RSS

Category Archives: Media/Marketing

The Stigma of Psychopathy

balcony

It’s fascinating to consider how our attitudes change over time. It is almost amusing to flip through a magazine from more than 40 years ago. Advertisements, editorial content and choices speak volumes about our priorities and concerns at the time of publication. Old movies also tell us much (often in the guise of propaganda or by virtue of what’s left out of a story.) While it’s doubtful that any newlywed couple ever slept in separate twin beds it is for certain that Hollywood wanted us thinking so. A study of older cinema is illuminating in what it tells us about what people held dear and what they scorned. Some of these values are practically foreign to many of us. You might need a crib sheet to understand the subtlety of a woman scorned for working outside the home, or the degenerating effects of a broken home. You may very well need to hit the pause button to consider what exactly ‘ruined’ a woman or what a ‘deserter’ was and what it supposedly said about a person.

How intriguing that we once felt so strongly about issues that have lost their power to shock or hurt. It must be a sign of some sort of progress? Our attitudes about marriage, relationships, parenthood, working, religion, and the public versus the private world have changed drastically since married people were shown sleeping in twin beds. If they choose to be relevant, media (in all forms) must somewhat reflect the realities of the time. Slowly but surely families are depicted as the freeform drawing they often are, rather than the coloring within the lines they might have once been. The melding of the public and private means most of us now know far more than we care to about strangers. Diseases and ‘conditions’ that were once private, feared, or barely noted, are discussed in loud outdoor advertising voices. There really are no private parts anymore. Except one: the mind.

Mental illness, despite all of our progress is still quite demonized and stigmatized in our media. Certainly we can all comfortably bandy about pop-psycholoigy terms. We could probably rattle off the names of a handful of medications for depression or anxiety. Thanks to reality television we think we know what obsessive compulsive disorder is. What we know and what we’re comfortable discussing is cocktail party chatter. Any mental illness serious or complex enough to not warrant a television commercial, magazine advert, awareness campaign or walkathon is a no-go zone. Shrouding mental illness in shame in secrecy only fuels our misunderstanding yet we hold onto this attitude.

When the newsreader intones (in sotto voce) “The suspect sought counseling” we get the message: ‘Oh, he/she is crazy.’ (For the record you know what’s actually crazy? Thinking you’re not crazy.) The toxicity of this message; 1) seeking help for mental health is suspect 2) mental illness is synonymous with criminality is the very definition of stigmatization. The only thing all criminals have in common is that they committed a crime. Mental illness takes many forms and very few of them involve any violent behaviors. People with illnesses are much more likely to hurt themselves (passively or actively.)

It’s the ambiguity of mental illness that is at the core of these attitudes. The mind is confusing. It is difficult to talk about personality disorders in 60 seconds. Many mental illness can be quite complicated and often incurable. A true understanding of the subtleties and complexities is probably best left to the professionals. But we don’t need to understand something to accept it. What we need to do is rebrand mental illness. Newsreaders think nothing of loudly broadcasting starlet rehabilitation for drug addiction or eating disorders (psst: nice lady reading the teleprompter – addiction and eating disorders are mental illnesses.) We speak publicly and loudly about post-traumatic stress disorder and post-partum depression (mental illness, mental illness.) If all mental illnesses were called by their proper name(s) perhaps we could shed the shame. Words are powerful (just think of all the ones you no longer feel comfortable using.) Once mental illness is seen as diverse expansive and existing any and everywhere, we can celebrate and support treatment in a meaningful way.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on December 10, 2012 in Media/Marketing, Well-Being

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

This Just In

There is much to love about new media and greater access to information. The average person (with high speed internet access) can view primary source news in real time throughout the day. If a consumer chooses to, he/she can avail him or herself to messaging from politicians or experts who fly somewhat below the mainstream radar. This level of accessibility democratizes the flow of information for both the source and for the user.

There is a downside to the immediacy and the abundance of the information. Lack of (or flawed) fact checking has become a serious issue both in legitimate journalism and in the blogosphere. Some of these slips are no doubt due to the speed of the news cycle. A certain percentage of slips are a product of ignorance of the very concept of fact checking. (There are a significant number of people who actually consider wikipedia to be a primary source.) It’s also worth a mention that the editing profession ain’t what it once was. One need only pick up a book published (by self or house) in the past few years to witness the change.

Another unfortunate fallout from the glut of information is all the information! It is challenging to weed through so much noise to get to what matters. Rumors or sensational (baseless) accusations turn into news; because quite frankly legitimate news outlets cannot afford to ignore a story everyone is talking/tweeting about. Stories that were once the purview of the National Enquirer, People or any other tabloid, now find themselves in the evening news and newspapers of record. These distasteful ‘stories’ diminish the news source for some viewers/readers. Consumers who have made a point of avoiding the magazines in doctor’s offices and television monitors in airports now find their sensibilities offended in new and distressing ways.

There was a time when people would read the local newspaper for which they felt an affinity. There were New York City newspapers in the double-digits and with multiple daily editions! The network evening news choices were dry and authoritative (the monkey was only on in the morning.) Consumers received their news via a highly filtered process. Somewhere between processed news and raw news lies a happy medium. The consumer is now the editor and very few of us are equipped to do our own fact checking or redlining.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 14, 2012 in Media/Marketing

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Dateline: Twitter

If the 2008 election was the first grassroots get out the vote campaign (in recent memory) than 2012 was the first social media campaign. Since the dawn of the electoral process candidates (and their supporters) have said outrageous things. These statements, either patently false or a scathing truth about a candidate’s character, would mostly go unnoticed. Conversations or speeches made at fundraisers, or other “invitation-only” events might leak out but rarely with any consequence. Candidates making outrageous (if not flat out insane) misinformed statements regarding reproductive biology might be quoted in local media. If the statement or story was sensational enough perhaps national media would have picked up the story. But there was always still a chance that a whispered conversation or two might be able to quash a story.

But today all bets are off and there are few places to hide. Advances in hardware and software have created an everyman press corps. Audio and visual recording can be made with phones. Social media has created a souped-up uber-grapevine. The more outrageous the statement the higher it will trend. A statement made in public, which might have been reported in print, now can become a catchphrase/punchline in 24 hours.

Tradition media is influenced by all of this. Every candidate and his or her cadre of spin machinists know this. Which means that when a candidate utters something worthy of a hardcore Scooby Doo “huh?” reaction we can only guess what he/she has been trained not to say.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 8, 2012 in Cultural Critique, Media/Marketing

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Kids Are Alright

 

Wailing about kids today is a wholesome and robust tradition. Contrast and comparison is also a very effective way to understand one’s own self. “Parent Orientation!; my father slowed the car down when we got to campus!” when spoken out loud might expand one’s understanding of one’s own self-reliance. About two generations now have been grumbling and pontificating about the self-absorbed populace planted and sowed after 1980. Those in the earliest crop are now parenting themselves. Many born before 1980 or raised outside of the family-friendly entertainment industry/my child is an honor student/kindergarten graduation influence, find themselves wondering what will become of all these kids when they reach adulthood and discover there is no audience? Don’t worry; it’s not gonna happen.

No one grows up and enters their elder’s world anymore. In the 21st century our industry is ideas (via technology.) We are not building cities, roads and bridges. We are not harvesting national resources and building empires. Most of our cultural institutions and landmark buildings are just that; institutions and landmarks. There are not many young men and women going into the business of their parents’. Even if the ‘business’ goes by the same name, it probably looks quite different day-to-day. If dad went into his dad’s profession of banking, the work wouldn’t have varied that much. Sure dad would now be working with or for women, and maybe there would be no smoking, but the actual work; money in, profits out, wouldn’t have changed all that much. But by the time junior comes along the business is international and technology is king. Junior and his cohorts have never heard the term “banker’s hours” and if they did would assume it refers to 24/7. There are very few paths left where one could actually follow footsteps. Each generation now machetes their way through.

Nowhere is this more evident than in media and technology. Reality show proliferation doesn’t happen by accident. Dozens of channels specializing in ‘Queen for a Day” programming is calculated. It’s calculated by the television staff whose orientation to the world renders a “Look At Me!” premise totally plausible and laudable. It’s calculated by a television staff who also knows (or projects onto) its audience; “Who doesn’t want to be the center of attention?” And social media is not the result of a whole lot of leftover parts. Slowly but surely developers discovered that there was an insatiable appetite to ‘be seen.’ Certainly social media sites such as Facebook are a wonderful tool for connecting and reconnecting with friends. But it’s also an easy way to create a familiar and familial sense of importance. Status updates are filled with information that only a (helicopter) parent could possibly find interesting. Twitter is possibly one of the greatest ‘democratizer’ of our time; allowing for personal curation and access to previously unattainable information. But it’s also a way to type incessantly (and perhaps inanely) in the pursuit of attention.

Media and marketing have become so linked as to often be indistinguishable from one another. There is nothing surprising about this evolution. It is the natural by-product of generations who would not see a value in doing anything without an audience. All entertainment media now integrates Twitter and Facebook into their production. Try to even find a television program without a hash tag prompt on the lower left corner or a promo to “Like” the show on Facebook. Much of this marketing is relatively noninvasive and at times even informative. It’s nothing to shirk or even bemoan, but it is quite telling.

There are lots of real things to worry about. We can wring our hands over K-12 curriculum or childhood obesity. We can worry about higher education accessibility for our ‘best snack providers.” But we needn’t worry about how these kids will fare once the camcorders are turned off. As long as there are iPhones (or their yet to be born offspring) and mirrors, they’ll be just fine.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 29, 2012 in Childhood, Media/Marketing

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The Drink Dope

 

A lawsuit has been filed against a manufacturer of ‘energy’ drinks. The suit is the result of injury (and death) of children after consuming the caffeine-laced beverage. It is logical to assume that this will be the start of regulation. To the average non-Red Bull, Cocaine(!),Monster, 5-Hour Energy, Rock Star, consumer this would seem pretty intuitive. Caffeine is a drug; a legal drug that has evaded regulation in this country. Nicotine used to enjoy that kind of status as well. Cigarettes were available for sale (or given away for free) any and everywhere. Cigarette machines eventually had little adhesive labels declaring cigarette sales being intended for people over age 18. What teenager doesn’t tremble and back away from an adhesive label? Cigarettes haven’t (slowly) shied from the teen market because of the hazards of the drug nicotine, but of the smoke inhalation. But it still makes for a plausible template.

A beverage whose very intention is to alter the body chemistry is not appropriate for children. On a good day most of us would concur with this. But we would also agree that regulating anything is just a giant pain in the behind. The beverage industry is no doubt gearing up for a fight as we speak. They will counter with examples of unregulated sources of caffeine. Charts and graphs will be exhibited declaring chocolate milk as laden with as much of the drug as a grande macchiato. Gatorade and vitamin-laced waters will enter into the arguments. Coffee carts will form a single-file demonstration. In short, a circus will ensue.

Let us assume (for the sake of all that’s decent) that parents are not purchasing caffeine-laced drinks for their children. What would be more effective (and less hair raising) than outlawing sales to children is to outlaw marketing of drug products to children. Children aren’t buying caffeine delivery beverages because they thought of it on their own. They buy them to look cool and be like their friends who buy them to look cool and be like the advertisement. Of course they’ll never admit this. Don’t believe me? Go to a school right now and ask the guzzlers why they’re guzzling. “Gotta wake up” “Gotta test” They believe they need the effects of the beverage. Do we really want our kids believing they need drugs to get through the day?

Death and serious illness/injury from caffeine is probably rare. But this lawsuit speaks to something more universal. There is no reason in the world to train children to use drugs to improve their performance. Their bodies and minds are still developing. Soon enough they will be fully grown and can make informed decisions.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on October 23, 2012 in Childhood, Media/Marketing

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,