Broadcast media influence the use of language in a variety of ways. In my opinion, however, the use of softened and unbiased terms does not exist. Because it's always in a context that evaluates anyway.
I am experiencing a tendency to white-wash terminology. The media tend to replace clear and direct terms with neutral or softer ones. I get the impression that as a viewer or reader/listener they don't want to bring me the brutal reality so brutally anymore. If the term no longer stood alone as "committed suicide" but as "death by suicide", I would not consider this further. In the overall context of language, however, many direct actions have fled into a language that tries to hide something. As with the word "collateral damage" = people/living beings killed by violence. Or also "genocide" = murder of an entire population.
I therefore find it more appropriate that you commit suicide and that this is an active rather than a passive act. Especially since the "criminal" connotation can be translated as a violation of the living, the natural aging process or disease. If the killing of one person is seen by all others in the system as an act of mercy, for example in seriously ill people who no longer wish to live, since modern medicine can prolong a dying process very much, this differs from suicide. Since hardly any suicide wants witnesses with him or informs his relatives beforehand that he intends to kill himself.
I am therefore somewhat disturbed by the new speech, because it suggests an attempt of impartiality. But the biased thing about it is to communicate suicide as neutral, which seems relatively impossible by the nature of the matter.
Thank you a lot for this interesting topic.
P.S. I would say it is a "crime" by universal principles but shouldn't be punished in front of man written law. One can acknowledge this without having to demonize the one who commits it but to support those who suffer from the happened act.