SANE Forums

[chibam]

---

@Madeleine13 wrote:

There is considerable evidence to show that media articles covering suicide plans, method and

location can drive copycat behaviour in vulnerable readers.

---

I hear that, @Madeleine13 ; but I think it's also important to factor in how overly-sensored coverage can actually drive readers to gratuitously unsensored coverage.

A couple years back, a minor celebrity I was familiar with suddenly died. No mention of a cause of death in any of the coverage; mentions of suicide were very deliberately avoided like the plague.

I was curious about what happened to the guy (suicide? murder? accident? sudden illness?), so I searched and searched for a bit more insight. When I eventually found a media outlet that was brave enough to mention sucide, I got way more then what I was looking for. His method, the location, what the eyewitnesses first encountered were all described in gratuitous detail. I only wanted to know whether it was suicide or not; I wasn't looking for all that.

But because every other mainstream outlet was afraid to say the word "suicide", they drove me, the curious member of the public, further afield to a media outlet that gave me all the content that these media coverage guidelines are supposedly trying to protect me from.

[Madeleine13]

StigmaWatch's approach is not about censorship or shutting down dialogue. It's about promoting responsible language and representation that fosters understanding and dismantles negative stereotypes.

StigmaWatch strongly supports inclusivity and amplifying diverse lived experiences. We advocate against degrading language like "druggie" or "meth head" because these terms perpetuate harmful stereotypes and contribute to stigma surrounding individuals who struggle with mental health or substance use challenges. We advocate for person-first language that focuses on the individual and avoids conflating them with their condition.

Open and honest conversations are crucial, but it's important to engage in them with respect and empathy. This involves using language that empowers individuals and avoids perpetuating negative biases.

It's about creating an environment where people feel safe and respected to share their experiences.

We recognise the complexity of these issues and encourage thoughtful conversations that acknowledge the impact of language while fostering understanding and respect. We believe it is possible to have an open dialogue without resorting to harmful stereotypes or perpetuating stigma.

[TideisTurning]

As we start to wrap up tonight’s discussion, I would like to thank everyone who joined us for this discussion this evening, and those who have been reading along for your contributions, being here and sharing this space with us 😊 Thank you @Madeleine13  for sharing your experiences, knowledge and tips with us, and some great resources too! Another big thank you to @amber22  and @espressologic as well as @RoseGeranium @chibam @KirSa_EnigmA for sharing your thoughts and experiences with us tonight as well. 😊  

Also, if you’d like to give some input for our Topic Tuesday events, please feel free to provide feedback in this optional survey for us to improve your experience with Topic Tuesday events: https://forms.office.com/r/WCaDHkuBGm. 

We will keep this thread open for the rest of this week, so if you’d like, feel free to continue the discussion or ask any other questions you have that weren’t covered this evening  

With that, we will end the live portion of our discussion here 😊 Thank you again everyone and have a great rest of your night! 

[chibam]

TBH, @TideisTurning , seemed like a bit of a lean turnout tonight? Maybe that notification issue I mentioned had something to do with it? Perhaps people didn't get a reminder?

Anyways, I'm out for the night. Off to have a nice warm shower.

Later, all!🙂🤗

[chibam]

@Madeleine13  Sorry if I came off as confrontational during the discussion last night. I think I can come off that way sometimes, but I rarely mean to.

I wasn't trying to suggest that StigmaWatch had some sort of agenda to sensor public speech or prevent discussion of suicide. The last time I read through the Mindframe guidelines you promote, the seemed pretty fair and open, I thought.

But at the same time, I just get the distinct sense that mainstream discussion about suicide and mental illness has been narrowing over these past few years; and there is a definite reluctance amongst the mainstream media to actually mention suicide these days, when dealing with fatalaties that are undoubtedly suicides. You can really feel the journalists' reluctance to say that word, or even equivalent phrases such as "ended his own life."

To me, it really seems like the timeline of this newfound media anxiety towards talking about suicide/mental illness correlates directly with the surge in prominence of organizations and individuals that criticize media coverage of these subjects.

So while I'm not suggesting that organizations like StigmaWatch have set out to sensor and stifle conversations about suicide & mental illness, I can't help but ask the question of whether that has been their effect, regardless of their intentions?

Could it be that the media have responded in a far more extreme manner to this new environment of coverage criticism than the critics (such as StigmaWatch) ever intended?

Instead of simply avoiding one or two problematic and easily substituted phrases, could it be that maybe the media have decided it's much less of a headache to avoid any and all risks of complaints, by simply covering the issues as sparsely as possible?

Do you have a sense of how journalists genuinely feel about organizations like StigmaWatch? Do they see you as invaluable collaborators in the process of excellant and appropriate media coverage of these highly important issues? Or do they dread seeing your phone number appear on their phones the day after they've published an article about someone who committed suicide?

I'm not trying to accuse, or blame, or criticize here. I'm just posing what I believe is an important question. I think there's been a noticeable cone of shyness fall upon the media over the past few years, with regards to suicide and mental illness, and I think we really need to figure out where it's come from. I doubt it's appeared by anyone's design, but it's appeared nonetheless, and I think it's origins need to be discovered.

[espressologic]

Hi @chibam (and others still reading)

The week has been getting away on us and I wanted to make sure we replied to your points (I’ve had a chat with @Madeleine13 and the StigmaWatch team).  No offence was taken from your thoughtful discussion the other night, we are always open to hearing feedback about what we’re doing and we should regularly sense-check whether the approaches we take are the most effective ones for the present time.

This will be a longer reply to respond to the valuable points you’ve made.

We agree that real-life stories about experiences with mental health and suicide are powerful tools for reducing stigma, and this is supported by research.  These stories can foster broader understanding and empathy, but also can have therapeutic benefits for those who are generous enough to share those experiences.  Our mission is to ensure these stories are heard widely, without unintentionally oversimplifying the complexity or adding to stigma.

Please be assured that we take a subtle approach in the way we work with media professionals: it’s about education and collaboration rather than ‘calling out’ publicly.  We believe most journalists want to contribute positively to the discussion and are compassionate about these topics. 

It is of course possible that some media outlets might shy away from covering mental health and suicide due to fear of being criticised, but we believe this is a rarity – if anything, the numbers show that coverage of mental health and suicide in the media has been increasing rather than decreasing.  With StigmaWatch, our aim is to balance the need for open discussion with the responsibility of safe reporting.

With suicide reporting, it can be difficult to balance the potential benefits of sharing stories with the risks.  There’s substantial evidence showing that stigmatising media coverage stops people from seeking help – this is why we ask for our community’s help in voicing concerns about coverage that they feel is stigmatising.  Individual perceptions and experiences will vary widely, and we want to maximise positive impact while minimising harm.

Finally – your point about the evolving landscape of language and its impact on stigma are really important.  There are many examples from the past few decades of various communities reclaiming and transforming language, which has helped shape identities and atittudes.  We actively monitor and respond to this, always with a focus on respecting lived experience.

While the turnout for this Topic Tuesday was modest, it doesn’t make this discussion or your feedback any less valuable – quite the opposite.  We need to continuously adapt our strategies to changes in society and language, and would like to keep the lines of communication open.  Please consider joining StigmaWatch if you haven’t already, or to continue discussions on these topics here in the forums. 

Hope you have a great weekend!