Have mental health woes become a new spectator sport?

[Ashley]

Interesting debate, not OCD specific but I thought it made for interesting reading. Taken from BBC.

Britney, one TV therapist announced to the world, is in urgent need of "medical and psychological intervention". Not dissimilar judgements have been piously passed on such stars from singer Amy Winehouse to actress Lindsay Lohan. Why do we seem to so relish celebrity distress?

You could hear about it on the BBC Radio 4 headlines or read about it in the tabloids: Britney's breakdown bridged Britain's traditional media divisions as to what counts as news.

"Increasingly the spectacle of this kind of emotional turmoil brings us together," says psychologist David Giles, author of Immortality: A Psychology of Fame and Celebrity . "Britney, Amy Winehouse, Pete Doherty. We can all say - ha! If you take drugs, get mixed up in dodgy dealings, or indulge in too much too soon, you'll get your comeuppance. It's like a modern morality play which we can all understand - and all enjoy."

Of course fame has long gone hand in hand with psychological difficulties. Some argue it is the pressure of the constant spotlight, others suggest that the kind of people who crave that spotlight are perhaps different from the rest of us to start with.

But the consensus seems to be that the lives of troubled stars such as Judy Garland and Billie Holiday were not quite as picked over in their day as those of their modern counterparts are now.

The reasons why may be somewhat mundane: more media, therefore more details, more pictures. We can know so much more, much more easily. But society has also changed. "We live in what seem to be far less hierarchical times - we don't have this hang-up of 'knowing our place' anymore. Now everyone thinks they can be famous and wants to find the flaws in those who already are," says Phillip Hodson, a fellow of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. "But we also want to know what it's like to live to the point of destruction, to experience the thrill of it without actually having to do it ourselves, and that's where Britney and co come in."

And according to one former newspaper editor this week, if Britney did destruct, we would all have her blood on our hands.

The photographers who snapped the woman as she lay manacled in an ambulance, said the Guardian's Peter Preston, "are working for us": we who buy the newspapers and push TV ratings through the roof as we tune in to learn more.

Gawping at mental breakdown is not so new. In the 18th Century, for a penny, you could peer into the cells at Bedlam and enjoy the inmates' antics.

But these days, perhaps are we more ready to learn from what we see.

Much was made of the so-called Kylie effect in 2005: women apparently became more aware of the dangers of breast cancer after the Australian singer declared she had been diagnosed with the disease.

Could such public displays of mental ill health make us all more aware and indeed sympathetic to these problems?

The charity Sane has little time for this view. Britney watching appears to be as much a spectator sport for us now as queuing up outside Bedlam was 300 years ago.

"However sad this latest incident may be for Britney Spears herself, the fact that it is exploited as part of the 'must have' breakdown of any record-breaking singer serves only to belittle her genuine suffering - let alone the suffering of countless others who do not have the consolation of fame and fortune," says Marjorie Wallace, the charity's chief executive.

"She is a victim of an exploitative industry, a sensationalist media, and a public who seem to enjoy voyeuristically the troubles of superstars and celebrities."

[whitebeam]

Interesting. Food for thought.

There was a similar incident - I think with Frank Bruno a couple of years back - although I think the paper later acted to be more positive about mental health matters.

[Guest Shar]

Interesting. Food for thought.

There was a similar incident - I think with Frank Bruno a couple of years back - although I think the paper later acted to be more positive about mental health matters.

Yup. "Bonkers Bruno" was the original headline - which they later withdrew for the second edition. Completely misjudged, considering the article was about a guy deep in the throes of bipolar. :dry:

[Northern Star]

I think the paparazzi have to take some of the blame for Britney Spears' current troubles - from what I have seen, she is evidently in need of professional help, not having her ambulance followed by paparazzos with cameras. Celebs suffering psychological illness can raise much-needed awareness of mental health conditions, but the media have a great responsibility to shoulder with respect to how they represent the illness.

Speaking as someone who was hospitalised in the past because of OCD / Depression, I can say that I am glad I was not a celebrity - to have her problems splashed all over the papers and news is probably the last thing she needs.

[Guest puppydoog]

Like it says voyeurism isn't a new thing and it appears that faster and more widespread communication methods have been seen by many as an opportunity to bring the car crash into your living room as a way of making their living, with lots of people seeming to have no problem with buying it. I hope Britney's doing OK.