Sunday Indo article

Tombo2001

Wasnt sure where to post this, as there is no mental health forum....


Anyway, I found the wording in the headline and the sub-headline, or whatever that piece is cause, to be fairly crude.....saying

"Ireland seems to do a particular line in small -town madmen who slip through the cracks in the system"....before making a fairly ham-fisted effort at blaming the state for what happened.

Surprised that in this day in age, it would use terms like mad-men for someone diagnosed as bi-polar.

http://www.independent.ie/news/the-butcher-boy-history-repeated-in-new-tragedy-30391888.html

JuliusCaesar

Yes, indeed. I would suggest you put in a complaint to the Indo and maybe also to whoever the Media Complaints body/Ombudsman is.

The more people who complain about this sort of writing, the better.

Valmont

I don't see any problem with 'mad-man' myself. Not all people alleged to have bipolar disorder stab strangers, after all. If the focus was on his alleged condition then the anti-stigma groups would be unhappy; I think with this sort of coverage, someone will always be unhappy with the wording.

neemish

The Indo is renowned for it. I made a complaint a few weeks ago because their headline referred to "mental patients". The only way they are going to change is if they are challenged if and every time they refer to a person with a mental illness in a derogatory fashion.

The process is to first make a complaint to the Editor (you can mark the letter "not for publication" if you wish). If they do not respond within two weeks, pass the complaint on to Press Association. Make sure to keep a clipping/take a screen grab.

InReality

Personally I don't like to see "mad" and mental health references in the same article.
It's too easy for someone to stick an = in there

There is a group who campaign against this type of reporting. Think its called MIND.

Valmont

Strictly speaking, don't 'mad' and 'mentally ill' refer to the same thing? What was once demonic possession became madness which then became mental illness which will invariably be considered derogatory at some point in the future and we will have to say 'neurologically challenged' or some such term. I'm not trying to facetious here, I just really don't see the problem with the article linked to in the OP. Could someone explain what is wrong with it?

JuliusCaesar

'mad' is colloquial, doesn't have an exact definition, but generally carries negative connotations of outside-of-normal, perhaps losing-touch-with-reality.

Mental health, mental distress, mental disorder are less pejorative now, convey some (maybe) understanding, and perhaps an idea that mental health has similarities to physical health.

And you can philosphise away, Valmont, but how these concepts are used by the general populace influences the way people think about these problems, and the attitude expressed towards people suffering from mental distress. It is very important in the kind of stigma expressed in society towards people, and impacts on how sufferers see themselves.

Valmont

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

'mad' is colloquial, doesn't have an exact definition, but generally carries negative connotations of outside-of-normal, perhaps losing-touch-with-reality.

Mental health, mental distress, mental disorder are less pejorative now, convey some (maybe) understanding, and perhaps an idea that mental health has similarities to physical health.

I disagree. While mad is definitely the more pejorative of the two terms, describing someone as 'mentally ill' also labels them as abnormal and out of touch with reality.

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

And you can philosphise away, Valmont, but how these concepts are used by the general populace influences the way people think about these problems, and the attitude expressed towards people suffering from mental distress. It is very important in the kind of stigma expressed in society towards people, and impacts on how sufferers see themselves.

Telling somebody they are mentally ill and thus out of control over how they act, feel, and behave is a stigma unto itself and just as bad as saying they are 'mad', if not worse. When we are told somebody is 'mentally ill' we are being told that they are different from us in a crucial respect: we have control over our actions but they, due to an alleged brain condition, may act in an unpredictable manner over which they have little or reduced control. I don't see how this could be anything other than stigmatising.

InReality

Valmont wrote: »

I disagree. While mad is definitely the more pejorative of the two terms, describing someone as 'mentally ill' also labels them as abnormal and out of touch with reality.

Telling somebody they are mentally ill and thus out of control over how they act, feel, and behave is a stigma unto itself and just as bad as saying they are 'mad', if not worse. When we are told somebody is 'mentally ill' we are being told that they are different from us in a crucial respect: we have control over our actions but they, due to an alleged brain condition, may act in an unpredictable manner over which they have little or reduced control. I don't see how this could be anything other than stigmatising.

The vast majority of people who are mentally ill would have depression/bi polar or anxiety.
For me mentally ill normally means an illness - like any other illness - from which a person can either recover or can be managed to some degree.
So a person would always have some control over their actions , maybe to a lesser degree than someone not mentally ill.

For me what your describing is the definition of "Mad".
Plus "Mad" also has connoctaions of being dangerous and uncontrollable and has been a bad label for hundreds of years at the least..
I take your point about PC and words changing but for me mentally ill is such a vast improvment on mad.
To me your comparing the n word and african american and saying they are *almost* equally offensive !

Tombo2001

InReality wrote: »

The vast majority of people who are mentally ill would have depression/bi polar or anxiety.
For me mentally ill normally means an illness - like any other illness - from which a person can either recover or can be managed to some degree.
So a person would always have some control over their actions , maybe to a lesser degree than someone not mentally ill.

For me what your describing is the definition of "Mad".
Plus "Mad" also has connoctaions of being dangerous and uncontrollable and has been a bad label for hundreds of years at the least..
I take your point about PC and words changing but for me mentally ill is such a vast improvment on mad.
To me your comparing the n word and african american and saying they are *almost* equally offensive !

Thats the exact opposite of pyschosis surely......which in itself is one of the principal forms of mental illness.

Tombo2001

..

Tombo2001

Valmont wrote: »

Strictly speaking, don't 'mad' and 'mentally ill' refer to the same thing? What was once demonic possession became madness which then became mental illness which will invariably be considered derogatory at some point in the future and we will have to say 'neurologically challenged' or some such term. I'm not trying to facetious here, I just really don't see the problem with the article linked to in the OP. Could someone explain what is wrong with it?

'Mad' is colloquial but it is also out-dated, and should not be used to describe mentall ill people regardless of what they have done.

This argument you are making is just bizarre, the idea that because people used to use a certain term that it should still be ok to use it.

If you meet a single parent, do you call their child a bastard?

sambuka41

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Thats the exact opposite of pyschosis surely......which in itself is one of the principal forms of mental illness.

I wouldn't agree that someone with psychosis doesn't have control of their actions. It's just the reasoning or rationale behind the actions are not in line with society's reasoning or 'reality'. They may behave in ways that we on the outside don't understand but there usually is a reasoning behind it, and to them is controlled.

It's a terribly written article, it gives the impression of trying to gain an insight as to how these events came about but it's glossing over, surface level tripe. It seems completely at odds to be 'sympathetic' to his plight and calling him a mad man at the same time. Terrible article.

Valmont

This man went on a stabbing spree; saying he is 'mad' rather than 'mentally ill' protects the integrity of those non-stabbing mentally ill people from the association of their condition with his violent behaviour. I get the distinct impression that there is no correct way to report on these sorts of cases because no matter how you spin it, the narrative is always 'mental illness = biologically predetermined unpredictability = possible random acts of violence'. My argument is simply that 'mad' and 'mentally ill' are equivalent in this respect.

The anti-stigma groups are generally confused about the nature of mental illness because of their conflicting desires regarding how 'mental illness' should be publicly viewed. They want to hold the sympathy, tolerance, and understanding of the public for their 'medical' conditions which they maintain biologically determine that at certain times and in certain ways, they will have very limited control over how they feel and behave. Is it any surprise then that the public fear and mistrust such individuals? Note that this was the exact role of those alleged to be 'witches' during the middle ages. You can call this mere philosophising, JC, but it is the truth. The anti-stigma groups, by the very nature of their position, cannot have tolerance and understanding without the concomitant stigma unless they adopt a more accurate interpretation of the behaviours we commonly attribute to mental illnesses.

Tombo2001

Valmont wrote: »

This man went on a stabbing spree; saying he is 'mad' rather than 'mentally ill' protects the integrity of those non-stabbing mentally ill people from the association of their condition with his violent behaviour. I get the distinct impression that there is no correct way to report on these sorts of cases because no matter how you spin it, the narrative is always 'mental illness = biologically predetermined unpredictability = possible random acts of violence'. My argument is simply that 'mad' and 'mentally ill' are equivalent in this respect.

The anti-stigma groups are generally confused about the nature of mental illness because of their conflicting desires regarding how 'mental illness' should be publicly viewed. They want to hold the sympathy, tolerance, and understanding of the public for their 'medical' conditions which they maintain biologically determine that at certain times and in certain ways, they will have very limited control over how they feel and behave. Is it any surprise then that the public fear and mistrust such individuals? Note that this was the exact role of those alleged to be 'witches' during the middle ages. You can call this mere philosophising, JC, but it is the truth. The anti-stigma groups, by the very nature of their position, cannot have tolerance and understanding without the concomitant stigma unless they adopt a more accurate interpretation of the behaviours we commonly attribute to mental illnesses.

What is wrong with factually reporting what happened? Why does journalism need to have a narrative - people are able to make their own minds up.

If its an opinion column on mentall illness, as opposed to journalistic reporting, would it be asking too much that the wealthiest newspaper in the country hire someone who actually knows what they are talking about.....

And also.......'anti stigma groups'.....could you name one of these groups, so that I know who you are talking about.....

Valmont

Tombo2001 wrote: »

What is wrong with factually reporting what happened? Why does journalism need to have a narrative - people are able to make their own minds up.

What was factually inaccurate in the article?

Tombo2001 wrote: »

And also.......'anti stigma groups'.....could you name one of these groups, so that I know who you are talking about.....

MIND and the NHS operate this one as far as I'm aware.

Labarbapostiza

sambuka41 wrote: »

I wouldn't agree that someone with psychosis doesn't have control of their actions. It's just the reasoning or rationale behind the actions are not in line with society's reasoning or 'reality'. They may behave in ways that we on the outside don't understand but there usually is a reasoning behind it, and to them is controlled.

No. This is a really wrong idea. Someone with psychosis is cognitively impaired. They do not have a lucid but alternative apercu of reality to the rest of society. Their apprehension of any kind of reality is impaired. Bi-polar has two distinct phases; the depressed phase, and the manic phase. But they can also be in a mid phase, where they're neither depressed nor manic. Then they're lucid, and generally do not have any of the strange beliefs they have in the manic phase.

There isn't a societal consensus on what is and isn't reality. There are always people in any society who will bully and persecute anyone they believe to have different beliefs than them. And many widely held beliefs throughout society, by people who are ostensibly sane, are delusional.

Larry Wildman

Tombo2001 wrote: »

If you meet a single parent, do you call their child a bastard?

Not to their face but I would describe the child is a bastard because he/she is a bastard.

Regarding mental patients, it isn't reasonable to expect lay people to understand the various categories of mental illness.

Describing someone with manic depression or someone who has lost the plot as "mad" or "having a nervous breakdown" is just the use of language that people feel comfortable with.

endacl

Larry Wildman wrote: »

Not to their face but I would describe the child is a bastard because he/she is a bastard.

Regarding mental patients, it isn't reasonable to expect lay people to understand the various categories of mental illness.

Describing someone with manic depression or someone who has lost the plot as "mad" or "having a nervous breakdown" is just the use of language that people feel comfortable with.

Its so prevalent that I would certainly expect people to be open to education on the matter. Manic depression and nervous breakdown are two quite different phenomena, with different diagnostic criteria, and with each having different prognosis and potential outcomes. The reason people get them mixed up is that they're not informed better. What you're suggesting is akin to equating a cold sore with ebola, as 'he has a bit of a virus'.

The Indo, as one of the most widely read broadsheet newspapers in the state, has a responsibility to research their material and to present it accurately.

And the 'bastard' comment? I won't bother... :rolleyes:

dissed doc

Valmont wrote: »

Strictly speaking, don't 'mad' and 'mentally ill' refer to the same thing? What was once demonic possession became madness which then became mental illness which will invariably be considered derogatory at some point in the future and we will have to say 'neurologically challenged' or some such term. I'm not trying to facetious here, I just really don't see the problem with the article linked to in the OP. Could someone explain what is wrong with it?

It's the equivalent of a headline in the newspapers "Northern Ireland votes against fag marriages" instead of "gay marriage".

"mad" is derogatory, "mental health" or "mental illness" are not.

likewise, "**** are more frequently imprisoned in the US compared to crackers or spics" versus "African Americans are more frequently imprisoned in the US compared to whites or hispanics".

"Funding for services for mad people has been cut again", vs "Funding for mental health has been cut again".

MiloDublin

The Sunday Independent is staffed by a whole bunch of children of a previous generation of employees, nepotism central with no regard for standards. There was one contributor writing about her programme to help depressives and she referred to their issues as 'dirty laundry': a sure way to alienate the very people she claimed to want to help.

Valmont

dissed doc wrote: »

It's the equivalent of a headline in the newspapers "Northern Ireland votes against fag marriages" instead of "gay marriage".

"mad" is derogatory, "mental health" or "mental illness" are not.

likewise, "**** are more frequently imprisoned in the US compared to crackers or spics" versus "African Americans are more frequently imprisoned in the US compared to whites or hispanics".

"Funding for services for mad people has been cut again", vs "Funding for mental health has been cut again".

Could you explain why or how 'mad' is derogatory, while 'mentally ill' is not? And while I get the gist of your argument, I hardly think 'mad' is equivalent to serious racial slurs.