reply to post by Logos23
I changed my stance ?
I acknowledged that using the word no media coverage wasn't the correct term to use, but yet again i will point out it was in comparison to the media
coverage after the suicide, which if you still believe that it was any where what it was after then you are kidding yourself. In Australia the media
coverage was not even close to what it was after the suicide, and using the term no media coverage isn't exactly all that far from the mark
considering how little media coverage there was. And to prove my point, did this topic go viral before or after the suicide ?
Obviously there was always going to be some form of media coverage in England considering it was a topic involving the Royal family, which even if it
is a non-event will still attract interest and media attention. I know a lot of English people think their media is the centre of the universe, but
the reality is, if this story didn't firstly involve the Royal family, it wouldn't of even made the news, but because it was the Royal's they found
a reason to make a story out of it, and then when the woman decided to commit suicide, they knew they had a major scoop on their hands, and we've all
seen how the worlds media, including the English media, act when a scoop comes along. And this case proved to be no different.
You say it was all over the English and world media before the suicide, but the point you are missing is, what was the content of the reporting before
the suicide ? It was about how a prank call managed to get information on an upcoming Royal birth, and catch the Hospital staff and Royal's with
their pants down, but as soon as she committed suicide, the content and focus completely shifted from the prank call to the suicide, and the outcome
went viral to the stage it is today. Just because they may of been reporting on the prank call, but then change the manner of the reporting from a
prank call to a suicide and trying to make a connection between the two so blame could be layed, doesn't mean that the media was reporting on the
same thing, despite it being from the same over all topic. Do you see the difference, if not, then i cannot help you any further.
You also say that you find it hard to reply to me because i have so many posts, yet if you'd read them you'd see that at least 2 of the posts i've
written were because i was accused of being biased just because i was Australian and have asked both those people to show me where i defended the
DJ's, and to date, i'm still waiting for their response to back up their claims. Its funny how so many people have taken such exception to me saying
that there was no media coverage before the suicide, COMPARED TO WHAT IT WAS AFTER THE SUICIDE, yet no one seems to pull these people up for making
these accusations. If these people didn't make such claims, then that would at least 2 less posts you would of had to sort through. Maybe you should
reply to those people and ask them why they make such claims seen as you've taken such an interest in my comment about the media coverage before the
suicide ? I've also been accused of knowing nothing about suicide, or its affects, and nothing about depression, yet i had to reply to those claims
to and provided clear and honest examples to prove them wrong. This took up another 3 posts in response's. Maybe you should reply to them asking them
why they would make such a claim, considering you take such exception to what i write ? Thats now at least 5 extra posts i've had to reply to, yet
none of the accusations actually related to the real content of this topic.
Today there has been a breaking story in Australia about the DJ's recieving death threats. The only logical solution to the death threats would be
that someone has taken exception so badly to the suicide, that they personally blame the DJ's and sent a death threat. The irony, is, they will
defend a person that decided to take their own life, yet then want to see someone killed because they are to blame in their opinion. They will preach
about how valuable life is, but then elect themsleves judge, jury and exacutioner, like so many others i've debated with in this thread. Just like
those people who rush to the defence of the person that kills themself, yet has no regard for the shatered lives of the remaining family members,
close friends, or work mates who came across the body.
The prank call did NOT kill anyone, but one persons decision on suicide DID kill one person. That is what the focus should be on, not the amount of
media coverage before the event, or who is or isn't to blame !
The DJ's should get no sympathy, or blame, the woman that committed suicide should get no sympathy and majority blame, and her remaining family
should get full sympathy and no blame. What is so hard about that to accept ?