60 Minutes, Tucson, and Stereotypes of Mental Illness

[Trigger warning for violence and ableism.]

by Shaker LG6

I used to think that 60 Minutes was high-quality broadcast journalism. I'm not sure which one of us has changed.

Sunday night, I had the misfortune to watch a segment of 60 Minutes entitled "Tucson: Descent into Madness", which focused on anecdotes about and speculation on Jared Lee Loughner's behavior leading up to the Tucson shootings on January 8. Several friends and acquaintances of Mr. Loughner's were interviewed, and the story attempted to set his behavior in a broader context by interviewing people who have worked with the Secret Service on profiling potential assassins.

They were interviewed to establish points of commonality between Mr. Loughner's behavior and the profile of a "typical" assassin. None of these people was a qualified mental health professional who had had direct interaction with Mr. Loughner and could therefore comment knowledgeably on his mental state (and of course, it would be unethical for anyone in such a position to do so, which leads to the question of why we are witnessing this discourse in the first place).

I found this entire segment to be thoroughly irresponsible journalism, not only because of the use of inappropriate, inaccurate, and frankly sensational terminology to speculate on Mr. Loughner's mental state ("insanity", "madness", "irrational", etc.), but also because of the sheer amount of time spent discussing the behavior and mental patterns of "assassins", in a manner designed to inflame people's fears without any thoughtful exploration of the factors that might have led them down such a path and whether, and how, such situations might be dealt with more effectively.

In short, I felt that the story perpetuated the following stereotypes: that people who are mentally ill are monsters; that all mentally ill people are dangerous; and that assassins (despite supposedly being automatically both mentally ill and monsters) are worthy objects of the attention, fascination, and fetishization that they seek through their actions.

I am not in any way attempting to diminish the horrors of what happened on January 8 and the pain felt by those close to the victims nor to minimize the dangers faced by public figures (and those who interact with them) in a mainstream political climate that is frighteningly charged with violent rhetoric and polarized positions.

But the fact remains that, statistically speaking, the average United States citizen is highly unlikely to ever be in any danger from an assassin, particularly compared to the diffuse but very real threats to safety and security that huge numbers of people in the US do face on a daily basis: Loss or lack of income, job security, and gainful employment; loss or lack of access to food, shelter, and basic medical care; loss or lack of safety and dignity in homes, schools, neighborhoods, and workplaces; and yes, loss or lack of capability in managing the vicissitudes of life which can be the result of serious mental illness.

Unfortunately it appears that the mainstream media lacks the creativity, perception, and energy to recognize and pursue the newsworthiness of these dramatic narratives, in favor of defaulting at every opportunity to the easy and lurid option.