Getting the Message

Posted on 18/01/2012 | 0 Comments

One of my friends who has done some thoughtful analysis of media reports on mental health pointed out the Globe and Mail of January 14, 2012 had a piece tucked away at the top of page F4 called “From Evil to Mentally Ill in the Media”. I found the reading of it interesting, particularly in light of my last blog on the role of media in addressing mental health problems and stigmatization that media reports can create.
 
The reporter, Erin Anderssen, comments on a study conducted in Montreal in which around nine thousand Canadian media stories pertaining to mental illness and found that only 12 percent took an optimistic or positive tone. About one-third use derogatory language in referring to people with a mental illness and about 40 percent related mental illness to violence and criminality. Wow! 
 
Although I am disappointed to read that data, I am not surprised by it. Why should the media harbor less stigma than the population in general? Should we expect reporters to know more about mental illness and write about it from a base of some expertise? The Carter Center in the United States of America has some very interesting programs in mental health literacy designed to better inform and educate reporters, with the expressed hope that once this happens their reporting will be more accurate and less stigmatizing,  this includes the Rosalynn Carter Fellowships for Mental Health Journalism. Perhaps we need a similar program here in Canada.
 
That same page in the Globe carried a thoughtful and constructively critical story written by Erin Anderssen about a young man named Michael Kimber who has taken his story public, and how that story is making a difference. In my opinion, we need more Michael Kimbers and we need more journalists like Erin Anderssen.
 
--Stan

Be the first to leave a comment

What do you think?


Filter by category

Filter by date

Blog Tag Cloud

adhd anxiety disorders attention award awards behaviour bipolar blog brain & neurology bullying canada care carter center conference confidentiality control coping criminal justice system cruelty cutting depression discrimination doctor driving eating disorders

Recent Comment

This is a great set of comments and rings very true. 

I totally agree that scientists (just like everyone else) have their biases and foibles.  After all, scientists are human beings too!  But science is different than scientists. 

The scientific method is the most objective frame that we have by which to evaluate and predict.  Science is not about finding truth.  It is only about being less wrong most of the time.  The scientific method (experimental design and mathematics) gives us the ability to test what we believe.  The scientific method is not used to prove something is correct, on the contrary, the scientific method is designed to prove that something is not correct!  It is designed to test what is called the “null hypothesis”.  It takes ideas that come out of left field (or wherever else they come from) and puts those ideas to an independent test.

t does not drive our beliefs.  It does however challenge our beliefs.  In that way it is self-correcting. Of course scientific inquiry and understanding lives within a wider social context.  That is one of the great features of science. 

But gravity is gravity, social context notwithstanding.  And thus it is nasty, brutish and long.  As Brecht said, (something like this) - the purpose of science is to save us from everlasting error.

By Christina Carew on May 11th

You can find us here too!

  • image
  • image
  • image

We would like to say thanks...

Without their help this initiative would not be possible. Thanks for you help.

  • image
  • image
  • image

Helpful Links