Dengl 19 Will Suicides Prompt A Tighter Rein on Broadcast Violence?

Effects of Contents of Broadcasting (and press?)

A number of fields exist in which concerned observers have alleged that what is shown influences what is done.
Some of these fields or areas include:
violence breeds violence
violence breeds fear
violence and other victim displays breed homophobic,
mysogynistic or other harmful attitudes (and behaviour)
paedophilic examples prompt imitation
lifestyle displays (swearing, taking drugs, overeating ...) prompt
imitation
suicide (in fiction and in fact) prompts imitation

In most of these areas there is a body of research.
Most of these bodies of research contain more studies that suggest imitation occurs, than which fail to show this.
Virtually no studies are reported which show that the posited harmful examples lead to varieties of reflective, positive behaviour.
The exception in the above list appears to be the contention that violence shown, breeds fear (and in somse cases it was alleged in the USA, breeds prejudice).

Three possible interpretatons of this situation are possible:
the general weight of evidence supports the phenomenon of imitation
therefore let society do something
the existence of some 'neutral' or inconclusive studies undermines any
conclusion being drawn from those which suggest imitation occurs
therefore, nothing need be done
none of the effects-indicating studies are wholly watertight (the
general predicament of social science)
therefore, nothing need be done

The American discourse weighing in the direction of harm following problematic display runs into the barrier of the First Amendment to the Constitution which appears to be interpreted to refer to protect 'freedom' (of utterance - rather than from effect) for every form of expression - even those outside the normal political discourse, which it may have been the Amendment's first concern to protect.

The UK discourse (without a first amendment) to some extent is influenced by the American one. A professional zeitgeist probably reflects this caution - partly perhaps to keep UK and US interpretations of what needs to be done, in terms of precautions or even of prevention, in parallel.

A recent spate of suicides - mostly amongst teenagers - in South Wales has led to concern and a piece has appeared in The Psychologist monthly, attributed to the BPS' psychology journalist Christian Jarrett. He quotes a less equivocal judgement from an Oxford scientist, in the area of suicide imitation (see below).

http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/thepsychologist/extras/pages$/2008/
suicide-the-media-and-prevention.cfm

The report, necessarily brief, does not distinguish between various "media" (press and broadcasting by inference being lumped together). Some of these message systems are (still ?) regulated, and the extent of influence attributable to each message system may well thus be different. There may also be interactions between message systems.

"Society"appears to be unwilling to tolerate suicide and willing to act on the evidence that it may be influenced by what is shown or said.
Society seems unwilling to tolerate racist attitudes and behaviour and regulates content of mass message systems which may encourage such things.
Society is perhaps less willing to act on similar kinds of evidence with regard to some of the other (violent) dangers above.
It is possible that regulatory response to the dangers of suicide from imitation will influence tighter requirements with regard to other sources of possible malign influence. It is also possible that the 'guilt' of tighter regulation vis a vis suicide will be accompanied with a laxer treatment of other matters. It is thirdly possible that what is done about suicide may have no influence on what is done about other matters.