It never bothered me until it did.
It wasn’t until my dad became sick that I started noticing the use of the word ‘cancer’ all over the newspaper. It was everywhere – not simply in medical stories, mind you, because I would expect it there. No, I saw it in stories on politics (“cancer on the campaign”), entertainment (“cancer on the set”) and, especially, sports (“cancer in the clubhouse”). I am certain the word had been on those pages for years, but my heightened – admittedly over – sensitivity made it pop like a yellow Hi-Liter had been taken to every instance.
The sports pages bothered me most. Those were always my respite; a few minutes with a baseball story, a trade rumour or two and a box score were all I needed to be ready for the day. But, occasionally, that word would pop up and send me prematurely back to the ‘real world.’
I wasn’t alone in this observation. When cancer struck his family, St Louis Post-Dispatch sports columnist Bernie Miklasz used his column to reevaluate the loose use of the word, in fact, his loose over-use of the word in his personal reporting.
Was that first baseman really as bad as cancer? Probably not.
I took his personal reflection as an inspiration. He was not suggesting a censoring, just an awareness of how a loaded term can resonate. Cancer isn’t an inappropriate word; in fact, it is the best one in certain situations.
I just simply choose not to throw it around.
There’s power in the words we use. I am a strong believer that both sides pack their own powerful punch in the sticks and stones v. words battle.
My mind turned to Miklasz’s column this week as the University Students’ Council started celebrating Mental Health Awareness Week. Their motto, ‘Stomp on Stigma,’ had barely been committed to my memory when I received a note from the Associated Press (AP). Seems the global wire service was adding an entry to its stylebook, an industry bible, on mental illness.
“It is the right time to address how journalists handle questions of mental illness in coverage,” said Kathleen Carroll, AP senior vice-president and executive editor. “This isn’t only a question of which words one uses to describe a person’s illness. There are important journalistic questions, too. When is such information relevant to a story? Who is an authoritative source for a person’s illness, diagnosis and treatment? These are very delicate issues and this stylebook entry is intended to help journalists work through them thoughtfully, accurately and fairly.”
Seems AP wants journalists reporting on, not diagnosing, the subjects of their stories. “Do not describe an individual as mentally ill,” the entry reads, “unless it is clearly pertinent to a story and the diagnosis is properly sourced.”
The full entry was immediately added to the AP Stylebook Online and will appear in print in the next edition.
The prescriptions outlined in it are thoughtful, but one stood out to me, probably because it reminded me of my own story: “Avoid using mental health terms to describe non-health issues. Don’t say that an awards show, for example, was schizophrenic.”
Ah, well, I never thought of that. I had been so wrapped up in my own campaign that I failed to grant the same courtesy to others. If ‘cancer’ sends a chill up my spine, perhaps ‘schizophrenic’ – not to mention loaded terms like ‘insane’ or ‘crazy’ – does the same for others.
Change comes slowly to these stylebooks. Editors commit them to memory, and become cranky when old habits need to be reoriented – especially on deadline. But understand, this is a big deal as the AP influences how news is reported across many platforms in not just the United States and Canada, but around the world. It is an unseen, ever-evolving blueprint journalists use to construct their reports, which are then transmitted to millions of people daily.
If words matter, then reporting matters; if reporting matters, then how it is reported matters even more. These changes, if followed, will be reflected in how mental illness is portrayed going forward.
It is a positive step, and anyone looking to ‘Stomp on Stigma’ should see it as good news.