Over the past six weeks or so, the Netflix series, 13 Reasons Why, has swiftly become a hot topic. Primarily focusing on the show鈥檚 frank portrayal of suicide, a cacophony of frantic voices have been given prime space in the media, many of which accuse the series鈥� producers for peddling 鈥榙angerous鈥� and 鈥榟armful鈥� material; for 鈥榞lamourizing鈥�, 鈥榬omanticizing鈥� and/ or 鈥榮ensationalising鈥� the way in which protagonist, Hannah Baker, takes her own life. 鈥楾here is a great amount of concern in the suicide prevention community around this series鈥�, , executive director of Suicide Awareness Voices of Education (SAVE). 鈥淵oung people are not that great at separating fiction from reality鈥�, says Reidenberg, and 鈥樷��.
Australian mental health organisation, , publically condemned the show for containing 鈥榙angerous content鈥�. Speaking to claimed that 鈥榠rresponsible reporting can lead to further death鈥� and that 13 Reasons Why could spark off a 鈥榮uicide contagion鈥�, especially among children and teens. This kind of 鈥榮uggestion-imitation鈥� model has been feted, celebrated and well and truly discredited. So-called 鈥榗opy cat behaviour鈥� has not only become a shorthand way of describing one鈥檚 own fears and anxieties, it has been thoroughly debunked.
The idea that fictional representations of suicide, especially those that depict method, can be directly linked to rising national suicide rates is worrisome. As usual in cases of moral panic, expert voices have been given a bullhorn with which to shout highly emotional warnings using bald language that reproduces a rhetoric of fear, risk and harm (which is not a new phenomenon, of course). These experts come armed with 鈥榬esearch鈥� on their side, proof that the danger is real (usually without informing audiences where this research can be found). Furthermore, within the cognate fields of film, television, journalism, media and cultural studies, these kinds of arguments have been undermined, time and time again. (Interested readers can check out or )
On the , the Hunter Institute of Mental Health claim that 鈥榤ore than 100 international studies have been conducted looking at the link between media reporting and suicide鈥�. That certainly seems to be unequivocal. However, what the website doesn鈥檛 say is that within the field of psychology 鈥� and, by extension, other cognate disciplines 鈥� there is no consensus nor consistency on these important issues; that is to say, the field is more akin to a battleground than a peace process. ()
, Mortality, for instance, James B. Hittner emphasises that 鈥榓 number of studies have reported positive associations between mass media portrayals of suicide and actual suicide rates, [but] these studies have been criticised on both methodological and statistical grounds鈥�. Additionally, much of the extant research relies on what which I am particularly interested in how Ofcom included terms about imitative behaviour and how this was arrived at (I won鈥檛 go into the problems with this research here, but, instead, refer interested readers to Ann Luce鈥檚 The Bridgend Suicides: Suicide and the Media (2016) for a robust debunking of the relationship between media reports and suicide rates.)
More than this, however, astute readers will no doubt have noticed an enormous elephant thudding across the room.
These studies, with their methodological problems and statistical mysticism, are about the way in which journalistic media reports on real cases of suicide, not fictional representations. Yet there are many 鈥榚xperts鈥� criticising Netflix for not following broadcasting and reporting standards, be it Ofcom, the Editor's Code of Practice or the . 13 Reasons Why is not, nor does it claim to be, non-fictional reportage.
Although the Mindframe website does provide hyper-links to extant research, those links actually raise a series of issues in relation to fictional representations of suicide. clearly state that the evidence is not only inconsistent, but that 鈥榯he evidence has been relatively weak鈥�. Moreover, that 鈥榠t is probably not the case that the association could yet be described as causal鈥�.
In effect, by failing to inform the public of contradictory findings, certain experts are acting in fundamentally dishonest ways.
Rather than 13 Reasons Why being 鈥榮ensationalist鈥�, then, the way in which these kinds of voices are given prime space across global media news platforms has all the hallmarks of a traditional moral panic and runs the risk of being even more 鈥榮ensational鈥�. By reporting on the outrage emanating from the suicide prevention community (mental health campaigners, charities and psychologists) and, in the process, excluding other voices, is surely a cause for concern. It is not 13 Reasons Why that is 鈥榮ensationalised鈥�, but the way in which media outlets are latching onto the 鈥榮ensationalist鈥� claims of a small portion of 鈥榚xperts鈥�. Simply put, there is no scholarly consensus in either the field of psychology or suicidology. In other fields, especially media and cultural studies, the discipline has largely moved on from this kind of simplistic 鈥榚ffects鈥� model.
In fact, there are serious problems with these highly vaunted claims that may cause more harm than a Netflix series ever could. What does issuing anxious statements and writing letters to parents cautioning against viewing the series hope to achieve, such as that written by the NASP (National Association of School Psychologists)?
鈥淲e do not recommend that vulnerable youth, especially those who have any degree of suicidal ideation, watch this series. Its powerful storytelling may lead impressionable viewers to romanticize the choices made by the characters and/or develop revenge fantasies. They may easily identify with the experiences portrayed and recognize both the intentional and unintentional effects on the central character鈥�.
Not only are these kinds of statements largely based in superstition (of copy catting), they are irresponsible and unsubstantiated. (Readers may be interested in thorough debunking of the thorny concept of 鈥榠dentification鈥�.) Besides this, actively castigating a series as verboten has been demonstrated to have an antithetical affect (although there is also research that 鈥榩roves鈥� the contrary, too, such is the psychology field). That is to say, that the 鈥榝orbidden fruit effect theory鈥� posits that . Following this logic, then, are campaigners inadvertently promoting 13 Reasons Why as forbidden fruit?
Decades of research tell us that media audiences are not passive receivers but use, interpret, and resist 鈥榤edia messages鈥� in a variety of ways: 鈥減eople do not indiscriminately absorb every media message, rather they interpret what they hear and see in the context both of what they already know and what they learn from other sources鈥�.
To address this directly, I am one of seven researchers leading a large-scale project that investigates media audiences of Netflix鈥檚 13 Reasons Why. We shall be releasing an online questionnaire in the next few weeks and will continue to examine the way in which news stories frame the fears and anxieties of campaigners and researchers that seem to be more about rhetoric than data. We also intend on conversing with academics from a wide range of disciplines with a view towards building a dialogue between psychologists, journalists, mental health campaigners and media scholars. By scapegoating media and amplifying the rhetoric of harm as legitimate and beyond doubt (as moral campaigners invariably do) constructs an alarmist narrative, when what is really needed is a rational, reasonable and democratic conversation. We do need to talk about suicide, but rather than demonise a Netflix TV series, perhaps our efforts would be best by speaking to one another, regardless of the academic discipline each of us belongs to.
By Dr William Proctor.
13 Reasons Why Project Research Team
Dr. William Proctor (天美传媒)
Dr. Richard McCulloch (University of Huddersfield)
Dr. Ann Luce (天美传媒)
Dr. Lesley-Ann Dickson (Queen Margaret鈥檚 University)
Dr. Helena-Dare Edwards (University of East Anglia)
Dr. Billur Aslan (Royal Holloway University of London)
Shelley Galpin (University of York)
