https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/May-2019/From-Stigmatized-to-Sensationalized

A young writer for the Virginia Tech newspaper wrote for mental health awareness on May 1, 2019 through an article titled “From Stigmatized to Sensationalized” on the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). Essentially, the author assesses the negatives that come along with anti-stigma and how a different approach is necessary to prevent further problems. The representation of mental illness in various media forms is addressed, shining light on both the initial issue of stigma and the newly-emerging romanticization. Claiming that attention can lead to misrepresentation, the author takes a firm approach to the topic, calling for true action that she believes will eliminate both stigma and sensationalism. This piece deviates slightly from that of a traditional article, relating more to an intentionally opinionated blog post.

During my first read through I once again found the piece well-organized and easy to navigate, allowing me to search for any phrases alluding to blatant bias. Of course, it being a blog post, bias is present in much of the writing. To this I do not object; the author intentionally included it as expression of opinion. I carefully ensured however that I was not simply in agreement with the post because of my own values, critiquing it just the same as all others past. Embedded within the paragraphs are links to other texts, a tactic used often to lead readers deeper into the ideas of the writer. With the writer as an active participant in mental health discussion and awareness, I do not dispute any of the ideas presented though recognize that she is not officially a professional and most of her words are still opinion. For instance, labeling the portrayal of the protagonist’s mental state in “13 Reasons Why” as an “awful misrepresentation” or calling out the news media for “[reporting] Kate Spade’s death by suicide in all manners of problematic ways” undoubtedly showcases the underlying bias, no matter whether I agree with it or not. I also noticed that the author discusses the guidelines which news outlines should adhere to, similar to the idea of “strict media guidelines” expressed in the fourth post’s article. In summary, I’d say that the purpose of the post is to arouse feelings of doubt against various media forms and inform readers of how mental illness should be represented. While representation is among the best of methods for combating stigma, what’s most important is ensuring accuracy in that representation.