JMU softball player death and possible suicide - too far?

Az ... I respect the hell out of you, but I can't disagree more with you on this take, as someone who covered college sports in small towns where that college was the epicenter of that's paper's sports coverage universe. Just from a news judgement standpoint, tell the facts, move on. When, what, why, when, how. Readers will want to know the last portion of that equation when a seemingly healthy 20-year-old star player on the softball team dies. To me, it's journalistic malpractice not to give that information. In fact, I think it leads to more baseless speculation, and when the truth comes out, readers will wonder why you didn't report those facts. My two cents.

EDIT: To add, in my argument, I care not about the method of suicide/death being reported. Just say what it is as fact and move on.

 

Omitting that it is a suicide only increases the stigma and shame around mental health issues. There are ways to report the facts without increasing risk of contagion.

https://reportingonsuicide.org/recommendations/

 

I would argue those deaths, while tragic, aren't necessarily news either.

 

I wish more news organizations conformed to these guidelines, but in general, most don't.

I guess I'm asking us for the purposes of this thread to reimagine what we think of as "news." And who we think of as a public figure or a celebrity.

And how we might cover such an incredibly sensitive story. The guidelines dixiehack posted are a start.

But the depth of the emotional and psychological implications and complications of any suicide is well beyond the reach of most journalists.

 

The real news of this story - the inaccessibility and general unavailability of mental health treatment - might be over on our mental health thread.

www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/mental-health-thread.142415/

Much harder to cover, though.

 

Also, the departure of so much institutional knowledge from journalism over the past 20 years has left the trade bereft of the skills and judgment for this kind of reporting.

 

I think we should cover suicides as thoroughly as possible, just as we would any story that it has been decided warrants such attention. But therein lies the rub. It isn't possible, usually, based on the ability/willingness of those close to the victim to engage about it, or the ability/willingness of journalists to dig and address the issues in a complete, accurate and sensitive, compassionate and/or useful way.

There are degrees to both of those things that impact the reporting of suicides. There is nothing to say/write if no one is willing/able to do it.

Current example: Naomi Judd.

She surely rises to the level of public interest and possible impact that she and her case could have, and clearly, she did not "die of mental illness." And yet, look how quickly that RIP thread ended. Because the family/her publicists shut it down and are sticking, firmly, to their decision that "no more information/details will be made public."

End of story.

 

What do you think caused her to kill herself if not her mental illness?

 

I think she died of suicide, not mental illness.

And I believe her case, especially, might be a helpful, impacting, good discussion to broach. She's well-known enough, beloved enough, and her family would feel relatable enough that people would actually care, be compassionate and be interested, in a way beyond just being voyeuristic, and that mindset, coupled with well-done research and documentation, could make for an amazing, important story.

 

You ignorant fool. Damn you.

 

I'll assume that's directed at me.

I'm ignorant of nothing. You're upset because I'm calling a spade a spade.

The discussion was about "suicide" and references/discussions of it in journalism, and by journalists, and how to handle such deaths -- not a negation of mental illness as an issue or condition -- and that's what my posts address.

I'm disappointed in the family's stand partly because, frankly, Naomi Judd was well-known to be an active proponent of awareness of and openness about depression and mental illness, and her committing suicide the day before she was to be honored by country music makes this story even more noteworthy, so much so as to be almost unbelievable.

I'm chalking the family's reaction up to the fact that they really do need/want some privacy and are in the raw throes of grief/shock, which I can absolutely believe and sympathize with. I also hope they may address things more fully and openly in good time.

But Judd's daughters talking about their mother's passing as if she died of the disease of cancer, or something, and just faded away into death and "couldn't hang on" a little longer "for you," just sounded like something other than what it was.

 

These last few posts sort of make my point.

It's incredibly difficult to engage a sensitive, productive conversation about suicide.