Why do we call a mass killer a psycho?

YESTERDAY I wept as I listened to a mum on the radio news telling how her children would miss their grandad, shot dead by Derrick Bird.

The carnage and grief laid bare by this shocking tragedy is too much to comprehend.

Of course the media have examined the events closely, with time-lines of the shootings, comparisons with Hungerford and Dunblane and reports about the killer's home life, history and money worries.

According to reports, it has emerged that Bird had been self-harming for years and that mental health workers are helping police understand any connection with his murderous spree.

Reports have also referred to Bird as a "psycho" and a "madman".

When 12 people going about their daily business have been shot dead, you may believe debates about language used to describe the killer lack the urgency that caring for the victims' families demands. But I still hope it's a discussion you can see is worthwhile in the long-run.

When I pick up a paper and read about what a "psycho" has done, it does concern me.

That's despite the fact that I know ten/15 years ago when I worked as an evening paper news editor, I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

Dictionaries tell me that a "psycho" is someone who suffers from an illness called psychosis.

Here's what an online dictionary says:

Noun
1. a person afflicted with psychosis
(synonym) psychotic, psychotic person
(hypernym) sick person, diseased person, sufferer

As far as any of us know, Bird hadn't been diagnosed with this condition and if he had, we don't know how far that illness would have influenced his actions that are, according to experts, very likely to spark mental health issues in those affected.

Can anyone shed more light on how the meaning of psycho has come to change and be interpreted in this way?

How many times has any one of us called someone we fear a "psycho"?

Is it the classic Hitchcock film, or the Talking Heads song, or just generally accepted that "psycho" now means "murderous"?

What if media reports said "Diabetic goes on the rampage" or "Heart disease sufferer murders 12" - when the perpetrator didn't have either of those diseases?

Wouldn't that matter -- for the sake of accuracy of reporting if nothing else?

Shift: Media Monitor, tackling stigma and discrimination in media reporting.

* This piece from the Guardian's Comment is Free by Beatrice Bray on why cartoonists should be careful how they portray mental health sparked quite a debate - she was even called a "psycho" in the comments.

Update: thanks to Michael Cross for flagging up the following guidelines from Shift on the reporting of mental health and violence, which are supported by the National Union of Journalists:

 The dos and don'ts of covering violence

These are some recommendations for good practice when reporting on violent crime stories which may be linked to mental illness:

• Avoid using offensive expressions like ‘psycho’, ‘schizo’ and ‘nutter’. They perpetuate the stereotypical ideas associating people with mental health problems with violence and unpredictability – and their use may breach the PCC code and other codes of practice (see the chapter on codes of practice for more information).

• Stick to the facts – don’t speculate about someone’s mental health being a factor unless the facts are clear.

• Include contextualising facts about how very few people with mental health problems are violent.

• You may wish to reflect the views of the perpetrator’s family – often they are victims too, with compelling stories to tell.

• Seek comment from a mental health charity, a police spokesman or a psychiatrist from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who can set the story in perspective. See the Contacts section for more details.

  

  

Comments

[PippaD]

I thought it was short for Psychopath as to kill people like this I would of thought you would of had to had a lack of empathy.

[Zoe]

It always amazes me that after something like this the initial reaction has always been to ban guns, instead of looking at our mental health care and attitude to it in this country. The way we treat people with any form of mental health illness, ranging from mild depression through to full (and true) psychopathic is shambolic. Depression is a serious illness that unfortunately no-one wants to talk about if you have it and no-one wants to admit to it because of the social stigma attached to it. Perhaps if we addressed the reality of depression, there would be less lives lost each year.

[Louise via JBiz]

Because psycho is short for psychopath and history has shown that serial killers and mass murders such as took place in Cumbria usually are committed by people with psychopathic personalities.

But, yes, from a reporting POV, it can be lazy and misleading shorthand for other mental ill-health conditions.

[Linda]

Thanks for your comments, while psycho may be short for psychopath, it comes from psychosis in any actual definition I've found (granted I haven't looked very far!) that isn't based on prejudice. (There are plenty of people who'd say psycho means 'crazy' or 'nutjob' or 'someone I'm scared of' and this is something I've definitely done in the past.)

Why should shorthand for any mental illness come into it when reporting such an act is committed? I don't get it.

[Deer Baby]

I don't get it either. As you say, as far as we know he did not have a diagnosed mental illness or a personality disorder. He was not schizophrenic or manic depressive or any of these things - as far as we know. I do think it's a lazy term. I am also getting slightly taken aback at the cod psychology around this case - to do with his twin and once he had obliterated this double of himself, he then had no choice but to obliterate his own image. Not all twins are like this. When people completely snap like this, I think people understandably look for motives - grudges, etc,but who really knows what pushes someone over the edge.

[Marc]

Not so I believe - serial killers are very different from people who commit the sort of mass killing in Cumbria. The latter seem to snap after building up resentment and are not usually psychopaths or psychotic, and are pretty much normal people, and not people who do not exhibit empathy, are sociopathic, hear voices etc.

So the psycho headlines are wrong and not helpful in understanding what happened, in my view, as this Bird seems to have been a fairly normal functioning member of society.

M.

[Lynley]

It is a tough one Linda. I think that psycho used here is a shorthand that people have come to associate with serial killers because of the Hitchcock movie. I can understand that newspaper writers need to write short sharp headlines that people understand the meaning of immediately. Often that means using words incorrectly, becuase they convey what the editor is trying to get across. But I don't like it. My son's godfather and hubs best friend has suffered from paranoid schizophrenia for the better part of 20 years now. So I loathe it any time I hear anything like psycho or pscyhosis etc used in this context. Or headlines like 'Schizo' or 'Schizophrenic X'. etc.

I think possibly that also part of it is this whole making sense of things. When something violent and random happens we all want to believe that it is a one off extreme example of mental illness, because the alternative is usually to believe that inherent evil exists. I'm not sure if I am explaining that very well though.

Good article BTW!

[Linda]

Who is an editor to get across whether someone is a "psycho" or not?

The not so sensationalist reality is that someone who suffers from psychosis or paranoia or schizophrenia is a "normal" person who is ill and they are far more likely to harm themselves than anyone else.

As one in four of us suffer from some sort of mental illness, that's a lot of "normal" people susceptbile to such conditions. It also means that there's a debate around how much such acts are caused by any mental health condition as opposed to some other personality trait.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

[Anne]

I do think there's a lot of confusion between "psychosis" and "psyopath", and that these words are not used correctly by the press. And I'd be interested to know more about what the all-parliamentary group has agreed.

Linda - you're involved with Time to Change are you not? I saw the Schizo the Movie short (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8190036.stm) in the cinema recently and thought it was superb.

Lynley I think you're right to say it's to do with making sense of things. But I think journalists need to help people do that in a responsible and informed way, rather than merrily mixing up and misusing these terms.

On the subject of how the media bandies terms like "psycho" about, I interviewed a crime expert from the US a few years ago who told me the media has so distorted images of how certain types of criminals behave, e.g. serial killers, that it's got to the point where it sometimes damages police work because police, and members of the public, expect criminals of certain types to behave in certain ways.

[Linda]

Hi Anne - this site is a result of the Time to Change campaign as I work on it with Lyn who is a co-ordinator with Mind and the site is mainly about encouraging people to speak up about their stories of mental illness. I included the Schizo the movie video and there are some brilliant ones about psychosis too, which is really encouraging, as these conditions have far more stigma attached than depression has. I never appreciated until I started to work with Lyn how much there was a heirarchy of which shades of "mental" it's okay to admit to. To me, coverage of this story affects the fact that people are less likely to speak up or seek help about psychosis - which means they get iller than they have to. They don't want to speak up because they fear what people will assume about them and feel ashamed of themselves and are worried at how anyone will view them.

[Evey]

Wearing my trainee therapist hat, I think it's to do with us projecting the things we don't like about ourselves so they're out there and we get to continue to see ourselves as kind, loving, peaceful and so on.

Of course it's rubbish as we all have the potential for good and evil - the more we act as if the bad stuff is out there, in other people, and don't acknowledge it in ourselves, the less we have to address the conditions that lead to people (once innocent babies) committing such horrible crimes.

If we were better able to acknowledge that there are times when we've probably all wanted to kill (even for a split second) just as there are other times when we'd have risked our own lives to save someone else there'd be less of the unhelpful "psycho" (i.e. it's them - nothing to do with us) labels

[Linda]

@deerbaby - you have said more eloquently than me what I'm trying to say too. Don't get me started on the twin thing - so much nonsense written about "evil" twins etc.

[Michael]

The NUJ-endorsed guidelines on these matters are available here http://www.shift.org.uk/mediahandbook/

[Linda]

From Michael's link from Shift:

The dos and don'ts of covering violence

These are some recommendations for good practice when reporting on violent crime stories which may be linked to mental illness:

Avoid using offensive expressions like ‘psycho’, ‘schizo’ and ‘nutter’. They perpetuate the stereotypical ideas associating people with mental health problems with violence and unpredictability – and their use may breach the PCC code and other codes of practice (see the chapter on codes of practice for more information).
Stick to the facts – don’t speculate about someone’s mental health being a factor unless the facts are clear.
Include contextualising facts about how very few people with mental health problems are violent.
You may wish to reflect the views of the perpetrator’s family – often they are victims too, with compelling stories to tell.
Seek comment from a mental health charity, a police spokesman or a psychiatrist from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who can set the story in perspective. See the Contacts section for more details.

[Beatrice via Twitter]

Well done and thank you for the mention. Am working on Gdn mods to do more over derogatory language aimed at disability. I've gone to PCC over Gdn bloggers. If I were a gay man Gdn would protect me but I only have bipolar.

[Mz]

Re: Violence in fiction

Really nice rules/tips when writing a scene with violence, Linda. Although I enjoy reading these types of books, I can't say the same for writing lol. Guess you'd have to come from a violent background as a writer, in order to be able to write something along the lines, then be able to live with the fact that you wrote it...

...I wouldn't be able to do that

[Lucy]

If anyone is interested, there's a seminar on June 12 run by the PCC, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and Shift on reporting mental health. I'll be going - it's at the King's Fund in London. Person to contact for invites is Antonia Furmston at Shift, 0207 307 2446, antonia.furmston@nmhdu.org.uk.

[Suzi]

This is really interesting. Thanks Linda!

We have the same issues with the use of the term 'autistic' and 'autism' - have teamed up with the mental health charities on a number of occasions to address these issues in media coverage. Such as this recent piece - to which we sent in a letter co-signed by us (The National Autistic Society), Mind, Rethink and Time for Change:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle7043949.ece

[Lyn]

Thanks for posting this Linda.

Anne, has been closest to breaking through the misinformation surrounding the 'psycho' terminology. People do get the terminology confused and that is partly because of media representation. Hitchcock's 'Psycho' is often referred to as a psychopath but is in fact 'supposed' to be a portrayal of psychosis. I think it is in areas like this where the confusion begins and because people don't really understand and don't want to show their ignorance, they often just repeat what they have heard and so the misinformation spreads.

Someone experiencing psychosis and a psychopath are about as different as it is possible to be in mental health terms. Someone with psychosis will have lost their connection to the world in which they live, e.g. they may think that the people on the television are talking to them and telling them to do things, they may hallucinate and hear voices. Whereas a psychopath can function at a high level and keep up a front of normality and feigned empathy to those around them while all the time being coldly calculating about how to turn the situation to their advantage. One has the awareness necessary to be manipulative, one does not.

The seminars/literature that are available to help us write about these issues accurately are meant to break this stereotype that anyone with a mental illness is more prone to violence because 'psycho', 'nutter' et al tend to be have a have a hugely negative effect on anyone who has a history of mental illness - even those who have only ever hurt themselves and are highly unlikely to hurt anyone else.

However, the elephant in the room is our natural human response - surely anyone who goes out one day and shoots a dozen people dead is not mentally healthy. I think it's a fair response. What the accurate reporting is trying to break down though is the misunderstood link between mental health problems and violence.

In essence, not everyone with a mental health problem will be violent even if most people who are violent are not mentally healthy.

I understand that while everyone in this forum is likely to be able to grapple with this level of philosophical argument. A lot of the wider public are not able to and that is why it is important that reporters that understand are responsible and report accurately. It's just another service we provide to the world.

[Claire via Twitter]

In answer to the question:

A pyscho because as a society we have to think of wrongdoers as mentally ill. It's easier than thinking evil exists

[CS via jbiz]

Linda, I hear you and I imagine it's disheartening for people like you who are involved in the field of mental illness.

I volunteer for a mental illness charity and I remember - years ago now - we had a lady from MIND come and do an extra bit of training for us. One of the exercises she had us do was to think of terms used in "light-hearted" conversation ("psycho", "nutter", horrid things like "window-licker") and then have a think about what they really mean...

[Writer]

With the exception of an introductory Psychology course, I have no medical training whatsoever. I can accurately diagnose however, when someone kills twelve innocents, they are nuts.

[Linda]

and/or 'evil'?
..and/or deranged?

I'm not saying they aren't any of those things, how could I know? I'm saying that to call them by a medical term that is inaccurate can do more harm than good, especially to that vast majority of people who do suffer from that disease and wouldn't hurt a fly. When a headline of a national newspaper declares someone a "psycho", it's a lazy "catch all" term and that's wrong.

Not sure if I'm making sense but I hope so. I think the guidelines are eminently sensible and hope you can see where I'm coming from.

[http://completelymental.blogspot.com]

Although this is a very sad business, I don't see anything wrong with referrring to this Bird guy.

I never understood psycho to mean psychotic (the noun). I was a pretty decent psychology student at uni, until my illness took over and made it impossible for me to continue my studies, but to my understanding, psycho does not mean psychotic, but psychopath or sociopath.

I do suppose Mr Bird is one of those. The newspaper report did say, BTW, that he self-harmed for years, which is a pretty clear indication that he is suffering from a mental disorder. So, in this case, I think the medical term was used correctly.

As for calling the man nuts... I'm not a fan of the usage of that word. Deranged would be a better choice of words, in my not always humble opinion.

[Linda]

It may be proved right in the long run that one of these terms could refer correctly to him I think but none of us currently know any more than the editors responsible for the headline what his motives were. I've seen it argued that someone who "snaps" and does what this man did may not be a psychopath or sociopath as a serial killer whose attacks come over many months or years may be, but my main point is that as journalists, we don't know for sure so we should at least wait until we do. I worked on the Fred West case and wrote about how his brother didn't know what had driven him to it. I can't remember how he was referred to.

I have no background in psychology or anything like that but I do have years of working as a journalist and an insight into how editors' minds work. I also have someone dear to me who was diagnosed with psychosis and when I have used the name of their illness, I have seen those asking what was wrong, physically recoil, because they associate the term with violence, split personalities etc. This is totally wrong for most people in those circumstances and coverage such as this helps cloud that issue. That's all I'm saying. In the guidelines, supported by the National Union of Journalists, it says to avoid "psycho". What would such a headline miss if the word wasn't used? Doesn't the fact that a man has killed 12 people, including his own twin brother, speak for itself? The explanation for this vicious and cruel waste of life may never be known. When I trained as journalist, we were even told that "Three people killed" wrote itself and I have sadly written such reports.

There are some very long comments on this piece now, including from my colleague Lyn on this site about why the use of the word can be disagreed with in this case and explaining why the headline writers were wrong. All of this is from a journalist's persepctive. I don't understand medical terminology fully but I have been the editor in charge of headlines when people have been murdered and these days I would never dream of assigning such an adjective to thr perpetrator, simply because I couldn't know how accurate they are and so much work has been done in raising awareness how damaging such headlines can be. If a medical expert confirmed a mental health condition that played a role in any crime then that would be the time to report it and to clearly explain how much its influence was.

We don't know what mental illness he may or may not have been diagnosed with. Another of the guidelines (and that's all they are so we can take them or leave them) is:

Stick to the facts – don’t speculate about someone’s mental health being a factor unless the facts are clear.

As journalists I believe we have a responsibility to be fair and accurate in our reporting, I've tried my best (and sometimes failed) to do this in my career so it's a shame that the word "psycho" will not have been chosen because of what it does or doesn't mean from a mental health point of view but to fit in a headline that packs as much impact as possible.

The people who put the guidelines together have done so to break down misunderstandings about mental illness, I'd be interested to know what they think about its use in this context.

Whatever our views, I'm happy to have started this discussion so thanks for your thoughts/guidance as it has helped me learn.

I think that fiction writers have more freedom to build their character and show the reader the workings of their mind so the same "rules" or guidelines aren't going to apply but it's still important to make sure that portrayals of illnesses/conditions/motives are believable.

Many thanks.