I've been watching this story unfold with interest, not for the headline facts but for the police and media reactions to it.
The 14 suicides are certainly a statistical anomaly even in an area with above-average rates, but the local community is making great efforts to bury the story and any possible suggestions that the cases are linked, instead blaming the general economy, weather, teenage angst, etc. The press of course are proposing connections left right and center, with friend-of-a-friend links through Bebo and MySp being 'blamed'. The c-word appears a lot, but there is also no suggestion that if a link *does* exist, there's any controlling presence. In my definitions a cult requires a controlling mind and not simply communications between individuals, otherwise there's no source for the ideology. The concept that individuals (even if they communicated with each other) cannot have similar ideas without being driven to them is more and more prominent in the media, and it seems that for every tragedy reported in the press there's an absolute need for someone or something to 'blame'. People don't "do things" any more, they're "made to do things".
The police are publicly denying any links (and denying that the online links which the press have found exist), but at the same time putting together a 'task force' to find the cause - which implies that they assume there has to be one. Personally I can't see why there *has* to be an intelligent cause - statistics have anomalies by their nature, otherwise they wouldn't be statistics. There may well be a directing mind in these cases, but equally it may just be the terrible weather and poor quality beer.
My question is - does the search for 'a cult' to blame in stories like this detract from solving the real problems, or even finding what they are, or is it a useful way to attract attention to the story and force the authorities to act?
Bookmarks