We have seen again this weekend a shocking example of stigmatising, offensive and counterproductive media reporting Zombie Drug Horror.
I’m not encouraging you to read it, not least because the media outlet concerned shouldn’t be rewarded by high click rates for these offensive articles. But needless to say it contains derogatory language, dehumanising images and videos and othering of people.
The trigger for the article is the release of a report from Government on a multi agency response to preventing deaths. Local Preparedness for Synthetic Opioids in England.
The report shows good multi agency working between Government, Public Health and the Police. The Government’s release was balanced and non-stigmatising – an improvement on previous releases and I like to think in part as a result of the adoption of our language guide Anti-Stigma Language Guide — Anti-Stigma Network
We know the government share a commitment to taking an Anti-Stigma approach and that they see it as a necessary underpinning of all approaches to reduce drug related deaths.
We have plenty of research that shows the impact of language informing society’s views and policy approaches.
More specifically recent research led by Harry Sumnall into the use of the Zombie trope concluded
“Our study is the first to show that dehumanising ‘zombie’ framing frequently used in news reporting is associated with higher public stigma towards people who use drugs. News media is an important source of public education on drugs, so to avoid reinforcing stigma the use of dehumanising language and framing, such as ‘zombie’ metaphors, should be avoided. Organisations working to reduce stigma towards people who use drugs should encourage news outputs and journalists to avoid this type of representation.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395925000131
So we have awareness, education, evidence base and a commitment to take a non-stigmatising approach to preventing death – so why do we have to still see the most dehumanising images in our national media?
The irony is clear – in reporting on a life saving initiative our big media are increasing the risk of people dying. One could be justified in thinking it was a purposeful attempt to undermine the initiatives that will prevent people from dying.
The Anti-Stigma Network analysed the comments below this most recent article to get a sense of how the piece landed with the public. This is what we found
- Many responses advocate for harsh punitive measures, including in the most extreme; Death penalty for dealers, withdrawing NHS treatment, euthanasia or abandonment of people who use drugs.
- There was Frequent use of dehumanising language (e.g., “junkies,” “scum,” “halfwits”) and metaphors (e.g., “round them up,” “dump them in the sea”). Reflecting the deep stigma and moral judgment directed at people who use drugs.
- Several comments express distrust in government, belief that authorities have lost control and criticism of public health messaging.
You could argue that the below the line comments on these articles are always the extreme but they are still part of the article. This is a online news outlet with one of the biggest reaches of all mainstream newspapers. I am sure its reach makes it an attractive first stop for launching initiatives. But is it really the best way to launch good initiatives to save lives when it works counter to that aim? When it increases stigma, discrimination, distrust of government agencies providing the support. When it makes it harder for people to seek life-saving treatment and the consequence will inevitably be an increase in preventable deaths.
As others have expressed this week it does feel like all roads lead to the media. Not all media, some of the reporting on this topic was compassionate and balanced. But it’s easy to feel powerless and frustrated.
I would urge us all to be more cognisant of the media we engage with – whilst we might identify an opportunity to get our point across - not all press is good press and what might look like an opportunity might indeed be working against the points we are trying to make.
