Chapter 13
The Media and Mental Health Stigma
Chapter Overview
Americans get much of their information about mental illness from the media. As a result, news media coverage of mental illness – as well as content about mental illness in entertainment and social media – plays an important role in shaping the public’s attitudes about mental illness. Despite advances in treatment and other evidence-based services shown to facilitate recovery among persons with mental illness, media depictions of mental illness have consistently and disproportionately emphasized interpersonal violence and other negative portrayals. This is concerning in the context of experimental studies demonstrating the stigmatizing effects of portrayals of persons with mental illness who commit interpersonal violence and/or behave in a manner consistent with untreated and symptomatic psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. Media components of comprehensive antistigma campaigns, for example public service announcements, may be a fruitful avenue for disseminating stigma-reducing messages through news entertainment, and social media. Research suggests that positive media messages are an important element of such campaigns, and that when combined with other campaign elements—including but not limited to face-to-face education and networking through social media—social stigma toward persons with mental illness can be reduced.
Reflective Questions
Designed to encourage critical thinking, real-world application, and meaningful discussion.
- How does media framing influence public attitudes toward mental illness?
- What patterns appear in media coverage of violence and serious mental illness?
- How do sensationalized narratives shape policy responses?
Resource Connect
Links to professional standards, policy frameworks, and cross-referenced chapters that support deeper exploration.content.
The Carter Center Journalism Resource Guide on Mental Health Reporting
The Carter Center’s Journalism Resource Guide on Mental Health Reporting provides practical guidance for reporting accurately and sensitively about mental health, suicide, and substance use. The guide identifies common myths, stigmatizing language, reporting errors, and strategies for solutions-oriented coverage. It also emphasizes including people with lived experience as sources and considering cultural context. Students can apply the guide to the chapter’s Headline Dissection Exercise or use it to evaluate a current news story.
Mindframe Guidelines for Communicating About Mental Health Concerns
The Mindframe Guidelines for Communicating About Mental Health Concerns offer evidence-informed recommendations for journalists, communication professionals, organizations, and educators. The guidelines address language, accuracy, stereotypes, cultural considerations, imagery, expert commentary, lived-experience perspectives, and portrayals linking mental illness with violence or crime. Instructors can use the guidelines as a checklist for comparing responsible and stigmatizing coverage across news, entertainment, and social media.
CDC Tips for Stigma-Free Mental Health Communication
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Tips for Stigma-Free Communication About Mental Health provide concise recommendations for using respectful language, avoiding labels and stereotypes, discussing mental health directly, and incorporating personal stories without pressuring individuals to disclose. Community mental health agencies can use the guidance when preparing websites, public statements, social-media content, educational campaigns, or responses to a stigmatizing news event.
National Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide
The National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention’s Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide provide specific guidance concerning headlines, language, details of a death, images, descriptions of causes, treatment information, hope, recovery, and help-seeking resources. Although focused specifically on suicide, the recommendations offer a useful example of how evidence can be translated into concrete media standards. Students can use the accompanying fact sheet to evaluate whether a news report follows safe-reporting practices.
Cross-reference: See Chapter 3 Replacing Stigmatizing Beliefs and Behaviors with Affirming Attitudes and Actions that Advance Recovery and Self-Determination for foundational analysis of public, structural, and self-stigma; Chapter 12 Structural Racism and Community Mental Health for examination of how racialized narratives affect diagnosis, treatment, policing, and institutional responses; and Chapter 14 Integrative Approaches to Addressing Community Gun Violence for a public-health analysis of violence that moves beyond explanations centered narrowly on mental illness.
Further Resources
Suggested readings, research areas, and materials for extended learning.
Media Framing and Mental Health Stigma
McGinty, E. E., Kennedy-Hendricks, A., Choksy, S., & Barry, C. L. (2016). Trends in news media coverage of mental illness in the United States: 1995–2014. Health Affairs, 35(6), 1121–1129.
This study analyzes two decades of U.S. news coverage of mental illness. It found that coverage continued to emphasize interpersonal violence, while successful treatment and recovery appeared much less frequently. Students can use the article to develop coding categories for examining a current sample of mental-health news stories.
Ross, A. M., Morgan, A. J., Jorm, A. F., & Reavley, N. J. (2019). A systematic review of the impact of media reports of severe mental illness on stigma and discrimination, and interventions that aim to mitigate any adverse impact. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 54(1), 11–31.
This review examines studies of news and social-media portrayals of serious mental illness. Positive reports were generally associated with less stigmatizing attitudes, while negative reports were associated with increased stigma; however, the number and quality of studies were limited. The review supports critical analysis without assuming that all media effects are uniform or easily changed.
Media analysis should consider not only whether language is overtly offensive but also which stories are selected, whose voices are treated as authoritative, whether recovery is visible, and whether mental illness is repeatedly associated with danger, unpredictability, or social burden.
Mental Illness, Violence, and Policy Narratives
McGinty, E. E., Webster, D. W., Jarlenski, M., & Barry, C. L. (2014). News media framing of serious mental illness and gun violence in the United States, 1997–2012. American Journal of Public Health, 104(3), 406–413.
This study examines how U.S. news coverage connected serious mental illness with gun violence. Coverage was concentrated around mass shootings and frequently framed people with serious mental illness as the source of danger. The article can be paired with current coverage to examine whether reporting practices and causal explanations have changed.
McGinty, E. E., Webster, D. W., & Barry, C. L. (2013). Effects of news media messages about mass shootings on attitudes toward persons with serious mental illness and public support for gun-control policies. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(5), 494–501.
In this national survey experiment, exposure to a news story about a mass shooting increased negative attitudes toward people with serious mental illness. The study demonstrates how coverage of a single event can affect views of a much broader population and provides a basis for discussing media framing, moral panic, and policy feedback loops.
Students should distinguish between reporting verified information about an individual and using an individual’s presumed or documented mental-health history as a general explanation for violence. Analysis should also consider other relevant factors, including access to weapons, prior violence, substance use, interpersonal conflict, social conditions, and the policy context.
Media-Based Stigma-Reduction Strategies
Clement, S., Lassman, F., Barley, E., Evans-Lacko, S., Williams, P., Yamaguchi, S., Slade, M., Rüsch, N., & Thornicroft, G. (2013). Mass media interventions for reducing mental health-related stigma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 7, CD009453.
This review found that mass-media interventions may produce small-to-moderate reductions in prejudicial attitudes, but evidence concerning actual discrimination was inconclusive. It is useful for challenging the assumption that awareness campaigns automatically result in sustained behavioral or institutional change.
Maiorano, A., Lasalvia, A., Sampogna, G., Pocai, B., Ruggeri, M., & Henderson, C. (2017). Reducing stigma in media professionals: Is there room for improvement? Results from a systematic review. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 62(10), 702–715.
This review examines reporting guidelines, media-monitoring projects, and educational interventions for journalists and journalism students. The most promising approaches combined authoritative reporting guidance with education and direct contact with people who have lived experience of mental illness, although stronger evidence on long-term effects remains necessary.
A media strategy should therefore identify a specific audience and outcome rather than treating “raising awareness” as sufficient. Evaluation might examine changes in language, sourcing, recovery narratives, violence framing, audience attitudes, help-seeking information, and the participation of people with lived experience.