Suicide and social media

The recent suicides of young people in Wales are a tricky topic to write about. It feels almost an infringement on the rights of the families and friends of the young people.

I don't mean this as a criticism of the media. They were bound to report the fact that something was going on. Whether the press helped make it worse is beyond my ken. The families certainly think so.

The mainstream media has been blaming social media. There have been claims, refuted by the police, that all the young people who have taken their lives had used one of the many forms of social media available. The implication is that they shared their feelings, their depression and that a camaraderie of need led to the taking of their lives.

It is far too early to make a judgement like that. Perhaps we will never really know what happened. There has been speculation that there is an element of the 'herd' mentality about this phenomenon. After all, if we can have tipping points with brands why not with life and death?

For the families, this is a devastating tragedy. They are not interested in anything else right now, although some have found the courage to face the press and ask them to alter their reporting to prevent anymore suicides.

Social media might have played a part in all this. But that misses the point. Social media could also help save a life by connecting someone with others and providing a voice that brings that back from an unimaginable place. Finding something new that we don't quite understand and then blaming it seems to be a very common trait. It is incredibly dangerous.

Violent acts are a characteristic of human behaviour. Many years ago I was arguing with someone who blamed television for violence. I pointed out that the Vikings didn't watch the Sweeney before jumping into their long boats and marauding. She almost hit me for being so facetious, except I really meant it. We are what we are. As we progress as a species we find new ways of doing what we have already done. Remove social media, television or whatever else you want to blame, you will still see the same types of behaviour.

When awful things happen it is vital that we are calm. Rushing to judge, moral panics and the blame game helps no one.

Working in PR

I have been rather busy of late with the day job - and things aren't going to calm down for a bit - which means I have neglected the blog. Then along comes this post from Alain Desmier, Is PR right for you?, that neatly explains the stuff I have been up to and is an excellent read.

US politics

If the US political scene interests you, then read this article on the New York Times website. It is exceptionally well written and provides a fascinating insight into what is going on right now in both parties in the race for the Presidential nomination.

Nick Clegg: an economic and social liberal

In my role as Head of Communications for The Chartered Institute of Taxation, I attended the CentreForum event this Friday at the Institute of Chartered Accountants for England and Wales held in conjunction with the Corporation of London.

And if you are still reading this post after all those names, you deserve a prize!

At the event, Nick Clegg (leader of the Liberal Democrats) set out his view of the economy in the UK. He opened his speech by saying he was an "economic, as well as a social, liberal". One contributor to Lib Dem voice has written it up from the economic liberal point of view, acknowledging the social liberal bit.

This seemed to me to miss the point. Or perhaps I do. I have never really understood the distinction between economic and social liberals within the Liberal Democrats.

If you describe yourself as a social liberal you presumably subscribe to the Lloyd George/Beveridge/Keynesian view of liberalism. Which also means you have no argument with the free market. Yet, some peope appear to misunderstand this. Thus you have social liberals downplaying the market and economic liberals calling the social lot socialists.

Economic liberals tend to assume the mantle of Gladstone and Hayek. Conceivably they could make the case against social liberalism on that basis. But this begs the question of why they would join a party that comes from a traidtion that includes Beveridge? Not forgetting that Gladstone was a passionate campaigner for the poor and Hayek in The Road to Serfdom makes it clear he supports some element of Keysnian intervention and the provision of public services.

Perhaps some people simply like to create division or feel it is a matter of emphasis.

Perhaps people should read Clegg's speech and decide for themselves. My interpretation is that Clegg is part of the British liberal tradition that began with John Locke and carried through via Mill, Gladstone, Lloyde George, Asquith, Churchill, Keynes, Beveridge, Hayek and the modern-day party.