A Cinematic History of 20th Century Stigma; How the Media Promotes Stigma; and, The Criminalization of Mental Illness
WHAT IS CINEMANIA?
The stigma of CineMania was designed to expose the media's role in promoting the stigma associated with mental illness and to challenge the media's deliberate portrayal of people labeled mentally-ill as violent and deranged. Because of the media's need to scandalize and sensationalize, rare bizarre incidents are being given round-the-clock coverage, in an attempt to keep the ratings up and the ad dollars flowing in. And as if that were not bad enough, the psycho-genre movie industry is feeding the public it's daily dose of madmen, "crazies" and maniacs. Because of this "the mentally-ill" are being unjustly committed, scapegoated and even killed by law enforcement officers nationwide! This website is not intended to glamorize or romanticize "mental illness". It is however intended to counter the current trend by the media and so-called "advocates for the mentally-ill" to demonize "mental illness." Both promote their own versions of stigma for the same reason... profit. It would be ludicrous for me to suggest or imply that "the mentally-ill" don't commit acts of violence. Certainly we are just as human as everyone else. But, it is just as ludicrous to over-emphasize the 3% who do, suggesting and implying that "mental-illness" is synonomous with violence! This website was designed to be informative and interactive. It is an attempt to provide an on-going forum for meaningful dialogue about the deadly consequences of this type of sensationalism. The time has come for level-headed people to make sound decisions based upon the facts, not the hype. David@seecinemania.com
CineMania: the subliminal effect of exploitation movies which stereotype mental health recipients, leading to the implied conclusion that all people labeled mentally-ill are violent and deranged. This is what Aldous Huxley referred to as "persuasion-by-association."
I coined the term CineMania out of a sense of frustration. It was my way of satirizing the media's obsessive, compulsive need to portray people labeled mentally-ill as violent and deranged. It was my way of saying (tongue-in-cheek): If there's anyone guilty of manic behavior here, it is the media, not those of us labeled mentally-ill! Unfortunately, because of the mounting violence in our society, sociologists have a vested interest in identifying the source of that violence, with the unspoken need to exonerate themselves and the rest of society from any culpability. This desire to rationalize unjustified acts of violence as "symptoms of a mental illness" is modern man's need to exculpate himself from his own capacity to be violent! And this need ultimately demands the sacrifice of a scapegoat, upon whom the sins of society can be purged. And what better choice for a scapegoat, then those, who because of their vulnerablities, are the least able to defend themselves.
"In practice we are generally forced to choose between an unduly brief exposition and no exposition at all. Abbreviation is a necessary evil and the abbreviator's business is to make the best of a job which, though intrinsically bad, is still better than nothing. He must learn to simplify, but not to the point of falsification. He must learn to concentrate upon the essentials of a situation, but without ignoring too many of reality's qualifying side issues. In this way he may be able to tell, not indeed the whole truth (for the whole truth about almost any important subject is incompatible with brevity), but considerably more than the dangerous quarter-truths and half-truths which have always been the current coin of thought. The subject of freedom and its enemies is enormous, and what I have written is certainly too short to do it full justice; but at least I have touched on many aspects of the problem. Each aspect may have been somewhat over-simplified in the exposition; but these successive over-simplifications add up to a picture that, I hope, gives some hint of the vastness and complexity of the original." (Aldous Huxley)
MEDIA ETHICS: DOES THE MEDIA REPORT THE NEWS OR CREATE THE NEWS?
On November 16th, 1999, in mid-Manhattan, an innocent young woman was savagely struck in the head with a brick by an unknown assailant. All of the local papers alleged that the perpetrator had to be a "mentally-ill", homeless person. In fact, the New York Daily News front-page headline read: "Get the Violent Crazies Off OUR Streets", including a two-page editorial entitled "Hospitalize the Deranged" (11/19/99) which zealously issued this ominous warning that echoed with a foreboding sense of impending doom:
"In our newfound complacency, we have forgotten a particular kind of violence to which we are still prey. The violence of the mentally-ill. The dangerous ones pursued by personal demons and likely to strike out in viciousness or fear. Anytime. Anywhere. It's time to end the madness. It's time to get the dangerously deranged off the streets for their sake and ours... There are crazies among us. Some of them are dangerous. A few of them are murderous. Get them off the street. Now!"
Not only did this hysteria-inducing front-page headline bluntly imply that "the mentally-ill" are violent and crazy, but more disturbingly, it boldly implied that New York City's streets are reserved for a select few ("our streets", versus, "the streets"). As a result New York City's mayor subsequently ordered a full-scale round-up of the city's homeless and arrested all those who refused to enter the city's shelters. Even homeless people who had never had a history of "mental illness" became victims of this media-driven frenzy. When the assailant was eventually captured, and it was discovered that he had never been diagnosed with or treated for a mental illness, and wasn't even homeless, none of the papers retracted their allegations nor offered an apology. In fact, the exact opposite took place. More media headlines began to appear demanding forced hospitalizations and forced treatment of "the mentally-ill". Eight months later a similar attack took place in Manhattan involving another young woman named Tiffany Goldberg which resulted in a similar response from the media. Once again "the mentally-ill" were criminalized. And this time when the alleged suspect, Bently Grant (who WAS homeless and DID have a history of "mental illness") was arrested, the front page headline read "We Got Him!" Not only was there a so-called confession, but there were even so-called eyewitnesses who placed Bently at the scene of the crime, even though Bently insisted that he was inside a record store at the time. How ironic that the charges against Bently Grant had to be dropped when the security camera of that record store placed him inside the store at the exact same time that the assault took place. In spite of these documented facts, columnist Steve Dunleavy had these inciteful words to share about people labeled mentally-ill in his follow-up editorial in the New York Post (7/21/00):
"Of all the billions that liberalistas have lovingly lavished on healthy men and women in the form of welfare checks, the same smug folks have been particularly stingy when it comes to the mentally-ill. You may call them wackos, crazies, nut cases, weirdos, but what we are really talking about are people who are in seriously emotional mayhem. For more than thirty years, the liberal agenda was to give bums a free ride rather than to pay for the care of people who are in a pathetic state of near or absolute insanity. So now these poor craven souls pick up pieces of concrete and bash in the skulls of innocents; Don't walk around the street minding your own business, because some sad nut might think that you're Satan and a brick will be part of your cranium!"
"Today, a single bizarre incident triggers an avalanche of news bulletins, special reports, live coverage and round-the-clock talk shows. "Experts" are paraded before anxious viewers to proclaim that the incident is not merely an isolated act, but the beginning of a terrifying new wave of crime..." (Mass Media, Alternative Press Review, Volume 6, No. 2)
In order to fully understand the media's potential for influencing public opinion about mental health recipients, it is necessary to recognize the persistent negative stereotypes in which people labeled "mentally-ill" are frequently portrayed. Negative images of mental health recipients are so common in movies and on television that the public's perception of mental illness is one of fear and paranoia, bordering on mass hysteria. "We continue to be appalled, saddened and disgusted by our results," laments George Gerbner, Professor of Telecommunications at Temple University and author of the Cultural Indicators Project Report. Founded 25 years ago to measure television's diversity and cultural impact on television viewers, the lastest study (1997) suggests, among other things, that the image of people labelled mentally-ill as "psychotic" and "evil people" has become deeply embedded in our popular culture. The study was based on an analysis of 6,882 speaking parts appearing in hundreds of televison shows over a three season period. While there are certainly acts of violence committed by people who are labeled "mentally-ill", the percentage is so minuscule compared to acts of violence committed overall in American society, that the knee-jerk reaction which resulted in Kendra's Law stigmatizing the whole mental health community is highly questionable. According to Special Agent George D. DeShazor Jr. of the FBI's Behavorial Science Unit "the majority of crimes in America are committed by people with all levels of functioning and personality types... only a small portion (states 3%) of violence in American society can be attributed to mental illness!" Says Mr. DeShazor: "Despite the infrequency in display of violence with the mentally-ill, mental disorder and violence are closer linked in the public mind." (Violence and Mental Illness). And ironically, according to Phil Donahue's national best-seller The Human Animal, "3% of all murders committed in the United States are committed by parents who murder their own children", and yet I know of no law which forces parents to take medications or to receive "treatment." Is this because most people would realize how ludicrous it would be to scapegoat 97% of parents because of the behavior of the other 3%?
And according to a 1993 University of California study on the prevalence of behavioral disorders in the United States in the mid-1980's, being laid off from a job was a much more significant factor in determining the risk of potentially violent behavior than having a history of "mental illness!" So the actual facts diametrically oppose the media propaganda and the ironic truth is that the overwhelming majority of people labeled "mentally-ill" are not violent!!! Just like the overwhelming majority of postal employees are not violent and have never executed their co-workers. Just like the overwhelming majority of high school students are not violent and have never slaughtered their classmates. Just like the overwhelming majority of police officers are not violent and have never engaged in acts of police brutality! The sad irony is that according to the BBC News and ABC News.com mental health recipients are more often the victims of violent crimes rather than the perpetrators of violent crimes. What then generated the media frenzy which created the atmosphere for Kendra's Law? Is this the dawn of that Brave New World wherein truth is an idle distraction and where the media doesn't actually report the news... but in fact creates the news? William F. Baker, the president of WNET New York/Channel 13 points out in the March 13th, 2002 edition of Newsday that: "As commercial news programs try to retain audiences that have hundreds of channels to choose from, journalistic quality has plummeted, and news editors increasingly are resorting to sensation, scandal and oversimplification to keep ratings up and ad dollars flowing." (Newsday Viewpoints, "Eye on the Media"). To quote the words of one of history's most famous statesmen, Prime Minister Winston Churchill: "Never have so many been manipulated so much by so few!"
"According to studies by communication professor George Gerbner, people who watch more TV are more likely to believe that their neighborhoods are unsafe, to state that fear of crime is a very serious personal problem and to go out and buy new locks, watchdogs and guns for protection. And if you think these people are just better informed, think again. No matter what the neighborhood, heavier television viewers are also more likely to overstate their chances of involvement in violence and to assume that crime is on the rise, regardless of the local facts... Paul Klite, late Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Media Watch (RMMW), once pointed out that "Murder, one of the least common crimes, is the number one topic on newscasts." According to the group Children Now, while the homicide rate dropped 33% during the period between 1990 and 1998, news coverage of homicides actually increased by 473%. An RMMW study of local TV newscasts across the country shows that 40-50% of all news airtime is devoted to violent topics. It's little wonder that heavy television viewers are more afraid of crime than less frequent viewers in the same demographic." ("Prison Policy in Media-Driven America" by Arthur Stamoulis)
THE CATALYST FOR CINEMANIA
STIGMA: 1. a mark of disgrace or infamy; a stain or reproach, as on one's reputation. 2. a characteristic mark or sign of defect, degeneration, etc. (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language). Stigma is an attitude or belief that fuels discrimination and stereotypes a broad, diverse group of people, robbing them of the opportunity to live, work and thrive in the community because of unwarranted fears. Oftentimes the most vile forms of stigma are promoted by the very people who claim to be "advocates for the mentally-ill." These are some of the most perpetuating forms of profit-driven stigma, because they are very sutble and benign. Here is a classic example:
"individuals with the severest forms of mental illness - schizophrenia and manic depression - will now have the opportunity to regain productive lives in their communities, free of the demons that plagued them as the result of an untreated disease. Kendra's Law will help prevent decades old scenes of these individuals huddling over steam grates in the cold, animatedly carrying on conversations with invisible companions, wearing filthy, tattered clothing, urinating and defecating on sidewalks or threatening passersby."
This is just a small part of the statement that was released by the Treatment Advocacy Center in Arlington, Virginia, following the passage of Kendra's Law in New York State, and in my own personal opinion this is an affront to Kendra Webdale's memory because it implies in an ever so subtle way that all those who will be bound by this law are capable of committing the same crime that Andrew Goldstein committed (pushing Kendra Webdale off the subway platform). According to my 1989 Webster's Dictionary that's an excellent example of scapegoating. SCAPEGOAT: 1. one who is made to bear the blame for others.
Why do rare occurrences like the Andrew Goldstein incident consistently make front-page headlines (for days on end), yet the regular occurrence of "the mentally-ill" killed by law enforcement officers nationwide are consistently relegated to pages five or six (whenever they are reported)? In fact, "the mentally-ill" are so often killed by police officers that as far back as 1996, some states have had to include a new category under their listings as the cause of death: "Suicide by Police!" Of course, this is nothing less than the sanitized equivalent of "mercy killings." This is the picture that the media typically portrays about people labeled mentally-ill. This is classic stigma. And this is the Catalyst for CineMania! As Mr. Dunleavy so casually stated in his July 21st editorial: "Dont walk around the street minding your own business because some sad nut might think that you're Satan and a brick will be part of your cranium!" And, as if to add insult to injury, the TAC boldly carries on the long history of stigma under the guise of "Treatment and Advocacy."
EXTRA! JUNE 2001: MEDIA HYPE ON MENTAL ILLNESS AND VIOLENCE, by PHYLLIS VINE
Buried deep in a New York Times story (1/30/01) about the brutal murder of Dartmouth professors Susanne and Half Zantop, resides a common prejudice linking violence with mental illness. Speculating on the reason for the attack, the paper noted that Half Zantop "had once tried to help a mentally-ill young man." When two local youth were arrested - neither suffering from overt psychosis - the knee-jerk response seemed groundless. Yet the initial impression associating the crime with mental illness had already been molded. When a Manhattan woman was assaulted with a brick by an unknown assailant, the New York Daily News (11/19/99) ran two-inch block letters across the front-page demanding: "Get The Violent Crazies Off Our Streets." The New York Times (11/20/99) flayed the Daily News for its throat-grabbing covers, but not for its erroneous assumptions. When the eventual suspect turned out to be neither schizophrenic nor bi-polar, the pundits were hardly apologetic. "Drake turns out not to have been the insane box-dweller many thought an eventual brick-attack suspect would be," New York Post columnist Rod Dreher said (12/2/99). But some just kept hammering away on the mentally-ill: "Whatever Drake's mental condition might be, those loons on the loose who pose threats to the citizenry are still out there because of mental illness policies that need to be revised," opined Daily News columnist Stanley Crouch (12/2/99).
Despite the seemingly inextricable media link between mental illness and violence, scientific research has cast doubt on the causal connection. A 3-year study funded by the MacArthur Foundation and published in the Archives of General Psychiatry (5/98) compared discharged mental patients with others in their communities. For those without an alcohol or drug problem, no difference in violence was found. The authors wrote: "There was no significant difference between the prevalence of violence by patients without symptoms of substance abuse and the prevalence of violence by others living in the same neighborhoods who were also without symptoms of substance abuse. Despite some coverage of this study (it appeared in the New York Times under the misleading headline "Studies of Mental Illness Show Links to Violence" 5/15/98), an opposing image persists in the press. Helping to keep this myth alive is the mantra of "1,000 homicides a year" chanted by the TAC (Treatment Advocacy Center).
As president of the TAC, E. Fuller Torrey is a man on a mission: to force people with schizophrenia and manic-depression into involuntary treatment. Once considered the patron saint of the family advocacy movement, his clamor for involuntary outpatient treatment in the last 5 years has dimmed his leadership and threatened the coherence of the movement he helped to shape (Mental Health Weekly - 2/19/01). Torrey explains his obsession for forcing people into treament: "These folks" he says, "are responsible for 20 murders a week, 1,000 a year." Torrey's 1997 book Out of the Shadows explained that he extrapolated the 1,000 figure from six news stories about 13 homicides committed by mentally-ill people in Washington, D.C., in 1992. On the TAC website Torrey also cites 1988 data from the Department of Justice which reported 4.3 percent of all defendants in murder trials had a history of mental illness. He turned this into 1,000 murders a year, he says, by rounding upward to account for unsolved and unreported murders. Despite the sharp decline in the murder rate over the last several years, Torrey continues to use the same estimate. Others at the Treatment Advocacy Center have acknowledged that the focus on the violence of the mentally-ill is in part a cynical ploy to encourage funding for treatment. "People care about public safety," TAC publicist D.J. Jaffee told a workshop at the 1999 meetings of NAMI (National Alliance for the Mentally-ill). "Once you understand that, it means that you have to take the debate out of the mental health arena and put it in the criminal justice/public safety arena." He had earlier advised a local New York advocacy group (SIAMI Newsletter, Vol. 9/12, 1994), "It may be necessary to capitalize on the fear of violence." (Mindless and Deadly: Extra! May/June 2001)
"THE VOLUNTARY CONSENT OF THE HUMAN SUBECT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL: THIS MEANS THAT THE PERSON INVOLVED SHOULD HAVE LEGAL CAPACITY TO GIVE CONSENT; SHOULD BE SO SITUATED AS TO BE ABLE TO EXERCISE FREE POWER OF CHOICE, WITH-OUT THE INTERVENTION OF ANY ELEMENT OF FORCE, FRAUD, DECEIT, DURESS, OVER-REACHING OR OTHER ULTERIOR FORM OF CONSTRAINT OR COERCION." Nuremberg Code
This International Code was established to prevent the type of abuses which led to the genocidal extermination of six million Jewish people and millons of other innocent victims. A more contemporary genocide, driven by an identical ideology, recently took place in Bosnia and Kosovo. And a similar ideology is taking place right here in America under the guise of "advocacy" and "treatment". Or is it merely a coincidence, that the majority of mental health recipients who are being mandated by involuntary outpatient commitment and forced "treatment" are so-called minorities?
"Being a psychiatrist who is recognized by NAMI as an "expert" in the area of folks who are "a danger to themselves and others," can Dr. Torrey please explain to me why a joint study done by the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association in 1987 on physician suicide found that psychiatrists had the highest suicide rate among medical practitioners? And why at the time of their deaths, 56% of those who committed suicide did so under the influence of self-prescribed psycho-tropic medications?" (Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 257, no. 21, June 5, 1987, page 2950). And as if that were not enough, why another article in the "Journal of Clinical Psychiatry" reports that not only do psychiatrists have the highest suicide rate among medical practitioners, but that their suicide rates are three times higher than the general population. ("Suicide by Psychiatrists...", Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, vol. 41, no. 8, August 1980). I would be glad to post his response....... unedited and uncensored!!! David@seecinemania.com Apparently Dr. Torrey has succumbed to the old cliche, if you can't beat 'em... join 'em, because he, himself, reveals in his 1988 book "Nowhere To Go" that psychiatrists rarely represent anyone's interests but their own, wherein he writes: "The organizations [of psychiatrists] are nothing more nor less than professional unions and function primarily to serve their members' economic interests." ("Nowhere To Go" by E. Fuller Torrey, p. 213)
