I write to take issue with the article "Teen goths more prone to suicide, study shows" published on 14th April 2006 at http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1753866,00.html
Having previously read the New Scientist's coverage of the article at http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8996
with the far more accurate headline "Goth subculture may protect vulnerable children", I am dismayed by the evident negative "spin" put on the study by your article, which deliberately confuses clearly stated cause and effect and as such reverses the findings of the study's author.
I am at a loss to understand this misleading reversal, which can only be assumed to be a deliberate bias against a subculture. Not only does the article seek to paint belonging to the goth subculture as the most harmful action a teenager can take, but it also deliberately mis-represents the author of the study.
The fact, as clearly stated, is that the goth subculture is highly supportive of all its members, including those with mental issues who would find themselves outcast in most other social groupings.
Frankly I find the bias displayed here astounding, and surprisingly clear evidence of The Guardian's ongoing decline in editorial standards. I feel that you should be offering a clear and public apology to Robert Young, the goth subculture, and the vulnerable teens who you likely to divert from a much-needed source of help.