SANE Forums

[KirSa_EnigmA]

@chibam most people don't want to talk about, let alone confront their own mortality. Your mention of it makes them feel very uncomfortable.  

They'll have to face it one day.  Better to be prepared by talking about it and thinking about it well in advance, if you ask me.  

I'm probably supposed to put something in here about "don't do it!" or whatever but hey, your life, not mine.  No sugar coating it.  

~ K

[chibam]

@Madeleine13  Do you ever worry that sensorship of "problematic coverage" of mental health/suicide may itself fuel stigma? i.e. By making the general community more fearful that they may say the wrong thing and earn criticism from organizations like Stigmawatch, and hence they adopt a policy where they avoid saying much about these issues at all? And hence these subjects become unmentionable issues in our culture?

[TideisTurning]

The next question for @Madeleine13- How can stigma be addressed in the media?   

& for our community: How might a non-stigmatising media portrayal impact you? @chibam @KirSa_EnigmA  @RoseGeranium 

[KirSa_EnigmA]

@amber22 Improving on a whole?  I have no idea.  Unlikely.  As the industry becomes larger it's likely to become less personal.  One size fits all, ya know. 

But in my own care? Yes, I'm the one driving this forward so I insist on a gritty and personal approach... be present or gtf out of my way.  Taking a back seat is never gonna get me well. 

~ K

[espressologic]

@chibam I think you're right, it can be very difficult to understand suicidal feelings if you have never had them.  And yes, debating whether life is better than death in every conceivable scenario is a definite rabbit hole!  I guess it would be a question of whether you have people in your life that can tell the difference between a deep philosophical discussion vs. if you're not feeling like you can keep safe.  

[Madeleine13]

Hi @chibam, thanks for your question, it's a really important point!

We fully understand the concern about inadvertently fueling stigma through censorship. It's crucial to find a balance between addressing irresponsible or harmful media portrayals and fostering open and honest conversations about mental health.

While we advocate for responsible reporting, our goal is not to silence conversations or stifle nuanced portrayals of mental health challenges. It's important to acknowledge that mental health experiences can be complex and even difficult to depict. Our approach focuses on collaboration and open dialogue.

A big part of our advocacy relies on robust research. Studies demonstrate that harmful or sensationalised portrayals of mental illness directly contribute to increased stigma, prejudice, and decreased help-seeking behaviour.

We aim to partner with media professionals and outlets to provide constructive feedback and foster informed reporting practices guided by resources like the Mindframe guidelines.

Encouraging a culture of respectful language and accurate information doesn't mean shutting down conversations. Rather, it's about promoting an environment where people feel comfortable discussing mental health openly, without fear of causing inadvertent harm.

Our intention is always to foster a society where mental health experiences are less stigmatised, allowing for more open, supportive conversations, not less. We believe this approach can ultimately make it easier for individuals in need to access the resources and support they deserve.

[chibam]

---

@TideisTurning wrote:

& for our community: How might a non-stigmatising media portrayal impact you? @chibam @KirSa_EnigmA  @RoseGeranium 

---

Again, no simple answer @TideisTurning , because that's not a simple question.

What is a 'non-stigmatising media portrayal'?

I've come to suspect that the real source of stigma may not be in the coverage by media, but in the hearts of the viewers.

How can media coverage suddenly change a person's belief that a certain mindset is profoundly wrong to suddenly convincing them that it's okay? And even if such miraculous alterations of people's key values was possible, would it be ethical to use such powers? To change the key values that make people who they are, and that bind communities together in trust and fellowship?

Undermining people's key values... that's what the mental health system tries to do to us; and it's not a good thing to be on the recieving end of, let me tell you.

But to (attempt to) answer your question, I think that 'non-stimatizing' media coverage could potentially open up better support systems to help people like me find our true homes and our true communities; and hence find lives that may well be worth prolonging.

[Madeleine13]

Stigma surrounding mental health can be tackled through many ways in the media landscape, i'll highlight some of the key ways: 

Collaborative Efforts: 

• Promoting positive narratives: Partnering with media outlets and individuals to develop stories that challenge stigma and promote understanding. This can involve featuring diverse voices, showcasing personal journeys beyond diagnoses, and highlighting the strengths and resilience of individuals with mental health experiences. 
  
  
• Advocacy and awareness campaigns: Raising public awareness about the impact of media portrayals on mental health stigma and advocating for responsible reporting practices. This can influence systemic change and encourage media outlets to prioritise accurate and inclusive representations.
  
  Responsible Reporting Practices:
• MindFrame Guidelines: Upholding and promoting guidelines like the MindFrame Guidelines ensures respectful language, avoids sensationalism, focuses on individual stories without generalisations, and provides resources for help and support. 
• Accurate and respectful language: Moving away from outdated or offensive terminology and adopting language that creates a more inclusive and respectful environment. 
• Focusing on the individual: Going beyond the diagnosis and exploring the individual's unique experiences, strengths, and perspectives humanises the story and fosters empathy. 
• Providing accurate resources: Sharing clear and accessible information about mental health resources like support services and treatment options empowers viewers with knowledge and encourages help-seeking behaviour. 
• Avoiding sensationalism and dramatisation: Presenting mental health issues with sensitivity and avoiding graphic or triggering content ensures balanced and responsible reporting. 

By implementing these steps, media outlets can play a crucial role in combating stigma, fostering empathy, and promoting understanding around mental health. This collaborative approach can create a positive shift in how mental health is represented in the media. 

[RoseGeranium]

@TideisTurning wrote:

& for our community: How might a non-stigmatising media portrayal impact you?

I think that it would help to show others how we want to be treated, which would be encouraging but I wouldn't expect too much improvement.  I think it's going to take years of media without stigma to relieve the tension.

[chibam]

It sounds like there's a great degree of due process surrounding this issue, @Madeleine13 . But all the same, IMHO the public conversations surrounding suicide and mental illness have become much more subdued over the past five years or so, not less.

To me, it seems every time there is media coverage of a suicide, the word "suicide" seems to always be very deliberately absent. Instead, we've gotten used to a bunch of common euphamisms, such as: "police do not considder the death to be suspicious".

Even on social media platforms, people these days apparently can't use the word "suicide" for risk of being sensored; and instead the words "unalive"/"unaliving"/"unalived" have become a common substitute that people now have to use to talk about this subject.