Mass Shootings, Mass Drugging and the Mass Media

Instances of mass shootings in schools, theaters, malls and on military posts have become so regular in this country that their horror no longer shocks us. It is a seemingly sad and awful truth that we can even get used to the most terrible events if they happen often enough. This should not be viewed as callousness or indifference, however. The fact is, accommodating to horror of this sort is a naturally occurring adaptive response that serves a self-protective function. In order to defend our psychological well-being from repeated assaults by powerfully negative events the mind finds ways to recast the experiences to make them less stressful.

Used to be that tabloids were the prime venue for sensational journalism. The distinction between tabloids and serious newspapers is now largely a thing of the past. Add to that the 24/7 news cycle, cable channels and the internet and you have a veritable circus of sensationalism which feeds on the human tragedy of escalating large-scale gun violence. Mix in some uninformed speculation about a "possible link to terrorism" and the "reporting" on these events can be very effective at manipulating the audience's attitudes and emotions. In this type of media coverage much is said but little is revealed.

Most, if not all, of the shooters in these cases have a history of mental illness. As a result, the coverage tends to focus on the failures of the psychiatric system, on people falling through the cracks and on the weak gun laws that permit psychologically unstable individuals to readily purchase weapons.

Of course, there are legitimate criticisms to be made of our mental health system but that is for another conversation. Moreover, there is overwhelming public support for rational and effective gun laws but the will of the people is being thwarted by the industry and their puppets in Congress. While these themes are being worked and re-worked in the media there is another significant factor that the shooters have in common that is missing from the journalistic reporting, and hence from the public conversation. At the time of the incidents all of the perpetrators had been taking or were being withdrawn from prescription psychotropic medications. Why is this important? Because it is no secret that certain classes of psychiatric drugs are known to cause suicidal and homicidal thoughts and impulses. For years the Federal Drug Administration has required these medications to carry a warning to that effect on the package insert.

Psychotropic drugs as a whole ought to be far more controversial than they are. They cure nothing. They are prescribed for "diseases"" that do not exist. And they have very serious side effects that range from shrinking brain matter, to diabetes and obesity, to suicide and mass murder. Why, then, does the public know so very little about these truths? I can only surmise that because Big Pharma makes so much money on psychotropics they have worked very hard to keep the bad news under wraps.

An example of the help they get might prove surprising, yet useful. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) is an advocacy and lobbing organization formed in 1979. Purportedly, their mission is to promote the adoption of policies beneficial to those living with behavioral disorders and to encourage research into the causes and treatment of such disorders. In reality. NAMI promulgates as a matter of policy, a very narrow, biologically-based, understanding of what mental illness is. They refer to it as a "medical condition" or a "brain disease", despite the lack of valid data to support such a view. A more comprehensive analysis of the literature leads to the conclusion that conditions such as psychosis and major depression are likely to be the result of "biopsychosocial" factors. To that mix, I would add economics as well. Truth be told, we still know precious little of the origins of mental illness, yet NAMI pretends that we already know the cause and we are just waiting on the details.

Since they hold to a strict biological determinism, it should not surprise us that NAMI are staunch supporters of vigorous prescribing of psychotropic medications. Now this organization has mental health professionals on their Board of Directors, their Advisory Councils and on their staff. People who are capable of understanding the dangers of these drugs. So how are we to understand an organization claiming to be dedicated to improving the lot of the mentally ill, actively taking positions that directly harm their constituents and that block a broader research program that might accelerate our knowledge of causes? The answer lies in the fact that NAMI receives over 50% of its funding from drug companies. Large contributors also include health insurers and medical device manufacturers.

The media can play a valuable role in adding a new and important dimension to the debate over how to deal with the contagion of mass shootings. They need to bring attention to bear on the observed relationship between psychotropic drugs and violence. The public deserves to be fully informed about this potential contributor to the shootings.Gun control is sorely needed but if the real trigger of the violence is the overprescription of dangerous psychotropic medications, then control of a different sort may also be in order.

What's Up With MoveOn?

I am a member of MoveOn.org. I believe that they do a lot of good work. I have even sent them a few bucks. But lately they have taken a direction that exposes some disturbing flaws. One current campaign is to mobilize members to ensure a "progressive landslide" in November. That sounds like a worthy goal, one that I would certainly get behind. Trouble is there is not a progressive candidate in sight that one can vote for. It seems that MoveOn chooses to conflate "Democratic" with "progressive". A very cynical ploy, in my judgment and one that is difficult to fathom. MoveOn leadership certainly knows what a true progressive is, so they also know that of the original slate of Democratic presidential wannabes the only one with real progressive credentials is Dennis Kucinich, and maybe Mike Gravel. Edwards is a populist trying to sound like a progressive but without the record to validate him. Clinton and Obama are certainly no progressives. So what is MoveOn up to? Progressives out here know we don't have a horse in the race. MoveOn is not fooling us. Is MoveOn trying to fool the rest of their membership? Is there not some risk in confusing people into thinking any Democratic candidate is a progressive candidate? Does that not subvert the meaning of "progressive"?

I am unpleasantly reminded of the activities of Lyndon LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party in the 1970's. A covert right-wing group with Fascist tendencies, its members posed publicly as socialists in an attempt to subvert and discredit real socialist and communist groups and their members. I really hope MoveOn does not have some hidden agenda but my gut is sending me a warning.

While thinking about that matter I had another realization. MoveOn boasts of being strongly pro-democracy ("Democracy in Action") and has repeatedly organized mass movements for good causes. But the way the organization operates is hardly democratic. In its relationship to it members this is a top-down outfit. I could find no forums on the web site, no place there for members to have open discussions on issues with the leadership or other members. There are MoveOn "groups" on Facebook but since I am not registered with Facebook I don't have access and therefore can't know what they are about. Why is this not available to me with my MoveOn membership alone? The only experience I have had with offering input to MoveOn is when they specifically solicit it. The leadership maintains strict control over the agenda. They decide what questions get put to the membership. In my book, this is not Democracy in Action.

Well hidden on the web site is a spot where one can make comments or suggestions. The following notice appears there: "We value your comments and suggestions. While we are unable to personally respond to your comments and suggestions all information coming to us, whether through email, surveys and other member driven communication, is shared with the staff on a regular basis." Not exactly an open invitation to become involved in participatory democracy.