What is Stigmatized Language and Which Words Should Journalists Avoid Using?
The role of journalists in shaping public perception and understanding of events cannot be underestimated. The words they choose to use in their reporting have a profound impact on how people perceive individuals and communities. Journalists need to exercise special caution in their coverage of mental health. The stigmatization of mental illness is a pervasive problem that is often perpetuated by the media, and even simple words like the word “crazy” can invoke a negative image connected with mental health disorders. When journalists use these phrases, they not only contribute to the discrimination against individuals with mental health conditions, but also divert attention from the underlying issues at hand.
Consider the recent killing of Jordan Neely, a Black homeless street performer, on the New York City subway. Initially, some news outlets stumbled over their choice of words when reporting on the incident. Outlets turned their attention to Neely's mental illness, describing him as "disturbed," "unhinged," and "acting erratically," but failed to mention that he was murdered by a white man using excessive force. Such language not only absolves the killer of responsibility but also perpetuates negative stereotypes and reinforces public fears about mental health conditions and about race, since Neely was Black—and Black people, especially Black people experiencing homelessness, are often connected to poor mental health by the media.
“Using words such as ‘aggressive,’ ’unhinged,’ and ’erratic’ plays into the fear that people have regarding mental health conditions,” said Azizi Marshall, a counselor who specializes in ethical communication. “These terms reinforce negative stereotypes and contribute to the discrimination against people experiencing mental health challenges.”
Moreover, the decision to use these words affects readers who struggle with mental illness. “This could prevent them from getting support because they don’t want their family or friends to view them as ‘unhinged,’ ‘crazy,’ or even ‘dangerous,’” said Jasmine Bishop, another counselor from Arkansas.
To ensure responsible coverage of mental health, journalists should consider a few key principles. Sensational and emotionally charged headlines might attract attention, but they often fail to convey the nuanced reality of the situation. Instead of resorting to sensationalism, journalists should strive for accuracy and sensitivity in their reporting. The portrayal of mental health disorders requires a deep understanding of the subject matter. Journalists can benefit from resources provided by organizations like the Carter Center and the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, which offer guidance on responsible reporting and ethical considerations.
Consulting with mental health professionals and ethics experts can also help journalists navigate the complexities of reporting on mental health. Searching through public databases like the American Psychiatric Association is one possibility for finding such experts. A deeper understanding of the mental health conditions journalists are trying to engage with can also lead to more compassionate descriptions, free of sensationalist language.
Derogatory terms like "idiot," "nuts," and "freak," while seemingly harmless slang, only serve to perpetuate stereotypes and further marginalize individuals. Misusing terms like "bipolar," "trauma," and "gaslighting" can also distort public understanding and create confusion—and both trauma and gaslighting have become some of the most misused and popular phrases on the internet. If talking about maladaptive behavior, journalists should describe the behavior itself (i.e. shouting, running, or swearing). This allows readers to form their own understanding without relying on stigmatized language.
“Think of an observation as if you were describing what you see to someone who cannot see it, versus a judgment as an inference of what is not visible,” Dr. Bruce Bassi, a psychiatrist who consults with journalists on the ethical portrayal of mental health disorders, explained.
Furthermore, journalists should avoid phrases that disempower individuals with mental health conditions. Instead of saying someone "suffers from" or is "a victim of" mental illness, journalists can use language that highlights resilience and agency. For example, saying someone "experiences" or is "diagnosed with" depression acknowledges their condition while preserving their agency and potential for recovery. Notably, experts advise against the commonly used vocabulary surrounding suicide: ”committed suicide” invokes the idea of a crime. “Instead, use neutral language such as ‘death by suicide’ or ‘as a result of suicide,’” said therapist Bre Haizlip.
It is crucial for journalists to refrain from making assumptions about someone's mental state or attributing their actions solely to their diagnosis. Mental health is complex, and people's behaviors are influenced by various factors. Linking behaviors to mental health without proper verification from diagnosing clinicians only perpetuates stereotypes and misinformation. Even when mental health histories cannot be confirmed, providing context and painting a comprehensive picture of the situation is essential. Journalists must highlight systemic issues, social dynamics, and underlying factors to promote a deeper understanding of the events they are reporting on.
