Sensationalism is a way of presenting a story to make it more entertaining. Oftentimes in journalism, sensationalizing a story compromises the truthfulness of the piece from lack of integrity. But since the entertainment industry is not in the business of informing the public in an unbiased manner, sensationalism is utilized by many programs in entertainment to gain a greater viewing population.
I am not attempting to argue that sensationalism in entertainment is at all a bad thing. Such a genre of storytelling can be very useful in spreading awareness and adapting mundane topics for mass consumption. However, I have found that many popular shows use sensationalism in a toxic way.
Perhaps the worst example of this phenomenon is the popular Netflix series “13 Reasons Why.” While this show never aired on television, streaming services have a similar desire to maintain a certain level of viewership and activity. The premise of the show attempts to convey the experiences of depression, suicide and other important subject matters in the form of a high school drama in order to spark important discussion. This sounds like a beneficial use of sensationalism and, in some ways, it has succeeded in its efforts to create such discussion.
The problem stemmed not from the show’s inability to create discussion surrounding the depressed and suicidal, but rather the effect that the show had on those who dealt with those mental issues. Besides having found problems with the show through personal encounters with people affected by the themes of the series, I also learned that the show explicitly violates guidelines highlighted by Reporting On Suicide, a suicide prevention organization founded by experts in the field.
According to their website, in order to ensure the protection of the mentally unstable, media should not “include photos/videos of the location or method of death, grieving family, friends, memorials, or funeral” or reference specifics in suicide notes left by victims of suicide. However, the entirety of the plot is based on these two points. Given that the show is entirely set on the mystery and drama surrounding the death and final thoughts of a character, it would be impossible for the show to even attempt to adhere to these guidelines. In fact, the series even has a scene that vividly depicts the suicide of one of the main characters. Even if the inclusion of this scene was necessary for the plot or to the message of the show, it was too jarring for those who actually suffer from mental illness.
Preceding the first episode of the newly released second season of the series, there is a lengthy disclaimer announced by every prominent member of the cast. It warns that people with suicidal thoughts or tendencies should refrain from watching the series. The intrinsic problems with the way that the series deals with themes make it an innately problematic watch for those who genuinely need help, but this disclaimer is certainly one step in the right direction.
A similarly worrisome show is the program Dr. Phil, where individuals or families seek the advice of Dr. Phil in front of a live crowd. Even though he provides his guests with professional assistance at the end of each episode, the main issues lie with the way he approaches solving their issues.
Dr. Phil is often very cordial with his guests, but the nature of his show requires him to stir up some drama in order to intrigue viewers. The need for viewership forces Dr. Phil to prioritize watchability over giving true psychological advice. The way that Dr. Phil treats some of his guests ends up resembling ridicule more than treatment. And the live audience bolsters this feeling of teasing.
It might be the case that some guests deliberately exaggerate their mental afflictions, however, this does not affect the problems that the Dr. Phil show presents. The problem is not with how the guests are treated, rather it is with how the Dr. Phil show affects the culture surrounding mental health. Dr. Phil’s name and persona is meant to portray him as an authority on how to deal with problems, meanwhile he deliberately refrains from optimally treating his guest’s psychological problems.
When a show attempts to deal with important themes that can be found in society, the ulterior need for viewership runs the risk of tainting the careful way in which these themes should be handled. Sensationalism is not in itself a bad thing by any means, but it is important to consider when a sensational program is harmless entertainment and when it is truly shameful.
