Headline Analysis
I chose to analyze the following headline from the Emory wheel:
“Normalize therapy and destigmatize drugs, but don’t forget to be happy”
The headline of this article situates itself such that it seems unproblematic in its expressions of destigmatizing medications and mental health support. Though, the ‘don’t forget to be happy’ part makes it seem as if those two support systems aren’t fostering true growth for people with mental illnesses. Thus, this is a clickbait-y headline. It’s a bit performative and slightly passive aggressive. The performative nature comes, as I mentioned, in its act of saying positive things about mental health with little support in the passage. The passive aggressive nature lies in the second statement and in the article itself which argues for less ‘over-prescriptions’ and more therapy. That is, it seems to be missing the “destigmatize drugs” aspect of the headline.
The author, Sophia Ling, writes, “we still must wonder if as a society, we are overprescribing and under therapizing (Ling).” Here we see the central argument: antidepressants and medicines for mental illness are too readily distributed as replacements for therapy. The article proceeds in a fashion which includes statistics and data which seem loosely supportive of and mostly dismissive of medication as a valid treatment for mental illness. One such example is the following:
“Since 2017, there’s been a 41% increase in teenagers using antidepressants. Almost every college student I know has either flirted with them or is actively on these prescription drugs; but the long-term ramifications of the drugs – especially in combination – are almost completely unknown.”
The statistic is completely valid. However, the interpretation of that statistic is loaded in charged rhetoric to support the author’s claim. The phrase “flirted with” makes it seem as if the need for medications for mental illness is pleasurable and thus, not necessary. Subsequently, the last part of the section describes the effects of medications for mental illness as being unknown, which seems like fear mongering as it presents a foreboding uncertainty as being an intrinsic piece of medical treatments. Thus, the statistical facts are being used to support one side of an argument. This makes sense as this is an opinion piece—so it is worthwhile to see the turns this author makes in supporting the claim. In this way, it seems as if this article is part of the larger-anti-prescription-medicine discourse. The intended audience seems likely to be college students and college-affiliated folks as it was presented in the school newspaper. With the situation regarding mental health at Emory, this may also be part of the discourse which is pushing for better counseling services. Furthermore, the title sort of describes what occurs in the article, though it could be better articulated if it was more straightforward and less performative in its promotion of “mental health” treatments through medication while then proceeding to be quite critical of prescription medications.