Glasgow Media Group

This chapter reports on new research by the Glasgow Media Group on press and television treatment of mental health issues. It looks at the negative impact that such coverage can have on popular understanding, and examines possible strategies for achieving a more positive response from media in this area. The research included a content analysis of press and television output, plus a series of focus group interviews to analyse the processes by which audiences received and understood messages in this area (for a more detailed account of the sample and methods see Philo, 1996). The results show clearly that ill-informed beliefs on, for example, the association of schizophrenia with violence can be traced directly to media accounts.

The content sample focused on television news and press reporting, plus popular magazines and children's literature as well as fictional TV such as soap operas, films and drama, for a period of one month. This yielded a total of 562 items whose content fell into five main categories: violence to others, harm to self, prescriptive/advice, criticism of accepted definitions of mental illness, and 'comic' images. As an example of the last category, the Ruby Wax show offered a 'comic' presentation of the rehabilitation of Joanna Lumley:

Overall in the coverage, the category of 'violence to others' was by far the most common, outweighing the next most common ('advice') by a ratio of almost four to one. We also found that items linking mental illness and violence tended to receive 'headline' treatment, while more sympathetic items were largely 'back page' in their profile, such as problem page letters or health columns.

The audience reception study used 70 people, divided into focus groups, who were asked to work through a programme of exercises and interviews. In the exercises, sub-groups of two or three people were asked to write news reports prompted by copies of original headlines from newspapers. They were also asked to write dialogue for an episode of ITV's Coronation Street , prompted by still photographs from the programme. Following this, each member of the group gave written replies to questions. In writing their own stories, the audience groups demonstrated a remarkable ability to reproduce the style and language of both television and the press. We also found that some group members could reproduce detailed and accurate scripts from Coronation Street , months after the relevant scenes had been transmitted. The photographs which they used related to a story line in which a mentally ill person has an erotic fixation for the husband of one of the regular characters. These scenes had apparently generated an intense hostility towards the mentally ill character among the majority of the group members who had seen them. We asked how they would have reacted to her and received many responses such as 'killed her', 'battered her bloody mouth in', 'kicked hell out of her' and 'I would have killed the cow'. A much smaller number suggested that she needed psychiatric help - a judgement which was made mostly on the basis of their own professional or personal experience in the area. But even here, the judgement could be accompanied by a list of other things which had to be 'done' to a women first:

Media presentations were also a very powerful influence on beliefs about the nature of mental illness. For example, the character Trevor Jordache in the soap opera Brookside was presented as alternating between being an amiable loving family man and making violent threats to his wife: 'You won't tell anyone, because if you do I'll kill you, do you understand?' (17 April 1993)

In the popular press, he was referred to as 'psycho Trevor' (Daily Star, 19 April 1993) and in our group interviews, he was spontaneously referred to as being 'what a mentally ill person was like'. As one female interviewee commented: '.in Brookside, that man who is the child-abuser and the wife-beater, he looks like a schizophrenic - he's like a split personality, like two different people.'

The important point is that beliefs derived from fictional accounts clearly affected attitudes in real life. One interviewee gave her views about the mentally ill as: 'They could be all right one minute and then just snap - I'm kind of wary of them. That Fatal Attraction she was as nice as ninepence and then.' Such comments can reveal very deep levels of fear. Another interviewee wrote in her reply that mentally ill people were 'quite likely to be violent - split personality usually tend to be violent'. She went on to write that, 'I would tend to be more wary as some mentally ill people can be very clever and devious.' The source of her views was given as 'probably from TV and newspapers, I think!' She went on in her interview to comment that: 'Hungerford, that type of thing - anything you see on the news, it's likely to be violent when it is connected with mentally ill people'. It was apparent from this, that 'factual' accounts could also strongly affect attitudes.

One of the key issues explored in the research was whether serious mental illness was believed to be associated with violence. Forty per cent of the people in the general sample believed this to be so, while giving the media as the source of their beliefs. The depth of the anxiety is so great in this area, that some media accounts can apparently exert great power. In other research programmes, we have studied many different areas of media content. We have normally found that personal experience is a much stronger influence on belief that the messages which are given by media. But in this research we found cases where this pattern was reversed. We found a number of cases (21% of the general sample) where people had non-violent experiences which were apparently 'overlaid' by media influences. These people traced their beliefs mostly to violent portrayals in fiction or to news reporting. An example of these was given by a young women who lived near Woodilee Hospital just outside Glasgow. She wrote that she had worked there at a jumble sale and mixed with patients. Yet she associated mental illness with violence and wrote of 'split/double personalities, one side violence'. She then went on to say:

In a further example, one interviewee had visited a hospital in Glasgow many times to see a relative who had been a patient there for 25 years. She associated mental illness with violence and cited 'TV films' as the source of her beliefs. ' Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Freddy's Revenge, Nightmare on Elm Street, Psycho - I watch a lot of them, I like all they ones'. She was asked specifically if the feeling about violence came from the films rather than what she had seen when visiting. She replied: 'Oh aye - every day I was up visiting, I never saw any violence and he was in a big open ward'.

We also found clear links between media representations and public attitudes to policies such as community care. An interviewee related her own beliefs about violence and mental illness to 'Hollywood film and television drama'. She then commented that: 'I feel that government policies in Britain of putting mentally ill people in the 'care of the community' is dangerous.'

Another area of crucial importance is how media images may affect the beliefs of users of the mental health service, and the responses of their families and other carers. For example, if the association of schizophrenia with violence is so widespread in popular belief, then what does this say to the families of people with such an illness? There are very few 'positive' images in the media, in the sense that such people can recover, achieve or be active in their own right.

The new research investigated this area through a series of interviews with 32 users of services (at locations such as 'drop-in' centres in Glasgow, Manchester and Aberdeen). The most powerful negative effect seemed to be in the area of self-definition and the stigma developed and reinforced by media portrayals. As one interviewee put it: 'You see a programme and it shows a very bad image of what it feels like yourself and then you think, "What are my neighbours going to think of it? "'

Another group member described to us in detail his feelings when he was given the label of being schizophrenic: 'When I was told I was schizophrenic, I was very intimidated by it - I thought I was some sort of monster. I didn't actually feel like a monster, but when they said I was schizophrenic, I just couldn't believe it. It's just such a hell of a word, you know and it has got a hell of a stigma...I just thought it was Jekyll and Hyde. I was just one of those people I'm characterising this morning (for having incorrect beliefs about mental illness). but you're really more likely to hurt yourself- what was blasting through my head was, "You'll never get a job, you'll never get a sick line, you'll have nowhere to live. " It was just going through my head, "Kill yourself. "'

This group member was asked about where his original ideas on mental illness had come from. He replied:

He also described the changes in his social relationships:

The Glasgow research shows clearly the climate of fear that surrounds the subject of mental illness. One organiser at a drop-in centre for users of services told us how the assumed link between violence and mental illness affected enquiries that they received:

Many of those who work in the area of mental health have experience of the damage caused by this climate of fear. They believe that the media is in part responsible for this and should be confronted with the consequences of its own actions. In April 1995, three thousand psychiatrists signed a petition which criticised media coverage of mental illness, citing the research undertaken by the Glasgow Media Group. The petition was sent to the editors of the national press and the controllers of BBC, ITV and Channel 4 television. Its text was as follows:

The response to the petition from many sections of the media was initially quite negative. The petition specifically asked that there should be a major debate within the media and that codes be produced to guide journalists in this area. No television company initiated new programmes to discuss these issues or offered to develop specific guidelines for journalists as a result of the petition. It is instructive to look at some of the replies from broadcasters that were sent to the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Some respondents simply denied the problem. A senior commissioning editor from Channel Four wrote that, 'I am not aware of the same old stereotypes appearing on Channel Four programmes' (Letter, 22 February 1996). This theme was echoed by the response from the Head of BBC Drama Group who wrote: 'I am not aware of prejudice within the BBC TV Drama Group. I would be interested to hear examples of stereotypes within our screen output' (Letter, 26 February 1996). He was thinking of more positive programmes such as Taking over the Asylum . However in an episode of Birds of a Feather , a lead character commented:

The BBC Head of Drama might also look at this exchange from the Britas Empire :

Similarly the controllers of ITV could watch their output for children, including Carlton's Transylvanian Pet Shop . Here a character said recently: 'We'd be mad to let you have this money and we are actually - stark staring mad. Ha-ha, he-he.' ( and they hop off making mad noises; ITV, 16 July 1996). In case anyone doubts that such coverage is routine, on the same show one week later a character commented: 'I said I am Stark Staring Bonkers' (23 July 1996).

In the Glasgow research, an interviewee who was a user of services commented specifically on the effect of children's programmes:

It is clear that such issues do not always concern the makers of TV programmes. Some responses to the petition showed senior broadcasters to be as ill-informed as some members of the public. Scottish Television replied by pointing to their past programmes on 'mental illness', notably those on 'Down's syndrome' and 'Parkinson's disease'. One key factor in preventing broadcasters from taking up this issue is the belief that mental health is somehow not 'mainstream' television. Yet one of the most interesting responses to the petition was from an executive editor of BBC radio, who commented on the States of Mind series which was broadcast over six months on radio and television in 1995. She commented that, 'the response from listeners and viewers calling our helplines and requesting the mental health directory was huge... Any fears that such programming deters viewers is quite unfounded, the subject is one that does attract an audience' (Letter, 22 February 1996).

Those concerned with mental health should not be reluctant to insist that it is a major social issue and that some media coverage of it is a serious problem. In other areas, such as in the coverage of black and gay people, this has already been done. After long campaigns to challenge traditional images and stereotypes both press and television did in some respects change their approach to these groups. For example, in the featuring of ethnic minorities, there is a marked sensitivity which contrasts to some extent with attitudes to coverage of mental health. This can be illustrated by the different responses to the research which we have produced. As it happened, the Glasgow Media Group undertook a research programme on media treatment of ethnic minorities at the same time as our studies of mental illness and media. It is certainly the case that some broadcasters are concerned about mental health issues, but it did appear to us that there was a much stronger response in the area of media coverage of ethnic minorities. We were invited to present our findings on this by Michael Jackson (now head of Channel 4) and by Allan Yentob (eventually meeting for this purpose with the senior editorial and programme group of the BBC). We have not found the same level of interest in mental health. Yet there is no better time than now for organisations such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists and MIND to raise the question of media coverage and the damaging effects which it can have. They have recently been given another weapon to use in such a campaign. The new code of conduct drawn up by the Press Complaints Commission has been agreed by newspaper editors and came into force on the 1st January 1998. It clearly specifies that there should be no discrimination in press reporting relating to physical or mental illness. The code of practise states that :

It also contains the provision that inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected and that such corrections should be given a prominent position in the publication. On this, the code states:

Our research findings showed that in the past the provisions of this code of practice have been frequently broken. The new code was of course designed for the press, but it is hard to see how broadcasters could argue that they do not intend to respect its guidelines and ethos in their own practice. A combination of new research and collective pressure from the organisations concerned with mental health could now produce the changes in media coverage that so many people wish to see.

Media stereotypes, and the stigma that they carry, distort a fundamental truth about mental distress as experienced by very many people. As David King recently put it: 'It's a human condition, you can experience, you can recover and you can resume normally functioning' (King, 1995). At present, there are many attempts being made by users of services, mental health professionals and some journalists to produce a more informed media coverage. In Manchester, the Schizophrenia Media Agency provide themselves as speakers for television and radio programmes. By their presence as 'declared' schizophrenics they challenge the prevailing images. In other words, they appear as 'ordinary' people rather than as the monsters of popular media accounts. Those who make media products can be made more aware of the problems that they are creating. But the demands for change cannot be left simply to mental health professionals. Users of mental health services, their families and supporters should all be actively involved. This can be achieved by organising special groups to deal with media issues within existing organisations for users. These media groups can then contribute on a regular basis to press and television and can criticise and comment on particular representations. They can apply for access to television and radio to make their own programmes. They can also write directly to the controllers of television, and to newspaper editors, asking what progress has been made in changing dominant images and pointing to specific problems in media coverage. In this they can seek the support of local MPs and other public figures who can write jointly with them. The media will not change until there is a movement that demands it.