Before we get too self-righteous
about the Chinese limiting what media can cover
let us not forget that we have media blackouts here too
eg the total media block on covering suicides

like the Chinese we have our excuses
“we don’t want to encourage people to commit suicide”
however we don’t have a media blackout on Domestic Violence because
“we don’t want to encourage people to commit domestic violence”

suicides aren’t covered because the government
wants to promote the image that in our society
everything is ‘aok’
just like the Chinese government, in fact

sure, things are obviously tighter there
but not by as much as they like us to believe
not so much a case of Good vs Evil
as a case of the kettle calling the pot black

There are times when you have to wonder. Such as the GetUP's Tibet advertisement which was to air during the opening ceremony - an Ad that was booked, confirmed and paid for - and at the Nth hour Channel 7 chose not to air it.

http://www.getup.org.au/
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2331990.htm

RobP wasn't the rule on covering suicides to protect the families concerned? I don't know the answer was just putting it out there as a question. On occasions suicides are reported but not names provided.

I am not sure I would compare the Chinese Government's media blackout or human rights record to Australia as a general rule though. :)

I never thought about that. This is a great point.

I think this is total bull.

There are many good reasons to make your 'Kettle-pot-black' statement, but suicide reporting isn't one of them.

Many Chinese were outraged at the way the events in Tibet in the leadup to the games were reported - mostly because they had a rose-coloured view of the reporting of Western media as opposed to Chinese state media. They thought both sides would be presented and when they saw in Western media, people acting violent who were clearly Tibetan ethnic minorities being called Chinese police, they were angry.

(Note here, I think what happened was heinous, but there were clear mistakes in reporting)

It was a simple mistake, but it meant a lot to them. Reasons such as this, are very good debating points.

As for the suicide mention however, it is incredibly sensitive and suicides are sometimes reported, but most often they are not. Before you go accusing it of being some conspiracy or evil plot, read this:

http://www.responseability.org/site/index.cfm?display=25848

Stop and think for a moment if the media did report carte blanche on suicide. How long do you think it would take before a grisly race to the lowest common denominator of reporting, as occurs with other crimes? What of the susceptible people with depression?

You can't compare this to politically motivated censorship.

People would have much more to complain about if suicide was frequently reported. I for one, am grateful the media does indeed self censor on this issue.

The Aussie public is much more interested in reading about other things; world affairs, Hollywood gossip, natural disasters, politics, the latest fashions, recipes, the economy, the Olympics, TV news, the list is endless. Suicides, unless they encompass something highly newsworthy, like mass suicide, are TOTALLY not newsworthy. Why? Simply because the general population are not interested; they will not buy newspapers in order to read about the latest person to commit suicide.

There's no conspiracy. It's simply supply and demand, and the public demand is just not there. It never has been there.

Rob513264,

Like TRTL, I think your post is a case of a good argument looking for the right example, but not finding it.

Better to look at under-reporting of issues of significance to the general public that aren't sexy - eg, the way pensioners have missed out on government largesse over the past decade or so.

If you dig beneath the surface a bit, you'll find plenty.

I think the reporting of suicides would only be a good thing if it led to a healing of the social environment which caused the problems in the first place. Like other posters, I think the media is right to self-censor on this issue.