I think is really interesting that different articles are being published, kinda based on the same studies, with wildly different headline perspectives on the results of the studies.
Sometime last weekish, BoingBoing pointed out two articles (one of which I reposted here) based on the same original study, which was published in the British Medical Journal (vol 332, p 909). In their words "Check out this comparative media study opportunity while we're at it:" One article appearing in NewScientist was titled "Goth subculture may protect vulnerable children" and the other more negative one appearing on the BBC site was titled "Goths more likely to self-harm" Later, someone pointed out this one from UPI that didn't bother to report the positive perspectives gained from the study at all: "Self harm high among Goth youths" The one Inox linked above looks like it has the same negative style headline as the BBC one.
it's funny how the media can put their own spin on anything, isn't it? no wonder i don't watch the news.... i also prefer to read studies straight outta the journals in which they're published, when i can.
The funny thing is half of the people they talk about in this stuff have no clue what the goth subculture is and arent apart of it at all, they buy a cheap prefab version of it at hot topic or whatever the equivalent of that in thier country is but have no real understanding of the actuall sub-culture.