Today, an article was published in an Australian paper named Courier Mail, authored by Natalie Gregg, titled “Suicide soldier ‘belittled by drink culture’.”

The article concerns the suicide of Edward McBride. I will quote the offending paragraph:

The coroner found Mr Lock’s suicide was not reasonably foreseeable by the Australian Defence Force, his family or the Church of Scientology.

First, it’s not “Mr Lock’s suicide,” it’s “Mr. McBride’s suicide.” The coroner didn’t commit suicide, the soldier did.

But what I qualify as poor journalism comes from what the author of the article, Natalie Gregg, left out. In his report, the coroner wrote (my emphasis):

On the evidence presently before me, his intention to take his own life was not reasonably foreseeable by his family, the Australian Defence Force or members of the Church of Scientology.

Problem is, the author of the article, Natalie Gregg, left out the coroner’s “On the evidence presently before me,” along with the important fact that the Church of Scientology refused to provide important evidence which might have helped the coroner in figuring why Mr. McBride decided to end his life.

Not only the Church of Scientology refused to provide the records, but those were sent out of Australia, out of reach of the coroner.

Also left out of the article were the findings of the coroner that in the 48 hours preceding his death, “Church of Scientology members called and texted Mr McBride 19 times.” [Ref]

Why did the author Natalie Gregg left out these important details out of her article, depriving the readers from being fully informed of all the relevant facts of the case?

Advertisements