphet]

I read it, but I don't think one can conclude that showing a suicide will necessarily influence people to commit suicide. Unless I'm missing something, it appears from their examples that there's a correlation between the method of suicide shown and the number of actual suicides using that method. That doesn't mean there was an increase in suicides across the board, just using the particular method.

Gawker

[Anonymous Coward]

Gawker is utter trash. Nobody should ever read or link to any of their sites.

Fox DID know what the guy was about to do, but...

[wonkey_monkey]

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>

Behind the scenes at Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

I have complete confidence that behind the scenes, the top people at Fox are delighted beyond belief over this. This is the type of cheap and vulgar thing that they are famous for.

You need to remember that the decline of journalism - especially TV journalism - in this country (the US) is the direct result of Fox's (Rupert Murdoch's) desire to appeal to the "Conservative" populace and the lowest common denominator in the US. This was stated explicitly in the mission statement of the network when he created it in the 80's. And as a result the other networks have followed and we now have this spiral to the bottom. CNN has done well in not following to closely and they're pretty good with the hard news; as well as NPR.

Fox and their talking heads, propagated this myth of the "liberal media", formatted the news accordingly, and as a result we in the US have a portion of our electorate that is so ill-informed that they are steering much this country down a road that is becoming quite scary.

But our news organizations in the US have become lazy, incompetent, and over sensationalism all because of Fox's leadership down the toilet. Much of the BS in Washington is because our news organizations are letting those people get away with their non-sense and frankly, when I really want to know what's going on in Washington, I look to foreign sources - like the Economist for one.

Re:Behind the scenes at Fox

[fafaforza]

So you're saying that in an organization that employs hundreds of people at all kinds of levels and facilities, there are some people that don't mind this attention or the ratings? Do you care to make any other leaps of faith?

FoxNews shows reality - apologizes immediately

[tp1024]

Ironic, isn't it?

Re:FoxNews shows reality - apologizes immediately

[interval1066]

Given how fast and loose the other networks are as well, not really.

Re:FoxNews shows reality - apologizes immediately

[Burz]

It would be ironic for a proper new organization.

Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds

Re:FoxNews shows reality - apologizes immediately

[Burz]

It would be ironic for a proper new organization.

Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong, Report Finds

Uh oh, Fox fanbois runnin' around with mod points...

Highly doubtful.

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been lots of sites that show death pictures and videos. In other parts of the world having news display that kind of content is acceptable. The u.s is the only place that sugar coats the news and displayed a really biased view on things. It Maximizes truth-telling and shows a kind of realism about the world.

link?

[Anonymous Coward]

I this were reddit, the link to the video would be top post.

Re:link?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=036_1348892736

Sticks and stones may break my bones

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems we've finally found something that is "going too far." That after the other 600-comment thread mostly talking about freedom of speech, and how it's an absolute value, and must be defended at all costs, and especially offensive speech. In fact the offensive speech should be broadcast again and again, just to really make sure people got the message.

Of course, this'll be followed by responses saying that "Well, that was different." Different in speech that you're not personally offended by should be test cases for free speech, and even condemning the speech is tantamount to banning it, whereas people that broadcast speech that you're offended by should be socially shamed.

Re:Sticks and stones may break my bones

[Toonol]

No; defenses of free speech in this thread haven't gone too far. Same rule applies. If a violent act occurs because of speech, a nonviolent act, then all blame goes to the person doing the violent act. No idea is so evil or virulent it can't be communicated. Only actions.

People advocating censorship are as evil as people advocating racism.

News for Nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Setting the bar low again. Talking about people posting live footage on youtube (it got a bunch of likes!) - The fact that it's a suicide is nothing special. Really. Quit posting garbage like this on /. - Thanks.

"Cut awkwardly to commercials"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this bit is kind of funny in a morbid way - "This suicide brought to you by MetLife insurance".

switch setup wrong??

[RobertLTux]

this kind of thing should be on a err "positive action" switch were the person has to keep the button pressed to enable the feed (maybe a pair of switches wired in parallel to allow for the guy to switch hands??). This way if he goes WTF?!!?? his natural body movement will disable the feed.

and Buzzfeed should be served with a DCMA notice for violating the Copyright of Fox News.

The benefit?

[LiroXIV]

The benefit is that it gives us proof that Fox News is constantly making dumb editorial decisions. They are performing a public service, mainly because people enjoy watching the mass media goof up, especially if it involves Fox News.

Yeah hide real life and death from people...

[3seas]

Now that's or MSM..... Not news. So they apologize when they accidently show something real

A Suicide Goes "Viral" On the Internet?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Wouldn't the headline mean that after seeing the live feed, the viewers would start killing themselves in live feeds of their own? Anyway, I hope the ad after the newsflash was for headache pills. You know, context ads...

Re:A Suicide Goes "Viral" On the Internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing context ads, they'd probably be promoting Nirvana's Greatest Hits. Twice as insulting.

The problem are the people that watch people die

[someones]

The problem are the people that watch people die.
If you really want to sea people die, i guell there is enought material on the net for them to fap to.
This discussion should not be about: whats worse: airing the suicide or reposting it, but about: why do people like to watch others die...

Why would you want to show a live car chase feed?

[moderators_are_w*nke]

What possible good could come out of that? At best it's hugely uninteresting, at worst it glamorises criminality. Glad we don't have that on TV over here.

This would be no big deal in Europe

[HangingChad]

I watched the unedited footage, it wasn't that bad. In Europe they show traffic accidents in all their horror, burned bodies and all.

I just don't get why this is such a big deal. I loath Fox News because they're the propaganda arm of the GOP, not because of something trivial like this.

Re:This would be no big deal in Europe

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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...

Re:This would be no big deal in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

In Suriname they put a full color picture of an armed robber shot by the police on the front page of the news paper.

Re:This would be no big deal in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europe they show traffic accidents in all their horror, burned bodies and all.

Where in Europe are you? I have never seen anything like that.

Re:This would be no big deal in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to this be marked appropriate for kids who like to watch these and keep up the views. It's the reason why they don't show death. This is real life situation and the guy was either going to end up in jail for decades, or die. It's not a fucking game or a movie. So it's nothing unexpected. And it's wrong to censor it in such way Are people also be going to imitate car chases because the perpetrators never die?

Re:This would be no big deal in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Never seen burnt corpses on TV in Europe or even a live car chase for that matter. Otoh it's not even a very good argument to excuse something by saying someone else is supposedly worse; in federal russia the government owns the media so what's wrong with Fox News being a privately owned propaganda machine?

Re:This would be no big deal in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News is not in the tank for the GOP (though SOME on their editorial shows, like Hannity, clearly are and they self-identify)

The reason they seem to be an arm of the GOP is that all the other news outlets are in the tank for the Democrats.

At ABC, their "neutral" political host, George Stephanopolous, was Democrat Bill Clinton's campaign staffer (and then Chief of Staff)

At CBS... (seriously?) they currently do not have a nationally-known Democrat running political coverage, but they all have ties to places like Slate and people like Dan "let's fake some anti-Bush documents just before an election" Rather. Dan Rather is a well-known lib. Mike Wallace was a leftie. Walter Cronkite used to do a good job of hiding it on the air (before he turned on the Vietnam war) but he was known by all those in the newsroom as a lib. Bob Schieffer's certainly no right-winger. The entire CBS establishment is infected to the core.

At NBC, their political guy, Chris Mathews, was Democrat House Speaker Tip O'Neil's staffer

At PBS, their most famous political analyst, Bill Moyers, was Democrat President Lyndon Johnson's propaganda man

The New York Times was so far in the tank for the left that it lied to the American people about Stalin's massacres (claimed they did not happen) and they do regular dumps of classified info any time a Republican is in the White House

The Washington Post was built on it's wars against Republicans. They rightly nailed Nixon for trying to save his administration by covering up a scandal, but they never have put equal effort into any Democrat coverup scandal...even when there were actual dead bodies

None of the news outlets is perfect, or even perfectly unbiased... but if you think Fox is a monster but you are happy with any of the others then you have allowed yourself to be manipulated; you are conformist... a group-thinker.

Re:This would be no big deal in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

But of course you love MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, CNN because they're the propaganda arm of the Dems. So it makes sense.

They were lucky.

[arthurpaliden]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Copycat suicides

[amanaplanacanalpanam]

Well seeing as how it was Fox News, whose viewership is primarily composed of social conservatives and evolution deniers...I find that I am not too upset at the prospect of a few copycat suicides...

Vid or didn't happen

[Hentes]

Seriously, I was expecting at least 5 people posting the link by this time. Internet, I've known you wrong.

Re:Vid or didn't happen

[discord5]

Seriously, I was expecting at least 5 people posting the link by this time. Internet, I've known you wrong.

Here's a handy link for you : http://4chan.org/ . Don't bother with the back button, you'll fit in there better than here.

i saw this when it was called "shock and awe"

[Anonymous Coward]

and every western news agency was cheering on as the bombs dropped without a single care for the thousands killed and maimed for every fireball you saw on your screen.

Re:i saw this when it was called "shock and awe"

[Anonymous Coward]

But that was "justified" via a very creative interpretation of evidence, supported by an illegal outing of anyone who spoke up (Valerie Plame & husband) and convenient suicides of those who could prove otherwise (Dr David Kelly).

So that was all OK, and anyone who thinks different is supporting terrorists. Or something. Sorry, I get easily confused. One day it's communists, then it's pedos and now it's terrorists - it's hard to keep up..

Anon, sarcasm gets you on the Do Not Fly list too..

Re:i saw this when it was called "shock and awe"

[moderators_are_w*nke]

AC has a point

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Snuff Videos

[Burz]

In their drive for the sensational, they've stumbled upon the old, highly unethical "snuff video" genre. I wonder if their ex-commentator/madman Glen Beck would approve.

Now its out on the Internet. I sense a new angle for net censorship coming in 3...2...1...

Re:Snuff Videos

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.
This video does not meet the most important requirement for being a snuff video.
The person was not killed for the express purpose of making money.

Re:Fox DID know what the guy was about to do, but.

[gl4ss]

one minute is no longer live.
the whole thing is stupid. they were filming a chase. ...And now, I'm left to wonder why did he do it, who was he and so forth. and the whole fucking reporting around this is just centered on if it was right for them to show what happened.

So what?

[Baba Ram Dass]

Maybe I'm just a desensitized product of the times, but I fail to see why this is a big deal. The video isn't disturbing to me. There's no blood or brain matter shown, no audio. A far cry from something like the detailed Bud Dwyer suicide that aired live sometime back in the 80s I think. I still cringe when I think about seeing it.

Suicide is a reality. As a society we need to drop the taboo and understand suicide, genocide, war, etc. are all too real. I'd argue it is society, not me, who is really desensitized. Out of sight out of mind as a previous comment stated. The problem won't go away if you bury your head in sand. These things are shocking, sometimes disturbing, but they should be. Rather than ignoring them we should shed more light on them instead of living in a round corners, padded, molded plastic half true reality.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm just a desensitized product of the times, but I fail to see why this is a big deal. The video isn't disturbing to me. There's no blood or brain matter shown, no audio. A far cry from something like the detailed Bud Dwyer suicide that aired live sometime back in the 80s I think. I still cringe when I think about seeing it.

As one who saw Dwyer's exit and who saw this one, I can only say:

"Hey man, cogent comparison."

A matter of perspective

[davmoo]

You can blame Fox and BuzzFeed all you want. But the simple and ultimate fact is they are only giving the people what they want to see. If there wasn't a demand for it, Fox wouldn't be broadcasting it and BuzzFeed wouldn't be posting it. In America, "if it bleeds, it leads".

As far as TV news in general goes, there hasn't been a decent newscast in America since Walter Cronkite retired. And yes, I'm that damned old :(

Re:The problem are the people that watch people di

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The problem are not the people that watch people die. The problem IS the people that watch people die.

Re:What the hell is wrong with you people....

[Anonymous Coward]

> First, let me start by saying that from reading the comments so far, a vast majority view this as something trivial and meaningless.

It is trivial and meaningless. If you feel differently, seek professional help. In 2, 12, 20 years, this will be as inconsequential to me as it is today (maybe I woke up and went to school, maybe I woke up and am still in recovery from open heart surgery, maybe I woke up for the 3rd time to change the baby). Some of us are adults and have no problem viewing events objectively. You waited until point 3 to bring up a relevant question, rather than the rest of your psuedo-emotional ranting (none of which makes much sense).

> My guess is the majority of neckbeards on this site would show many of us to be something much more fragile than internet tough guys.

Sounds a lot like you're trolling.

MOD PARENT UP!

[rueger]

Ack - no points today. Yes, the hypocrisy of American broadcast media is never-ending.

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[PPH]

Yes, the hypocrisy of American broadcast media is never-ending.

Not the broadcast media, our feckless leaders and regulators. Broadcast would love to adopt standards common in the rest of the developed world (a flash of tit or occasional naughty word is OK), but the screaming whack-jobs raise too much of a ruckus. And our representatives cave in.

Re:Why would you want to show a live car chase fee

[Misagon]

There is also the probability that the outcome would have been gruesome in some other way. There could have been an accident where people would have been hurt or killed, or the cops or the perp could have used violence against the other side. Fox News knows this.

Showing a car chase live is only sensationalist entertainment. It has no real news value. If you learn anything from it, it may be afterwards, or not at all. If it should be shown on TV at all, it should be shown in the context of something with a substance.

Put it through a delay next time idiots...

[advocate_one]

10 seconds delay will give you plenty of time to pull the feed and still leave it looking live...

wankers...

So what and here's why:

[couchslug]

Sanitizing events lets people avoid confronting reality.

People should KNOW what death and violence and other Bad Shit look like, not masturbate to the Tasty Car Chase then cut to commercial.

PC bullshit is just another US Media Failure. Show the truth, even when that Truth is dead people. Actions have real consequences.

BTW, war is made more acceptable by not showing dead own-side troops. The "Greatest Generation" could face truth, so we have no excuse.

Would Faux News show this?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tM-QyTu2WtM/T6UrDoXUuiI/AAAAAAAAJHg/04qvGEII8Dg/s640/brutal-war-images-pictures-ww2-battle-tarawa.jpg

It was a simple error.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say I really deplore Fox News for their political slant to the news. That said, I think they were really honestly sorry here. That news anchor's apology was absolutely sincere, and I definitely believe he was genuinely incredibly sad that this aired.

Let me rephrase that for you...

[Guppy06]

But Fox couldn't have known that it was about to air a suicide

"Who could possibly have known?"

Re:Fox DID know what the guy was about to do, but.

[Kjella]

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)

As I understand it a five second delay has become the de facto delay for all "live" events to stop swearing (bleeping), wardrobe malfunctions, flashers and whatever else would hurt America's sensibilities. The reason it's not more than 5 seconds is obvious for sports games - if it was a minute other people would get the result on texts and blogs and radio ruining it for the people watching. Okay maybe in this case a minute would have been fine but I understand why they didn't make it harder than delay/no delay. And they even managed to screw that up....

Not a big deal

[tbid18]

There was no way for them to know the dude was gonna cap himself, so it's not really their fault. I guess you could argue for a time delay, but meh, doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I thought it was handled the best it could be, given the circumstances.

View From A Depressed Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

The video is still on LiveLeak without the car chase part. I watched it (without sound). It's not graphic and looks like a feed from a helicopter. The guy has his back to the camera, puts something up to his head, his hand quickly moves right (kick back from firing the gun), then the guy slumps forward and starts falling down like he's going to kneel [video cuts before end of fall or right at it]. There's no blood or any spray. If you didn't know what it was and saw the video out of context, you'd have to think about it for a moment to figure out what happened.

I've attempted suicide before (twice). I started watching 'gruesome' videos because I can't handle the blood. I wanted to get over that fear (passed out in high school from some first aid videos). I don't want to be that person who's too shocked to do anything but cower in fear when anything bad happens. There's been numerous shootings where if the first people rushed the guy instead of turning their backs to him or trying to hide, the shooting would have been over much much sooner. There's also the social effect of a group of people standing around not helping someone who's injured. I like to think viewing these videos will help me not be those people watching and taking pictures (so they can brag about the experience later on or be the focus of attention), but rather one of the 0-2 people who actually step in and try to help. If you're not shocked you won't stand still and thus there's less social pressure for others to stand still as well.

Suicide videos haven't made me want to kill myself more. They show me how brutal it can be for the people who witness the suicide and for those who uncover the dead body. I don't like bothering people. If anything, the videos make me less likely to do it. If I do end up killing myself, you can be assured I won't leave a mess. There will be a note or some type of warning for people before they're able to see my body. I'll do something so they'll discover me or know to look for me before I've been decomposing. I'll do all that because I've seen suicide videos and pictures.

If this video is so shocking to you, think about it right before you're about to insult someone or decide to ignore that homeless guy. Desperation and hopelessness drives people to suicide. It sucks when you're miserable and if you don't know how to get out of being miserable, there's no noticeable reasons to stay alive. (Hell? you're already living it.) How many people have you helped today vs how many you've hurt? (and ignoring people is hurtful especially when everyone else does it to that person too)

If you consider yourself an adult you should be able to handle this. If you can't, grow up.

Re:View From A Depressed Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

One more thing, anyone arguing for removal of the videos are arguing for censorship. I have no problem with these type of videos and images being available as long as they're labeled and not unexpectedly thrown in your face. If watching a suicide video is enough to cause another person to commit suicide, that person already needed help and others had missed his/her signs. The videos aren't the problem, they're helping you know who needs help.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Over Population

[Anonymous Coward]

News is news. I don't mind watching a video of someone committing a suicide. I lost no sleep from it.I would really like to rather see good news stories though. Too bad there's no more of those which really brings us back to what this is about... A suicide.

Re:Over Population

[Anonymous Coward]

News is news. I don't mind watching a video of someone committing a suicide. I lost no sleep from it.I would really like to rather see good news stories though. Too bad there's no more of those which really brings us back to what this is about... A suicide.

I wish more good news was actually reported on. But here (in the U.S.), anyway, it's "boring" to see good news. People thrive on conflict and disaster. It makes one feel more powerful inside when they see things externally. Sort of a God complex... "Hey, wow.. My life is awesome because I don't do things like that."

Hence, reality shows.

So, why is it that things that are actual reality aren't shown? Oh, yeah, because people want to shield the eyes of everyone to make them think the world isn't a bad place and that bad things don't happen.

This is not troll material or flame bait. It's just a damn low opinion. Take it or leave it.

Good limitations of free speech

[naroom]

Sorry, no. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is generally accepted as a limitation of free speech. It's a crime, and it should be a crime. Likewise, suicides should not be shown on TV. They are much more harmful than your average TV violence. It is well-established in the psychology literature that seeing a suicide in detail can be enough to push someone who's borderline-suicidal over the edge. Do some reading.

Re:Good limitations of free speech

[spire3661]

While i agree it shouldnt be broadcast, it shouldnt be censored at the internet level either.

Re:Good limitations of free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is generally accepted as a limitation of free speech.

The same ruling used to silence people who disagreed with a war? The same limitation that isn't present in the first amendment?

Yeah, it's accepted by people who believe someone should be blamed for other people's foolish, gullible actions. It's accepted by people who do not truly believe in freedom of speech.

If someone kills themselves over a video, then that is entirely and 100% their fault. We can't blame someone for someone else's actions because the tendency of humans to do something incredibly stupid at the slightest provocation seems high. And what offends/sets off people differs from individual to individual.

So yeah, people that don't care about free speech will accept such a limitation and then pretend they're freedom fighters when all they truly want is more of the same safety that the TSA offers you at airports. Pathetic.

Re:Good limitations of free speech

[Toonol]

I don't think speech should be banned because it might transfer a harmful idea. I care more about the global application of free speech than about a small likelihood of additional suicides. It is not a person's duty to censor themselves out of fear of potential harm to a disturbed person who reacts incorrectly to their speech. Besides, it's very possible that the increased likelihood of suicide is just a temporal fluke; it may simply trigger suicides that were going to happen eventually anyway. That sort of statistical error is hard to account for.

Re:Good limitations of free speech

[diamondmagic]

Sorry, no. The problem with "'fire' in a crowded theater" is not that it's a limitation of free speech, rather, someone who does so can be held liable for any injury they cause in the course of a lie. Never mind it's completely hypothetical Supreme Court opinion; no one has ever actually been charged with the crime of "yelling 'fire'".

You can't hold people liable for political unrest that they create, or harm that people do, never mind harm (what an ordinary person would see as harmful) that a person causes to themselves. Restrictions based on content is subject to strict scrutiny, do some reading. Almost certainly your proposal does not stand up to strict scrutiny.

Also, TFA is about whether continuing to publish the event is good journalistic standards, not if it should be censored.

Re:Good limitations of free speech

[ClioCJS]

Wrong again. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre was only illegal for a short period of time in american history. Look up the wikipedia page. I hate people like you who bring that up EVERY time.

Re:Good limitations of free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha then by your logic women should not let any of their bodies show since it would cause men rape them (or maybe just a subset of men with a tendency to rape). Got it now there friend?

Re:Good limitations of free speech

[cheekyjohnson]

The problem with "'fire' in a crowded theater" is not that it's a limitation of free speech, rather, someone who does so can be held liable for any injury they cause in the course of a lie.

And what is the lie? Speech. It is very much a limitation on free speech (You're being punished for the lie which people reacted to; if you had said nothing, you would not have been punished.), and it is other people that cause the injuries, not the speaker.

Re:Good limitations of free speech

[EuclideanSilence]

Sorry, no. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is generally accepted as a limitation of free speech. It's a crime, and it should be a crime.

I disagree. Yelling "fire" in a theater is (and should be) perfectly legal if you are an actor, and it's part of the play. Discussing fire in a theater is legal.

What is illegal is negligent intent to cause physical injury. This can occur by shouting fire and other ways. Just because a legislature is not allowed to restrict action A does not mean that every correlating action B must also be legal.

For example, a hypothetical right to the "freedom of bicycling" could exist. That doesn't mean congress can't make it illegal to murder someone just because it's possible to run over them with a bicycle. In the same way, congress would wrongly be in violation of the freedom of speech to make any discussion of "fire" illegal in a theater, but they can certainly make negligent intent to cause harm illegal, which may or may not occur when discussion of "fire" is used in a theater.

[ejo] THUS SAY WE ALL![/ejo]

[RobertLTux]

yah if you want to remove yourself have fun but taking kids/critters with you?? NO

Re:[ejo] THUS SAY WE ALL![/ejo]

[martin-boundary]

Quite true. The latter is murder.

Why are you afraid of copycats?

[Anonymous Coward]

If somebody wants an end, even when its caused by watching a video of some other suicide ... its his own decision. Why do all people want to protect life, even when the person itself does not want to live any further? Who are you, to decide if its a bad thing to commit suicide for another person?

Re:What the hell is wrong with you people....

[TheMathemagician]

Why do you want the media to censor what it shows you? They didn't influence the guy shooting himself in any way. I'd rather just see what happened than have TV executives "protect me".

vicarious

[WGFCrafty]

Eye on the TV
'cause tragedy thrills me
Whatever flavour
It happens to be like;
Killed by the husband
Drowned by the ocean
Shot by his own son
She used the poison in his tea
And kissed him goodbye
That's my kind of story
It's no fun 'til someone dies

Who fucking cares?

[gelfling]

We need to broadcast mass murder. We need to broadcast exploding flaming Syrian women and children. It would be more entertaining than any 'talent show' we've got now.

Re:Who fucking cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful, I might find your entertainment of low taste and insulting my intelligence! Tell me your nationality, so we (that is my boys and I) can start protesting, and probably do whatever we might find fancy when condition permits, in front of your embassy!

Re:Who fucking cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

"We need to broadcast exploding flaming Syrian women and children"

who fucking cares about them either?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Sports often contains real violence.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read up on traumatic injuries and concussions in the NFL. Also at all levels, and other types of football (rugby, soccer, etc.) But NFL is worst because the equipment, hype, etc. is all about violence, much of it purposeful (not just encouraged but even paid for with contract bonuses and bounties.) Then there is boxing, ultimate fighting, etc. Lots of real and marginally real violence. So most people see real and fictional violence all the time, intermixed, and one after the other. The boundaries blur.

Fictional violence, or violence viewed vicariously (real or fictional) most definitely can affect behavior, I think the two are growing closer all the time. Much has to do with the imagination and mind-state of the viewer.

Re:Sports often contains real violence.

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL.......American football is gay.

Take off all that padding, lose the armour and get rid of the helmets then we'll talk.

"NFL" is all about violence..ahhahaha.......it's boring, and slow and the only thing missing from the players uniforms is lipstick and handbags.

You want violent ?.... Rugby League....and even Aussie Rules will show you a thing or two.

It's ok..you're American.....you don't know any different....we forgive you.

Why would you want to show a buggy chase feed?

[Anonymous Coward]

What possible good could come out of that? At best it's hugely uninteresting, at worst it glamorises criminality. Glad we don't have that on TV over here.

Well because the Amish buggy chase wouldn't be as interesting.

Re:What the hell is wrong with you people....

[PReDiToR]

When did we lose the capability to sympathize with the families of those affected?

I'd guess about the time that we stopped being able to trust that people were bringing their kids up with a value system that we could relate to.

To politicise this, when we lost faith that our elected representatives were in any way cognisant of our wishes with respect to the way we are governed and our tax monies spent.

When life got so damn hard that suicide was just another symptom of depression brought about by failure of the state to put money into education, welfare and freedoms instead of criminalising cannabis, waging war on second world countries and terrorising people who want to go on holiday just to get away from the rat race that our lives have become of these days.

Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

All of the news networks (not to mention the History and Discovery Channel) regularly show people getting gunned down from airplanes/helicopters in various countries in the Middle East. Why is there offense at seeing one guy kill himself all of the sudden?

Re:What the hell is wrong with you people....

[cheekyjohnson]

When did we become a society completely incapable of empathy?

As far as I'm aware, we didn't. The fact that certain people aren't as offended or sad about a random stranger's death as you doesn't mean that they don't feel empathy at all. Go be in agony if you think it'll improve the situation.

Re:What the hell is wrong with you people....

[Anonymous Coward]

we have all been in a position similar

What? No. I can honestly say that I have never been in a situation where I contemplated committing suicide.
Maybe I'm just super special and happy, but I doubt that.
And what is so bad about showing this? Do you cringe when they show footage of the nukes dropping on Japan?
I know I do. Those killed far more people, and are also shown.

It's easier to ignore if you don't see the bodies I guess.

Hugh Pickens is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

I saw the video. Smith yelled "get off it, get off it, get off it" only AFTER seeing the guy shoot himself.

I can hear it now

[Stirling Newberry]

"You idiots, we could have teased this!"

Darwinism

[A.Sleep]

Can we please let stupid people die? I mean really ... Let. Them. Die.

Dirty Laundry

[Anonymous Coward]

"People love it when you lose, They love dirty laundry" from Dirty Laundry by Don Henley.

Some people at fox need to get fired.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care who it is. When the producer is helling "get of it, get off it, get off it!!" as he did, why the hell would they keep on it. Maybe they need a censor button. This is clearly a volation and someone needs to get fired over this.

Why is Fox even still on the air?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why hasn't Fox News been shut down yet? I mean, come on. Seriously. They are not journalists. They are an entertainment channel. Why doesn't Obama just have the FCC revoke their licenses or something? That would take care of the problem instantly.

so what

[johnwerneken]

If it bleeds it leads. Entertainment its not, of interest to me its not, but news, it is; and if some copy it so what they decided, not the presenters of the tragic record of something someone actually did.

You can't unsee these sort of videos

[Anonymous Coward]

People, Teenagers and kids especially, need to realise that you can't unsee this shit, if you watch suicides or murders or things like that on the internet you have no idea how they will effect you before you see them and no way to take it back once you have seen it. Stay away from these types of video.

Gawker

[SouthSideNick]

You know you've done wrong when a degenerate from Gawker shambles out of their circuit party to rationalize it.

meh

[Anonymous Coward]

I rather watch Shepard Smith doggie fuck Gloria Allred.

Does this mean!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is running unopposed in November!?

Re:What the hell is wrong with you people....

[russotto]

First, let me start by saying that from reading the comments so far, a vast majority view this as something trivial and meaningless.

Because to most of us, it is meaningless.

When did we lose the capability to sympathize with the families of those affected?

After about the 16 millionth time someone tried to gain advantage by playing on that sympathy.

Someone reached a breaking point, did something bad, and gave up. It is horrible, and we have all been in a position similar, and while all of us here exist because we didn't give up, we should show no superiority over those that do.

Why? We're demonstrably superior in that respect at least.

The video was great

[Anonymous Coward]

First, the dude killed himself on public land, in public view... so anybody in the vicinity could see it... Fox was not airing some private thing, it aired an act committed willingly in the public forum.

Second, Every time Fox airs a high-speed chase the person being chased gets caught and goes to prison. There are not enough places in America where people still see the old traditional "crime does not pay" message. If every high-speed chase ended with the chas-ee being dead, there would likely be fewer chases... and make no mistake every time somebody leads cops on a chase (no matter the justification) he/she endangers the lives of many drivers and pedestrians.

Third, we have become a nation of wimps. In the old west, people (including children) saw the harsh realities of life and saw people gunned down or publicly hung. The children who saw these things survived the experience without "grief counselors" and lived their lives with a healthy respect for reality. A generation of Americans lived through the Civil War with combat in their towns and farms and human carnage on a scale unimaginable to modern Americans... the kids of that generation lived through seeing it. Modern young people play video games where they eagerly blow other people away and enjoy the gore, and they watch "reality" TV shows... It's actually healthy for them to see some REAL reality. Reality with real consequences. Reality where stupid morons die of their stupidity. Reality where it's not fun or funny to be a jackass.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

FOX is worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Both parties are less than perfect but both have behaved in a way which is understandable.

For me, the problem with this being aired live is that it hits the rather large demographic of children who are not allowed to play violent video games or watch violent moves, but are allowed to watch live TV. FOX had some responsibility here and they dropped the ball.

As far as I'm aware, people don't have (certainly shouldn't have) the same expectation of BuzzFeed and allowing their children free and unsupervised access to this site is not dissimilar to allowing them free access to the web in general. Here, no real damage has been done.

Quick!

[PPH]

Break for a commercial!

Re:What the hell is wrong with you people....

[Anonymous Coward]

Go be in agony if you think it'll improve the situation.

Copyright infringement is rape and file-sharers are rapists.

I'm just going to call you "Little Miss Sunshine" with your nice and level headed view on things.

All jokes aside, I can picture you stabbing someone to death with a spoon.

Re:What the hell is wrong with you people....

[russotto]

It's easy to say "Good! A moron is dead." It's human to sympathize with the family and NOT say things like that.

No, it's not "human". It's "polite", under Western standards.

Ahhh

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, since America has totally gone down the shitter, at least the fact that I chose not to watch any form of TV appears to be paying off.

Re:Fox DID know what the guy was about to do, but.

[bkk_diesel]

You can see this 5 second delay on the in-studio monitors in effect because after the live viewer sees the suicide, it cuts to the anchorman who we can see watching it 5 seconds later.

AC's like you are we can't have nice music.

[drainbramage]

Too bad I'm responding to an AC, but you are the definition of 'POP'.
'POP' in music is a genre, the definition of which is mostly controlled by those beholden to the industry distributors, rolling stoned, and the paid reviewers.
Other then that it is the first three letters of popular and the first three letters of my favourite kind of corn.

Re:AC's like you are we can't have nice music.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are saying the same thing I was.

It is what it is regardless of how it became the most popular or the current trend among most people at the time.

My point was how it became "pop" or popular is from the reasons you stated but for my point, the reason was not relevant.

On to what you added..
If POP is a static genre, is what was considered pop in the 1950-90's still considered in the pop genre now? No. POP music is generally what is currently popular now. For the OP I replied to, he/she seems to think the POP genre changed after Nirvana, well POP music has been changing every week since the term pop was first used in the 1950's. At one point, it was Jefferson Airplane, the Beatles, and Elvis that were considered POP. All very unlike Nirvana.

Re:AC's like you are we can't have nice music.

[Anonymous Coward]

And more...
To the orignal poster I replied to or you , either one..

POPular music has ALWAYS been forced and pushed to people by the record companies, at least since the 50's. Read some history about Motown. Hand selected and heavy promoted singers from their start in the business all the way to the end and every single part of their business including when they could tour, where they would tour, when and how much they could be on the radio, when they could release albums including the type of music or directions their music would change etc. It wasn't just Motown either, Pink Floyd even wrote songs about it and discuss it some in their "making of" shows. There are many more examples. Then the lip syncing and figure heads that stood on stage and created what was made for them like Millie Vinille (sp?) and many more. The concept of record companies suddenly taking control and force feeding us music in the early 90's around the time Nirvana was in the charts was flat out wrong. It had already been happening for 40+ years before that. Now with the internet and music services with searchable and smart playlists, you can find a lot of music that may not be "popular" but sounds awesome to you. It is there but you may have to look for yourself. In the past, you had to be introduced to different things by friends or by swapping mix tapes. POP music quality may have declined for many people as they get older and change tastes or have tastes locked in from a different period of their lives but they can find other stuff to supplement if they look. An example.. there are still many Grunge bands making music to this day, you won't hear them on the radio though. Just like you didn't hear Grunge on the radio in the early and mid 80's either.

His kids seen the video.

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to go.

Let the copycats do their thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Thins out the week blood in the gene pool. And good riddance to the idiots.

lol - captcha - maternal

Copycat suicide ... right

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is everyone babbling about copycat suicide? Do you seriously think that there are people saying "Dude, that guy shot himself, I totally gotta try that, man!"? And even if there are, why should we care? They don't harm anyone (ok, they don't pay taxes anymore, but else?) and nothing of value got lost anyway. People kill themselves all the time, stop being artificially shocked and concerned afterwards.
And Fox: If they never thought that this shit they show the whole day long was serious, then they are retarded. Suits them right.

Not a graphic suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

I've watched a ton of suicides on liveleak, this is one of the most non-graphic suicides caught squarely on video.

"We really messed up"

[Arancaytar]

Yeah, that was an awful mistake. Look at these tragic viewing figures and all this devastating publicity.

Re:"We really messed up"

[Arancaytar]

Mind you, if there's one anchor on Fox News who I'd believe when he apologizes, it's Smith. But he wasn't the one who made the decision.

What?

[TheCarp]

> 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.

But nothing.... there is no contradiction between those statements. There is nothing unethical about showing people an incident that happened in public, particularly when its news.

Nothing about WHO guidelines or what other people choose to do has any ethical bearing, no matter how much emotional reaction it makes you have. A copycat suicide is 100% on the shoulders of the person who does it, not the person who showed them what they are copying.

Nobody else bears a shred of responsibility.

Who's worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about us for being sick fcuks for watching the clip over and over? A little introspection perhaps?

are you sure?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought "Hey Man, Nice Shot" was written about Kurt Cobain's suicide.

I might be wrong.

Michael Jackson would say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shield the world... Make it a better place.... for you and for me and the entire
 
*copyright cut*

Poor Dog

[Anonymous Coward]

He should have let the dog live.

I corinthien's 6:20

[Kerstyun]

Tell it like it is, brother GOD is the giver of all life your life is not yours too take. With this foundation in mind, we can see why suicide has traditionally be considered a gravely wrong moral action, i.e. a mortal sin. Our Holy Father affirmed this position in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (#66). (Please note that suicide is distinguished from the sacrifice of one's life for God or another, as in the cases of martyrdom, or of offering one's life or risking it to save another person.) The intentional taking of one's own life is wrong for several reasons: First, in the most basic sense, each human being naturally seeks to his preserve life. To take our own life defies our natural instinct to live. Second, suicide violates a genuine love for oneself and one's neighbor-- family, friends, neighbors, and even acquaintances. Other people need us and depend upon us in ways we may not even know. When I as a priest have had to comfort the family of a suicide victim, I hope that the person somehow realizes how much he really was loved and needed. I also feel sad that this poor troubled person faced something so seemingly unbearable, insurmountable, or agonizing that he chose to withdraw from the love of God and others, and kill himself. Finally, suicide defies the love we owe God. Sure, we all face the tough times, hardships, and sufferings. However, we are called to place ourselves in the hands of God who will never abandon us, but see us safely through this life. The words of the "Our Father" â" "thy will be done" â" must be real for us. To commit suicide is to reject His "lordship" in our life. Therefore, objectively, suicide is a mortal sin. (Moreover, to help someone commit suicide is also a mortal sin.) Here though we must remember that for a sin to be mortal and cost someone salvation, the objective action (in this case the taking of one's own life) must be grave or serious matter; the person must have an informed intellect (know that this is wrong); and the person must give full consent of the will (intend to commit this action). In the case of suicide, a person may not have given full consent of the will. Fear, force, ignorance, habit, passion, and psychological problems can impede the exercise of the will so that a person may not be fully responsible or even responsible at all for an action. Here again the Catechism states, "Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide" (#2282). This qualification does not make suicide a right action in any circumstance; however, it does make us realize that the person may not be totally culpable for the action because of various circumstances or personal conditions. Only God can read the depths of our soul. Only He knows how much we love Him and how responsible we are for our actions. We leave the judgment then to Him alone. The Catechism offers words of great hope: "We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to Him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives" (#2283). Therefore, we do offer the Mass for the repose of the soul of a suicide victim, invoking God's tender love and mercy, and His healing grace for the grieving loved ones.

I feel sad that this is an issue for some people..

[ToddInSF]

That people are making all sorts of justifications for copying and posting the vid everywhere.

I feel sad at the thought of the guys friends, relatives, kids seeing it.

I thought about how his grandparents would feel, should they see it.

I think that people have lost their humanity, that they are losing empathy, that they are becoming increasingly selfish, and losing their ability to see cause and effect.

Does anybody really give a shit anymore ?

airing news could cause problems so let's not...

[fredthomsen]

Regardless of whether or not you see the big 3 tv news channels as news or entertainment, not airing something because people might do rash things isn't really a good reason for not showing it. If DC's cops went on strike (if that's even possible, like in robocop) then I am sure the minute that that news is disseminated, and crime would increase; however, that is not a good justification for not sharing that news.

Postmodern hipster ponce

[Hognoxious]

So tired of the "Darwin" meme. It expresses a sense of smug superiority that is entirely undeserved.

Whereas your tiredness of it is evidence of intelligence, moral character, and a massive cock.

Re:Postmodern hipster ponce

[fm6]

No, I'm only average sized.

Am I that old? Bones, crumbling...

[yumetoinori]

Did we all forget the TV counterpart to the "first post"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Budd_Dwyer 30th Treasurer of Pennsylvania R. Budd Dwyer. Lucky for me I was in school at the time and even luckier I got to see it live because of a day off of school from snow.

Simple logic for the win

[Zero__Kelvin]

"You are failing to differentiate between a stupid act and a stupid person."

I don't know how you could possibly confuse me with you, but you pulled it off.

" I offered the suggestion that a fall from the 3rd story would likely be fatal, especially if one landed on the sidewalk, and told him that we'd have to come up with a plan to make such a fall look like an accident and not a deliberate jump. He agreed it seemed plausible, and we parted to go to class"

Even you aren't such a moron as to do that while simultaneously believing you are trying to help him. Ergo, either you did say that, or you didn't try to help him. The entire story might be made up, or any subpart may be made up, but the whole story cannot possibly be true. It has nothing to do with psychology.

" I made sure to add in sufficient adjectives and such to make it seem plausible. I've heard that if you make someone see the scene in their head, they'll consider it true, even if false. Just to make sure it wasn't too easy for you."

You failed miserably in your goal.

Vietnam

[Anonymous Coward]

Are any of you old enough to remember when the South Vietnamese Army captured a communist spy? An SVN soldier held a gun to the guy's head and blew his brains out. Sure, it must have happened often; that was war. But one time it was captured on firm. As I recall it was a video; you can see the arm coming up, the gun smoke popping out, and the victim dropping. That film went through the 1960's version of "viral"; it was shown all over the world and may even have won a Pulitzer.

What's the big deal? You know about death, you talk about death, but you can't stand to see death? The average 8 year old has seen more (fake) deaths on TV than any Empire solder saw in his entire lifetime. If the film were fake you would show it on NBC at prime time. But since it's real, it's unthinkable. What kind of wimps have you "civilized" people become?

Oh, I know. A video of remote drones killing women and children is entertainment if it's filmed in Hollywood, intolerable if it's filmed in Afghanistan.

Unjustifiable Existence

[nessman]

So what if I died a thousand deaths
You think I'm insane but I have no regrets
One more time won't matter no question
Suicide is self expression.
- Type-O Negative

Re:What the hell is wrong with you people....

[Anonymous Coward]

> All of your examples are part of adulthood. Being able to show sympathy and in some cases, empathy, in these cases, are examples of humanity.

That's all subjective. But thanks for continuing your trolling.

> Fact of the matter is, if we have reached point in society where suicide, regardless of reason, is viewed like some normal day-to-day thing

You clearly miss the fact that it is. This type of "see no evil hear no evil" is far more disturbing than the images of things that happen in reality, every day, across the globe. The suicide is not a danger to anyone I know, you still are.

Rather, thinks of the car robbery victims!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am really glad the fire-armed car hijacker and robber took responsibility for his crime and voluntary ridded the society of the prison burden he would have represented. It is rare today to see people take the utmost responsibility and offer more than empty word to pay for their wrongdoing. Why should his self-execution be hidden from view, rather then set up as an example to show that even the vilest can make a final proper decision.

Two words:

[Anonymous Coward]

Mechanical hound.

Why are live car chases on the news?

[dyfortune]

Fox's news is about excitement and outrage not information. I don't see any reason a live chase should be on a news channel while it is ongoing. I mean people die in gruesome ways from high speed car crashes, if you put enough on live TV you will see blood.