Hua Wang
Zhiying Yue
Divya S- 1Department of Communication, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, United States
- 2Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
- 3Department of Communication Studies, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States
Background: Mental health conditions and psychiatric disorders are among the leading causes of illness, disability, and death among young people around the globe. In the United States, teen suicide has increased by about 30% in the last decade. Raising awareness of warning signs and promoting access to mental health resources can help reduce suicide rates for at-risk youth. However, death by suicide remains a taboo topic for public discourse and societal intervention. An unconventional approach to address taboo topics in society is the use of popular media.
Method: We conducted a quantitative content analysis of mainstream news reporting on the controversial Netflix series 13 Reasons Why Season 1. Using a combination of top-down and bottom-up search strategies, our final sample consisted of 97 articles published between March 31 and May 31, 2017, from 16 media outlets in 3,150 sentences. We systematically examined the news framing in these articles in terms of content and valence, the salience of health/social issue related frames, and their compliance with the WHO guidelines.
Results: Nearly a third of the content directly addressed issues of our interest: 61.6% was about suicide and 38.4% was about depression, bullying, sexual assault, and other related health/social issues; it was more negative (42.8%) than positive (17.4%). The criticism focused on the risk of suicide contagion, glamorizing teen suicide, and the portrayal of parents and educators as indifferent and incompetent. The praise was about the show raising awareness of real and difficult issues young people struggle with in their everyday life and serving as a conversation starter to spur meaningful discussions. Our evaluation of WHO guideline compliance for reporting on suicide yielded mixed results. Although we found recommended practices across all major categories, they were minimal and could be improved.
Conclusion: Despite their well intentions and best efforts, the 13 Reasons Why production team missed several critical opportunities to be better prepared and more effective in creating social impact entertainment and fostering difficult dialogs. There is an urgent need to train news reporters about established health communication guidelines and promote best practices in media reporting on sensitive topics such as suicide.
Introduction
Mental health conditions and psychiatric disorders are among the leading causes of illness, disability, and death among young people around the globe (1). In the United States, teen suicide has increased by about 30% in the last decade, with the highest being 11.2 deaths per 100,000 15-19-year-olds in 2017–2019 (2). Although suicide is preventable, it is often associated with and complicated by factors such as social isolation, major depression, substance use, bullying, and sexual abuse, thus heightening risks for teenagers and adding billions to the economic burden of medical costs and loss of productivity every year (3–6). Raising awareness of warning signs and promoting access to mental health resources can help reduce suicide rates for at-risk youth (2). However, death by suicide remains a taboo topic for public discourse and societal intervention [(e.g., 7, 8)].
An unconventional approach to address taboo topics in society is the use of popular media [(e.g., 9–11)], with a rapidly growing global alliance in “social impact entertainment” in recent years (12). Creative writers and producers have been leveraging the popularity of entertainment media and the power of storytelling to engage and educate mass audiences for decades. Mental health storylines have appeared in iconic Norman Lear sitcoms such as Maude and One Day at a Time [The Norman Lear (13)], Oscar-winning movies such as Still Alice and The Father (14), and many other top rated and critically acclaimed programs on television networks and streaming platforms [(e.g., 15–17)].
13 Reasons Why (18) is a Netflix original series adapted from Jay Asher’s young adult novel with the same title. Its Season 1 premiered on March 31, 2017, and portrayed a host of sensitive issues such as teen suicide, depression, bullying, and sexual assault (19). The story was narrated by the main character, Hannah Baker, a high school student who took her own life and left behind 13 cassette tapes explaining the 13 reasons why she died by suicide. Unlike shows that addressed suicide in popular culture before, 13 Reasons Why released its 13-episode debut season all at once with elaborate plots filled with suspense, and twists and turns that were meant to stimulate conversations about taboo issues that people often shy away from Lawler (20) and Shef (21).
The show was quickly dubbed “the most tweeted-about show” in 2017 (22–24), went viral on other popular social media platforms (25), and got renewed by Netflix (26). In fact, it went on to complete three additional seasons. However, Season 1 also caused significant controversy and a wave of media moral panic (27, 28), with headlines like “13 Reasons Why tells teens they are better off dead” and “13 Reasons Why spreads suicide like a disease.” Scholars have looked at how this controversy set off Google Trends in suicide-related online search (29) and its potential associations with teen suicide rates in the United States (30, 31) as well as pediatric and adolescent hospital admissions and crisis helpline usage (32, 33).
News reporting by mainstream media can affect agenda setting and public opinions. A recent scoping review of television entertainment narratives in lay populations showed 13 Reasons Why as one of the most frequently studied programs (16). Yet, there is no publication to date that has systematically investigated how the controversy was reported by mainstream news outlets when this show was first released in the United States except for one in the Canadian media (34). Our study presented here fills this research gap. Using Entman’s (35) framing theory of mass communication, we examined the three research questions: What frames did mainstream news media select to cover this controversy? How salient were the frames related to health/social issues in the mainstream news coverage of this controversy? And to what extent did mainstream news media reports comply with established guidelines? In this article, we briefly review the framing theory and its application in news media. We then provide descriptions in the method section about our sampling strategy and coding procedure before detailing the results. We conclude with a discussion about practical implications and recommendations for future endeavors.
News framing in mass media
The concept of framing was initially developed by Goffman (36) to assist individuals in organizing and processing information in everyday life. Gitlin (37) further linked framing to mass media, particularly in the context of news coverage, where reporters employ frames to draw the public attention to specific aspects of a phenomenon. Over the past four decades, framing has been considered as a fundamental theory of mass communication and media effects (38, 39).
Entman (35) elaborated that “to frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (p. 52). Therefore, the two essential elements of news framing are selection and salience, which were the focus of the present study. The way a phenomenon is presented in the news can have significant psychological, cultural, and societal impacts [(e.g., 40–45)].
Frames help the audience to locate, perceive, identify, and label the flow of information around them (36) and to narrow the available alternatives in mind (46). Several studies have emphasized the importance of news framing by focusing on the consequences of the public’s interpretation of critical events and issues [(e.g., 47–49)]. For instance, Kim et al. (48) examined how newspapers covered the causes of and solutions to racial/ethnic health disparities over time. After analyzing 3,823 articles, they found that behavioral explanations, such as individual lifestyle choices and personal habits, were predominantly used to explain racial/ethnic health disparities in U.S. newspapers from 1996 to 2005. This emphasis on individual behavior overshadowed structural factors, such as systemic racism, access to healthcare, and socioeconomic conditions. The researchers concluded that this framing might create barriers and limit public solutions, as it shifts the focus away from addressing underlying systemic issues that contribute to these disparities.
Media framing on suicide
Framing effects are also salient in mass media coverage of suicide [(e.g., 50, 51)]. Mass media is often considered critical in suicide prevention (52, 53). On one hand, media coverage on suicide is often selective and biased (54). Such media stereotypes may stimulate the stigmatization of suicidal individuals and suppress people’s intention to seek professional help (55). On the other hand, copycat behavior is well-documented following media coverage of suicide, especially celebrity suicide [(e.g., 56)]. Results of a meta-analysis showed a significant increase of suicide in the month following a celebrity suicide news report (53). Even the subtle language use in the news report, for example, “free death” and “self-murder” can prime problematic frame-related concepts such as greater attitudinal support for suicide (50).
Guideline compliance
Guidelines for reporting on suicide have been developed and shared by experts and health organizations in the United States and worldwide [(e.g., 57–59)]. For example, the U.S. Center for Disease Prevention and Control or CDC (57) updated its 1994 recommendations from a national workshop to suggest effective news reporting guidelines on suicide based on results of over 50 research studies. Similarly, the World Health Organization or WHO (59) released a revised edition of their 1999 booklet of resources and guidelines as the product of their decades of collaboration with the International Association for Suicide Prevention. In this 29-page booklet, WHO (59) included a one-page quick reference guide of six dos and don’ts along with examples that can easily guide content coding.
All these guidelines emphasize the importance of avoiding sensational headlines, languages that normalize or stigmatize suicide, explicit descriptions of the method or location while providing accurate information to educate the public about the facts of suicide and suicide prevention, offering specific resources to seek help, and sharing stories of how to cope with stressors in life that could lead to suicide. These recommendations of best practices are consistent across different sources. Although Carmichael and Whitley (34) chose the recommendations for Canadian journalists to adhere to best practices in the media industry, we used the WHO (59) guidelines in our study.
In summary, we were interested in how mainstream news media framed the controversy about Netflix series 13 Reasons Why Season 1 around teen suicide and related health/social issues, and if they complied with the established guidelines for media professional. Based on the above literature review, we proposed the following research questions:
RQ1: What frames did mainstream news media select to cover this controversy?
RQ1a: What were the selected frames in terms of content?
RQ1b: What were the selected frames in terms of valence?
RQ2: How salient were the frames related to health/social issues in the mainstream news coverage of this controversy?
RQ3: To what extent did mainstream news media reports comply with the WHO guidelines?
Materials and methods
Sampling strategy
To create a comprehensive database of news reports, we employed a dual approach, combining both top-down and bottom-up search strategies. This allowed us to capture a diverse and inclusive range of information relevant to our research objectives. Our top-down approach focused specifically on mainstream news outlets, as they tend to be the most influential and have the broadest reach. To compile this list, we relied on circulation and popularity data (60–62) as well as expert librarian recommendations (D. Hartman, personal communication, November 2, 2017). This approach was crucial as some of these mainstream sources were not available through news aggregators such as Google News, and their inclusion was essential to thoroughly understand the media landscape surrounding our topic. From this approach, we identified a total of 18 key outlets (Table 1).
Table 1. Mainstream media news outlets used in this study.
Meanwhile, the bottom-up approach involved utilizing a custom Python script to mine all pertinent news reports from Google News. This method was employed to ensure that we gathered relevant information from a wide array of media sources, including those that may not be as well-known or easily accessible. This approach aimed to avoid potential bias by accounting for various perspectives and opinions from different media outlets. Furthermore, the bottom-up approach was designed to confirm the thoroughness and comprehensiveness of our top-down approach, ensuring that we captured an accurate representation of the mainstream media landscape and its coverage of our topic.
Our search criteria included a combination of keywords “13 Reasons Why” AND “Netflix” in the main text and a publication date between March 31 and May 31, 2017. We selected an 8-week timeframe for data retrieval, as most news articles about a particular event are typically published within the immediate days and weeks following the event due to the rapid 24/7 news cycle (63, 64). Our general search strategies, conducted between December 2017 and April 2018, initially yielded 137 news reports from 18 unique media outlets (Table 1; Figure 1). Full texts of these news reports were retrieved, some with paid subscriptions to gain access. Upon further inspection, we excluded duplicates, non-English publications, and articles that only discussed the cast’s personal backgrounds, the novel, or Season 2 without any mention of Season 1 content. This refined selection process allowed us to concentrate solely on the news coverage of controversy around Season 1 (Figure 1). Of the remaining 114 news reports, 15 were video only, one was audio only, one was image only, three were text only, and 94 were multimedia, using a combination of text and audio/image/video. Our final analytical sample consisted of 97 news reports (Figure 1; Appendix A in Supplementary material) from 16 mainstream news outlets (Table 1), which included text-based news coverage of the Netflix series 13 Reasons Why Season 1 with a total word count of 68,601 (min = 115, max = 2,827, Mean = 722.12, Median = 640, SD = 486.91).
Figure 1. Flowchart of news report selection.
Coding procedure
To address the research questions, we employed a quantitative content analysis (65) to examine the news reports, with individual sentences serving as our units of analysis. This approach allowed for a more precise assessment of the content by focusing on each sentence’s relevance to the research questions. We opted for human coding rather than computational methods to ensure accurate interpretations of the context, nuances, and valence of the sentences (66).
Each news report was assigned a unique document ID, with every paragraph and sentence within a paragraph in the main text marked for coding. Sentences were dummy coded based on their direct relevance to 13 Reasons Why Season 1 on Netflix and whether they pertained to the program in general or the health/social issues addressed. For issue-relevant sentences, the content was dummy coded as either a general comment or specific to a particular issue (e.g., suicide, bullying, depression, etc.). The coding criteria were as follows:
1. Relevance to Health/Social Issues: First, we evaluated if a given sentence was relevant to any specific health or social issue. (yes/no)
2. Specific Issue Identification: If a sentence was deemed relevant from the first criterion, it was then individually assessed against each of the six domains to determine its relevance. It’s crucial to note that a single sentence could be coded multiple times to see if it was relevant to each of the domain: (1) suicide, (2) depression, (3) bullying, (4) sexual assault, (5) drug use, or (6) other? (yes/no)
3. Valence of the sentence: For sentences that were relevant based on the above criteria, we then assessed their valence. This categorization was based on the nature of the content:
Positive = praise of the show;
Negative = criticism of the show;
Neutral = a plain description or statement.
4. If the sentence is relevant to suicide, is it compliant with the WHO guidelines? (yes/no)
1. Do provide resources for seeking help;
2. Do educate the public with accurate information about suicide and suicide prevention;
3. Do share stories of how to cope with stressors in life that can lead to suicide;
4. Do not use languages that sensationalize, normalizes, or stigmatizes suicide;
5. Do not explicitly describe the method used; and
6. Do not provide details about the site/location.
In our study, we also coded separately for the mention of 13ReasonsWhy.info that the show created to provide comprehensive and creditable resources for their audiences and the mention of the 29-min documentary-style video Beyond the Reasons that Netflix released at the same time as Season 1 where the writers, producers, cast, and expert consultants discussed how they worked together when making creative decisions about the difficult scenes related to suicide and associated health/social issues.
These coding schemes were input into an Excel file for storage and analysis. For each question, frequency counts and proportions were calculated. Two coders were trained and tested a small sample together before undertaking the coding task independently. They each analyzed the entire sample of 97 news reports. Intercoder reliability was assessed by comparing the two coders’ categorization of each unit to calculate a numerical index of their agreement (67). The average agreement percentage was 97.5%. We then calculated Krippendorff’s α as the standard reliability measure because it could be used regardless of the number of coders, levels of measurement, sample size, or presence/absence of missing data (68). The Krippendorff’s α of this study was 0.87, indicating a satisfactory degree of intercoder reliability.
Results
To address RQ1a and RQ2, we analyzed a total of 3,150 sentences. A small portion (443/3,150; 14.1%) was found to be irrelevant to either the show or the health/social issues. More than half (1,784/3,150; 56.6%) of the sentences were directly related to 13 Reasons Why Season 1, focusing on the show’s content, storyline, or general comments about the series. On the other hand, nearly a third (1,030/3,150; 32.8%) of the sentences were specifically related to health/social issues, such as mental health. It is important to notice that some sentences addressed both the health/social issues portrayed in the show and the show itself. As a result, these sentences were coded multiple times, leading to a total count greater than 3,150 when adding up the numbers for each category. To answer RQ1b, our analysis revealed both criticisms and praises about how the show addressed sensitive health/social issues; however, the comments were overwhelmingly more negative (441/1,030, 42.8%) than positive (179/1,030; 17.4%).
News reporting on the portrayal of teen suicide
Criticism
Suicide received significant news coverage in these news reports, as expected (634/3,150; 20.1% of all sentences or 634/1,030; 61.6% of issue-related sentences). Among these sentences, over half (350/634, 55.2%) were negative and they spread across 73 articles (73/97; 75.3%) we analyzed, meaning, on average, 4.79 negative comments per article. They also accounted for a majority (350/441, 79.4%) of all negative comments in this study, including opinions and petitions advocating for the show to be completely removed from Netflix [(e.g., 69, 70)].
The most frequently appeared theme was the risk of suicide contagion. Over 40 articles quoted at least one mental health expert to highlight the show’s potentially damaging impact on young audiences. For example, a Washington Post report stated that the series “sparked warnings from mental health counselors and others expressing concern about copycat behavior” (71). It was considered “irresponsible” and “could lead to copycat attempts in real life” (72). Specifically, as USA Today (73) pointed out that “the main concern is that the show arguably sensationalizes teen suicide” and “the contagion effect has been well documented as a real phenomenon for teen suicide.” Therefore, “educators, parents and school counselors are raising the alarm that the show…could even lead to copycat deaths” said in an NPR report (74). Specific examples from both youths and parents were also included. One article from Daily News described a special case about “Jackson, who admitted to attempting suicide in the past, called the show ‘extremely triggering’”; she wrote on her Instagram that “please only watch this show with caution and keep in mind that it may put you in a dark place. And if you are struggling, please do not watch it” (75). A mother in Florida even blamed “teacher’s recommendation [of] students watch 13 Reasons Why” for her son’s “attempting to take his life” (76).
Another major criticism was that the show potentially glamorized suicide. By showing the teenagers that “taking your life is an option for exacting revenge” (77), sentences in 21 articles explicitly claimed that 13 Reasons Why glamorized risky behaviors such as suicide [(e.g., 78)]. Some mental health experts also supported this argument. For example, an NBC report quoted Dr. Tami Benton, Associate Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, “13 Reasons Why glamorizes suicide and makes it seem as if there is not any other option, and that is really a problem” (79). In fact, the criticism about Hannah Baker’s graphic suicide scene was so harsh and persistent that Netflix eventually gave in and removed it completely from Season 1 (80) while the producers’ moral obligations and social responsibilities were called into question (28).
Furthermore, 13 Reasons Why was criticized for how they portrayed adult characters in the show and how they appeared “clueless,” “incompetent,” and “do not care” [(e.g., 81)]. For example, the very last reason for Hannah Baker’s death by suicide as portrayed in this show was that “hours before her death, Hannah goes to see the school counselor, hints that a senior assaulted her, and cryptically says, her eyes welling with tears, that “I need everything to stop, people, life.” He hands her tissues but does not conduct a suicide-risk assessment or consider hospitalization.” The National Association of School Psychologists released their advisory for educators regarding this controversial entertainment program (81).
Praise/acknowledgement
Only 62 sentences (62/3,150; 2.0% of all sentences and 62/1,030; 6.0% of issue-related sentence) in 28 articles (28/97; 28.9%) were positive. Some acknowledged the efforts that the screenwriters and producers made to carefully portray suicide. In particular, the show’s creator Brian Yorkey was quoted that “We worked very hard not to be gratuitous, but we did want it to be painful to watch because we wanted it to be very clear that there is nothing, in any way, worthwhile about suicide” (82). In addition, 13 Reasons Why, rated TV-MA, was praised for raising awareness of “the problem teenagers can face” (83) by “viewers and critics alike” (84). For example, Ellen DeGeneres, a big fan of the show, was quoted, “I think it’s amazing. I think the reason it’s resonating is most people – and not just teenagers – but most people watching it – no matter how old you are – has experienced some type of that abuse” (85). A school counselor with personal connections to the issue pointed out that, “Teenage suicide is real and needs to be discussed. The fact that this series created engagement around the topic is positive. I hope that parents, schools, and students use it to start a conversation” (86).
Indeed, some educators did leverage this opportunity to host events to talk about how they were relating to the issues portrayed in the show; and at some schools that had been dealing with teen suicides, the educator was quoted “I would never endorse banning students from watching the show. We have been working very hard on trying to reduce the stigma of any kind of adolescent mental health issue. If we in any way say that the show is not OK to talk about, that might inadvertently be sending a message that it’s not OK to talk about feeling sad or suicide [(e.g., 69)]. Only 13 sentences (13/3,150; 0.4% of all sentences and 13/1,030; 1.3% of issue-related sentences) in 13 articles (13/97; 13.4%) mentioned Beyond the Reasons, a 29-min documentary-style video, that accompanied the release of Season 1 where the production team and expert consultants discussed how they worked together to inform the final creative decisions.
News reporting on the portrayal of other suicide-related health/social issues
A total of 396 sentences (396/3,150; 12.6% of all sentences and 396/1,030; 38.4% of issue-related sentences) were about other social/health issues related to teen suicide portrayed in the show: depression, bullying, and sexual assault [(e.g., 87)]. A total of 91 sentences were negative and raised concerns. For example, some criticized that the show characterized “parents and educators as ineffectual at best” and failing to “mention the primary – and treatable cause of suicide – depression” (88). Others reported the criticism regarding “its explicit content addressing topics like rape and bullying” (75).
In total, 117 sentences across 10 articles were positive. Generally, the show spoke to “the feeling of isolation, of hopelessness, of frustration and anger that are familiar to so many teenagers” and it addressed “rape, drugs and bullying” while being “real,” “frank and honest and will start needed dialog. It opens the door to a conversation” (70). A school psychologist and CEO of Real Psychology, Dr. Susan Lipkins noted that “many contemporary programs, including 13 Reasons Why, are highlighting awareness about emotional problems and psychological issues, which helps stimulate conversations about these topics” (84). In fact, it did prompt parents to talk to their teenage children about some of these difficult issues they experience in life [(e.g., 25)].
Notably, among the 117 positive comments, a large portion (87 sentences, 74.4%) pertained to parent–child communication. For instance, a News Daily report (89) highlighted “the efforts of the Manhattan-based Jed Foundation, which aims to prevent teen suicide, and has developed a tipsheet of talking points related to the show “13 Reasons Why”. This resource is designed to foster open dialog between parents and their children, facilitating discussions on the story’s themes and implications. Another example was a CBS news report (90) which emphasized the show’s intended purpose as a catalyst for realistic family conversations. One parent of a 13-year-old girl, Knapp, expressed appreciation for the difficult discussion that the show prompted, but also wished they had been privy to these conversations earlier. The prevalence of such sentiments in our analysis demonstrated the perceived value of addressing challenging topics through media and fostering constructive communication within families.
Compliance with who guidelines
To answer RQ3, we calculated the sentences and articles that complied with the dos and don’ts from the WHO guidelines that applied to this study. We found 56 sentences (56/3,150; 1.8%. of all sentences and 56/1,030; 5.4% of issue-related sentences) in 32 articles (32/97; 33.0%) providing resources for seeking help. And of those, only 15 statements in 15 articles acknowledged the 13ReasonsWhy.info website where comprehensive resources were provided for suicide prevention and other associated mental health concerns and social issues. There were 63 sentences (63/3,150; 2.0% of all sentences and 63/1,030; 6.1% of issue-related sentences) in 26 articles (26/97; 26.8%) that stated facts and research findings to educate the public about suicide and suicide prevention, citing reports from CDC and scientific evidence from social and psychological studies. A total of 14 stories were shared across 12 articles (12/97; 12.4%) about how people took measures to cope with life stressors and risk factors while being sensitive and mindful about working on the issue of suicide in the media.
On the other hand, we found 13 titles of the news reports (13/97; 13.4%) to demonstrate a sensational tendency. In addition, 27 sentences (27/1,030; 2.6% of issue-related sentences) in 25 articles (25/97; 25.8%) used stigmatizing expressions such as “committed suicide” whereas 21 sentences (21/1,030; 2.0% of issue-related sentences) in 19 articles (19/97; 19.6%) used phrases such as “died/death by suicide” or “took his/her life” as recommended in the guidelines, including five articles that had mixed practices. Furthermore, 19 sentences (19/1,030; 1.8% of issue-related sentences) in 15 articles (15/97; 15.5%) explicitly described the suicide method and nine sentences (9/1,030; 0.9% of issue-related sentences) in eight articles (8/97; 8.2%) detailed the suicide site/location used by Hannah Baker in 13 Reasons Why or in real life suicide cases. Among all 97 articles, only three (3/97; 3.1%) acknowledged the existence of guidelines for reporting on suicide by media professionals and only four articles (4/97; 4.1%) included a warning at the start of their news stories about including show spoilers and potentially triggering descriptions. Table 2 shows sample practices of these dos and don’ts.
Table 2. Sample practices of news reporting on controversial Netflix series 13 Reasons Why for WHO guideline compliance.
Discussion
Major findings
We set out to conduct a quantitative content analysis and systematically examine how mainstream news media reported on the controversial Netflix series 13 Reasons Why within the first two months of its Season 1 debut. Our final sample consisted of 97 articles in 3,150 sentences, of which nearly a third (1,030 sentences) were directly addressing the taboo and sensitive issues of our interest. Within this most relevant content we analyzed, 61.6% was about suicide and 38.4% was about depression, bullying, sexual assault, and other related health/social issues; 42.8% was negative, 39.8% was neutral, and 17.4% was positive. Many comments criticized the show for the risk of suicide contagion, glamorizing teen suicide, and their portrayal of parents and educators as indifferent and incompetent. Fewer comments praised the show for raising awareness of real and difficult issues young people struggle with in their everyday life and for serving as a conversation starter to spur public discussions that people typically shy away from and stimulating meaning parent–child and teacher-student dialogs. Only 13 articles acknowledged the Beyond the Reasons video that Netflix released at the same time to accompany Season 1 and provide insights from the creative professionals and their expert consultants.
Our evaluation of these news articles’ compliance with the WHO guidelines for reporting on suicide yielded mixed results. Although we found recommended practices across all major categories in our sample, a rather small fraction of the content (5.4% of all issue-related sentences) and one in three articles included mental health resources, and only 15 of them mentioned the 13ReasonsWhy.info website that the show promoted along with Season 1. Similarly, limited educational content (6.1% of issue-related sentence) and less than one in five articles included facts to help the public gain knowledge about suicide. And hopeful stories and positive examples of coping strategies were rare. Consistent with the findings from the content analysis of Canadian media reports (34), most of the mainstream news reporting in the United States also followed the guidelines to avoid stigmatizing languages and explicit descriptions of suicide method or location. However, there was still a decent number of articles that violated the guidelines. Perhaps what was even more concerning was that only three articles had a brief mention of any such guidelines and only four articles began with a warning about the sensitive nature of the topic.
Practical implications for writers and producers
For creative media professionals interested in developing social impact entertainment, our findings suggested that the mainstream media coverage skewed negatively toward the public health concerns for young audiences especially at-risk and vulnerable youths, despite the writers and producers’ well intentions and best efforts. The series creator Brian Yorkey was quoted in an interview that, “I always believe talking about things is better than silence” (69). While that was true and 13 Reasons Why did take both social media and mainstream media by storm and got everyone talking, the creative team missed several critical opportunities to be better prepared and more effective in fostering such difficult dialogs.
First, Netflix only added viewer warning cards after several weeks of criticism (81). The show was rated TV-MA for mature audiences due to depictions of depression, sexual assault, and suicide. Its content might be thought-provoking for healthy young adults but emotionally and psychologically challenging for those who are already struggling and vulnerable (91). One death or one crisis is still one too many. Given the sensitive nature of the topics portrayed, the intensity of binge-watching and its triggering potential, and the lack of viewer access regulation on streaming platforms, proper warnings are necessary to appear at the start of each episode for viewer discretion advisory.
Second, although the production team did create a comprehensive resource website 13ReasonsWhy.info and include a few cut scenes about recognizing early signs of suicidal ideation and mental health problems (19), their recognition was minimal in the mainstream news coverage. More content about mental health resources and helplines for suicide prevention can be incorporated into the narratives of the show and be placed more prominently to truly break the silence and promote help seeking behaviors among vulnerable youths.
Third, several experts pointed out that the problem they had with the show’s suicide storytelling approach was its lack of a viable alternative, misleading young audiences to believe that adults do not care, peers are cruel, and the only solution to their struggles was to take their own lives (75). Also, as Kaufman (69) reported, “A lot of kids who had seen it were really focusing on the positive message — “I realize that even the little things I do can affect people and I think I’m more conscious of my behavior now.” But when I would follow up, asking them what they could do as a positive action, a lot of them said they were not sure and wish they knew.” Decades of evidence-based practices in entertainment-education worldwide have demonstrated the power of positive behavioral modeling through relatable characters and emotionally engrossing plots that can motivate and inspire the audiences to change their attitudes, beliefs, and actions (9–11). Transmedia edutainment is an innovative strategy for narrative engagement across different planforms (92, 93). Additional and complementary narrative components through social media or other digital apps could have been used to invite and encourage viewers to come up with alternative plots, effective coping strategies, and non-linear storytelling suggestions.
Practical implications for news reporters
For journalists working in the domains of public health and popular entertainment, our findings revealed important gaps in knowledge and practice. There was barely any mention of guidelines or inclusion of warnings in the media coverage of 13 Reasons Why controversy in mainstream news outlets that people respect and trust. And a mix of desirable and undesirable practices as shown in the languages used in the news articles suggest that the writers were not conscious about the unintended connotations or impact of their word choices. There is an urgent need for professional training to bring established health communication guidelines to their attention and promote best practices in media reporting on sensitive topics such as suicide.
In addition, some authors admitted not having watched the show, or at least not in its entirety, before writing their article. The rapid news cycles these days with considerable competition in the “attention economy” can easily put high pressure on journalists to produce catchy news stories without having enough time or support to do their “homework.” We certainly noticed errors and inconsistencies in writing during our data analysis. It was also hard to identify original reporting when identical or overlapping materials frequently appeared around the same time to cover the same phenomenon and not everyone would cite their sources. News reporters can benefit from friendly reminders about ethical codes of conduct to avoid falling into the traps of yellow journalism.
Practical implications for media researchers
Our content analysis of news coverage on 13 Reasons Why offers a critical examination of how media outlets frame and discuss the show’s portrayal of the sensitive issue of teen suicide. By analyzing a diverse range of news articles, we provide valuable insights into the media’s commentary on this complex topic and its impact on the public’s perception of the show. Importantly, our study sheds light on the ways in which media framing may influence not only how people view the show itself but also the potential effects of the show on public understanding of mental health and suicide. In this context, our study serves as a reminder that when examining media effects, it is crucial to consider exogenous factors such as news coverage and media framing, as they may shape audience perceptions and induce dialog or public discussion on sensitive issues. By taking these factors into account, we contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of media effects and the broader discourse on mental health awareness and responsible media portrayal.
One notable finding from our analysis is the significant portion of positive comments that emphasize the potential of 13 Reasons Why to open conversations, especially between adolescents and parents. The show, while controversial, has undeniably sparked discussions around mental health and suicide. This presents an opportunity for further development of entertainment-education programs that can effectively address sensitive topics and facilitate meaningful conversations among parents, educators, and young people. Parents and educators should seize this opportunity to engage in an open and honest discussion about the situations depicted in the show, correct misconceptions, and provide comfort and support to adolescents who may experience negative emotions. By doing so, they can harness the attention generated by the show to promote mental health awareness, educate young people bout the complex issues surrounding suicide, and foster a supportive environment for those who may be struggling.
It is also crucial to highlight the importance of examining news coverage when evaluating the impact of any media program or intervention. Many studies tend to focus solely on the relationship between exposure to the program and the audience’s perception, without considering exogenous factors such as mainstream news coverage. However, such coverage, can significantly shape, reinforce, or even alter people’s perceptions of a media program. By examining the news coverage and its potential influence on audience perceptions, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of media effect and develop more effective strategies for leveraging media interventions to achieve desired outcomes in various contexts.
In addition to news coverage, future research could also consider the power of social media in shaping audience perceptions of media programs and interventions. Public discussions on social media platforms play a significant role in how people perceive and react to media content, adding another layer of complexity to understanding media effects. By examining the indirect influences of social media conversations, researchers can better understand the multifaceted nature of media effects and explore new avenues for leveraging media programs and interventions to achieve desired outcomes. This study focuses on analyzing news media coverage, but social media presents a promising direction for future exploration.
Limitations and future research
This study is not without limitations. We acknowledge that, by some measure, there were hundreds of thousands of news reports surrounding the controversial Netflix series 13 Reasons Why weeks and months after its Season 1 premiere [(e.g., 29)]. Our sampling strategy focused on English mainstream news outlets within an 8-week period and using circulation and popularity as proxies for respectable reputation and perceived public trust, implying the potential impact on their readers’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. In our sample, we did not distinguish different types of publications in the news such as editorials versus op-eds or letters to the editor. Nor did we distinguish different writing styles in terms of length of sentences or essays versus Q&A. These sampling and analytical choices may have excluded news reports that could be unique, diverse, and complementary in terms of language, publication time, content structure, and voices from culturally and linguistically diverse groups. These limitations could have affected the frequency counts in our results using sentences as units of analysis. Future research may include a citation network analysis, thematic analysis, or longitudinal data analysis for additional insights into the public debate over this show’s controversy to better understand the role of news framing in mass media on public opinions and health promotion of difficult issues.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
HW: study conceptualization, research design, data collection supervision, data coding and analysis, manuscript writing, generating Tables 1, 2, Figure 1, and Appendix A in Supplementary material. ZY: data collection, content coding, data analysis, and manuscript writing. DS: content coding and manuscript development. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1214822/full#supplementary-material
References
1. World Health Organization. Mental health of adolescents. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-mental-health (2021).
2. United Health Foundation America’s health rankings analysis of CDC WONDER, multiple cause of death files. (2023). Available at: https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/measures/teen_suicide
3. Bilsen, J. Suicide and youth: risk factors. Front Psychol. (2018) 9:540. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00540
4. Feldman, I, Gebreslassie, M, Sampaio, F, Nystrand, C, and Ssegonja, R. Economic evaluations of public health interventions to improve mental health and prevent suicidal thoughts and behaviours: a systematic literature review. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. (2020) 48:299–5. doi: 10.1007/s10488-020-01072-9
5. Peterson, C, Miller, GF, Barnett, SBL, and Florence, C. Economic cost of injury – United States, 2019. CDC Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. (2021) 70:1655–9. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7048a1
6. Twenge, JM, Cooper, AB, Joiner, TE, Duffy, ME, and Binau, SG. Age, period, and cohort trends in mood disorder indicators and suicide-related outcomes in a nationally representative dataset, 2005–2017. J Abnorm Psychol. (2019) 128:185–9. doi: 10.1037/abn0000410
7. Chapple, A, Ziebland, S, and Hawton, K. Taboo and the different death? Perceptions of those bereaved by suicide or other traumatic death. Sociol Health Illn. (2015) 37:610–5. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12224
8. Keller, S, McNeill, V, Honea, J, and Miller, LP. A look at culture and stigma of suicide: textual analysis of community theatre performances. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:352. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16030352
9. Frank, LB, and Falzone, P. Entertainment-education behind the scenes: Case studies for theory and practice. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan (2021).
10. Singhal, A, and Rogers, EM. Entertainment-education: a communication strategy for social change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum (1999).
11. Singhal, A, Cody, MJ, Rogers, EM, and Sabido, M. Entertainment-education and social change: History, research, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum (2004).
12. SIE Society. (n.d.). SIE Society. Available at: https://siesociety.org
13. The Norman Lear Effect. Important themes: mental health. (2022). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCnwlERVNxI
14. Johnson, BD. ‘The father’ and other Oscar-pedigree films that capture the reality of dementia. Everything Zoomer. (2021) Available at: https://www.everythingzoomer.com/arts-entertainment/2021/04/23/the-father-and-other-oscar-pedigree-films-that-capture-dementia/
15. Douglas, K. 10 Netflix series that confront and accurately portray mental health issues. (2021). Popsugar. Available at: https://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/netflix-tv-shows-about-mental-health-issues-48326153#photo-48326154
16. Hoffman, BL, Hoffman, R, VonVille, HM, Sidani, JE, Manganello, JA, Chu, K-H, et al. Characterizing the influence of television health entertainment narratives in lay populations; a scoping review. Am J Health Promot. (2022) 37:685–7. doi: 10.1177/08901171221141080
17. Morris, N. Mental health awareness day: 10 shows that depict the reality of mental illness. (2021). Hello Magazine. Available at: https://www.hellomagazine.com/film/20211010123490/shows-to-watch-for-mental-health-awareness-day/
18. Yorkey, B. 13 reasons why [Netflix original series, season 1]. Creator. (2017). Available at: https://www.netflix.com/title/80117470
19. Wang, H, and Parris, J. Popular media as a double-edged sword: an entertainment narrative analysis of the controversial Netflix series 13 reasons why. PLoS One. (2021) 16:e0255610. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255610
20. Lawler, K. Is ‘13 reasons why’ more controversial than other depictions of suicide?. (2017). USA Today, Available at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2017/05/05/13-reasons-why-netflix-suicide-depiction-backlash-explained/101210380/
21. Sheff, N. 13 reasons why writer: why we didn’t shy away from Hannah’s suicide. Vanity Fair. (2017). Available at: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/04/13-reasons-why-suicide-controversy-nic-sheff-writer?mbid=social_twitter&mbid=social_twitter
22. Bruner, R. This is the most tweeted-about show of 2017 so far. Time, (2017). Available at: https://time.com/4751256/13-reasons-why-twitter-conversation/
23. De Maria, M. 13 reasons why passed a huge milestone for Netflix shows. Refinery (2017) 29 Available at: https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/04/149755/13-reasons-why-most-tweets-netflix-streaming
24. Wagmeister, E. Netflix’s ‘13 reasons why’ is most tweeted about show of 2017. Vanity Fair (2017). Available at: https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/netflix-13-reasons-why-twitter-most-popular-show-2017-1202392460/
25. Rosman, K. Netflix triggers online debate with a show about teen suicide, 13 reasons why. The New York times. (2017). Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/style/13-reasons-why-netflix-teen-suicide.html
26. Majeski, A. Netflix renews controversial series 13 reasons why for a second season. (2017). NBC News Available at: https://www.today.com/parents/netflix-renews-13-reasons-why-second-season-t111253
27. O’Brian, KHM, Knight, JR, and Harris, SK. A call for social responsibility and suicide risk screening, prevention, and early intervention following the release of the Netflix series 13 reasons why. JAMA Intern Med. (2017) 177:1418–9. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.3388
28. Scalvini, M. 13 reasons why: can a TV show about suicide be ‘dangerous’? What are the moral obligations of a producer? Media Cult Soc. (2020) 42:1564–74. doi: 10.1177/0163443720932502
29. Ayers, JW, Althouse, BM, Leas, EC, Dredze, M, and Allem, J-P. Internet searches for suicide following the release of 13 reasons why. JAMA Intern Med. (2017) 177:1527–9. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.3333
30. Bridge, JA, Greenhouse, JB, Ruch, D, Stevens, J, Ackerman, J, Sheftall, A, et al. Association between the release of Netflix’s 13 reasons why and suicide rates in the United States: an interrupted time series analysis. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2019) 59:236–3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.020
31. Romer, D, Reanalysis of the Bridge et al. Study of suicide following release of 13 reasons why. PLoS One. (2020) 15:e0227545. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227545
32. Cooper, MT, Bard, D, Wallace, R, Gillaspy, S, and Deleon, S. Suicide attempt admissions from a single children’s hospital before and after the introduction of Netflix series 13 reasons why. J Adolesc Health. (2018) 63:688–3. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.08.028
33. Thompson, LK, Michael, KD, Runkle, J, and Sugg, MM. Crisis text line use following the release of Netflix series 13 reasons why season 1: time-series analysis of help-seeking behavior in youth. Prev Med Rep. (2019) 14:100825. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.100825
34. Carmichael, V, and Whitley, R. Suicide portrayal in the Canadian media: examining newspaper coverage of the popular Netflix series '13 reasons Why'. BMC Public Health. (2018) 18:article 1086. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5987-3
35. Entman, R. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun. (1993) 43:51–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
36. Goffman, E. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1974).
37. Gitlin, T. The whole world is watching: mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press (1980).
38. Scheufele, DA. Framing as a theory of media effects. J Commun. (1999) 49:103–2. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x
39. Scheufele, DA, and Tewksbury, D. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: the evolution of three media effects models. J Commun. (2007) 57:9–20. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x
40. De Vreese, C. News framing: theory and typology. Inform Des J Docum Des. (2005) 13:51–62. doi: 10.1075/idjdd.13.1.06vre
41. Druckman, J. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Polit Behav. (2001) 23:225–6. doi: 10.1023/A:1015006907312
42. Entman, R. Framing US coverage of international news: contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran air incidents. J Commun. (1991) 41:6–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1991.tb02328.x
43. Kahneman, D, and Tversky, A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. (1979) 47:263–2. doi: 10.2307/1914185
44. Kahneman, D, and Tversky, A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol. (1984) 39:341–11. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
45. Reese, SD. The framing project: a bridging model for media research revisited. J Commun. (2007) 57:148–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00334.x
47. Cappella, JN, and Jamieson, KH. Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. Oxford: Oxford University Press (1997).
48. Kim, AE, Kumanyika, S, Shive, D, Igweatu, U, and Kim, SH. Coverage and framing of racial and ethnic health disparities in US newspapers, 1996-2005. Am. J. Public Health. (2010) 100 Suppl 1(Suppl 1), S224–S231. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.171678
49. Weber, MS, and Monge, P. The flow of digital news in a network of sources, authorities, and hubs. J Commun. (2011) 61:1062–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01596.x
50. Arendt, F, Scherr, S, Niederkrotenthaler, T, and Till, B. The role of language in suicide reporting: investigating the influence of problematic suicide referents. Soc Sci Med. (2018) 208:165–1. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.02.008
51. Niederkrotenthaler, T, Braun, M, Pirkis, J, Till, B, Stack, S, Sinyor, M, et al. Association between suicide reporting in the media and suicide: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmj. (2020) 368. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m575
52. Cheng, Q, Fu, KW, Caine, E, and Yip, PS. Why do we report suicides and how can we facilitate suicide prevention efforts? Crisis. (2014) 35:74–81. doi: 10.1027/0227-5910/a000241
53. Niederkrotenthaler, T, Fu, KW, Yip, PS, Fong, DY, Stack, S, Cheng, Q, et al. Changes in suicide rates following media reports on celebrity suicide: a meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. (2012) 66:1037–42. doi: 10.1136/jech-2011-200707
54. Niederkrotenthaler, T, Till, B, Kapusta, ND, Voracek, M, Dervic, K, and Sonneck, G. Copycat effects after media reports on suicide: a population-based ecologic study. Soc Sci Med. (2009b) 69:1085–90. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.07.041
55. Rickwood, D, Deane, FP, Wilson, CJ, and Ciarrochi, J. Young people’s help-seeking for mental health problems. Aust e-J Advanc Ment Health. (2005) 4:218–1. doi: 10.5172/jamh.4.3.218
56. Niederkrotenthaler, T, Till, B, Herberth, A, Voracek, M, Kapusta, ND, Etzersdorfer, E, et al. The gap between suicide characteristics in the print media and in the population. Euro J Public Health. (2009a) 19:361–4. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckp034
57. CDC Recommendations for reporting on suicide. (2012). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Stacks Available at: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/22163
58. ReportingOnSuicide.org (n.d.). Best practices and recommendations for reporting on suicide. Available at: https://reportingonsuicide.org/recommendations/
59. World Health Organization. Preventing suicide: A resource for media professionals, update 2017. Geneva: World Health Organization (2017).
60. Cision. Top 10 US daily newspapers. (2016). Available at: http://www.cision.com/us/2014/06/top-10-us-daily-newspapers/
61. Glader, P. 10 journalism brands where you find real facts rather than alternative facts. Forbes. (2017). Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/berlinschoolofcreativeleadership/2017/02/01/10-journalism-brands-where-you-will-find-real-facts-rather-than-alternative-facts/?sh=3936f135e9b5
62. McIntyre, DA. America’s 100 larges newspapers. 24/7 wall St.. (2017). Available at: https://247wallst.com/media/2017/01/24/americas-100-largest-newspapers/
63. Imrich, DJ, Mullin, C, and Linz, D. Measuring the extent of prejudicial pretrial publicity in major American newspapers: a content analysis. J Commun. (1995) 45:94–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995.tb00745.x
64. Rosenberg, H, and Feldman, CS. No time to think: the menace of media speed and the 24-hour news cycle. New York: Continuum (2008).
65. Krippendorff, K. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (2012).
66. Grimmer, J, and Stewart, BM. Text as data: the promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Polit Anal. (2013) 21:267–7. doi: 10.1093/pan/mps028
67. Lombard, M, Snyder-Duch, J, and Bracken, CC. Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum Commun Res. (2002) 28:587–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x
68. Hayes, AF, and Krippendorff, K. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Commun Methods Meas. (2007) 1:77–89. doi: 10.1080/19312450709336664
69. Kaufman, A. ‘13 reasons why’ is affecting America’s classrooms. (2017). Teachers tell us their stories. Los Angeles Times Available at: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-13-reasons-why-schools-teachers-20170510-htmlstory.html
70. Koplewicz, HS. 13 reasons why spreads suicide like a disease. USA Today (2017). Available at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/05/13-reasons-why-suicide-mental-health-dangerous-column/101262330/
71. Strauss, V. Schools superintendent: students are harming themselves and citing 13 reasons why. Wash Post (2017). Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/04/29/school-superintendent-students-are-harming-themselves-and-citing-13-reasons-why/?utm_term=.48a4e12af3d4
72. BBC News. 13 reasons everyone’s talking about new Netflix drama 13 reasons why. (2017a). Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articles/39627989
73. USA Today Watching ‘13 reasons why’ is a mistake: your say. (2017). Available at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/04/30/watching-reasons-mistake-say/101137770/
74. Kamenetz, A. Facts about teens, suicide and 13 reasons why. (2017). NPR. Available at: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/05/05/526871398/facts-about-teens-suicide-and-13-reasons-why
75. Bitette, N. Paris Jackson, who has attempted suicide ‘multiple times,’ is the latest to speak out against ‘13 reasons why. Daily News, (2017). Available at: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/paris-jackson-calls-13-reasons-extremely-triggering-article-1.3112428
76. Salo, J. Mom blames teacher promoting ‘13 reasons why’ for son’s suicide attempt. (2017). New York post Available at: http://nypost.com/2017/05/22/mom-blames-teacher-promoting-13-reasons-why-for-sons-suicide-attempt/
77. Chicago Tribune. The problem with ‘13 reasons why’: suicide isn’t a tool for revenge. (2017). Available at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/ct-the-problem-13-reasons-why-teen-suicide-revenge-20170425-story.html
78. Rosenblatt, K. Netflix’s 13 reasons why carries danger of glorifying suicide, experts say. NBC News, (2017). Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/netflix-series-13-reasons-why-glorifies-suicide-mental-health-experts-n749551
79. Carrion, K. Can ‘13 reasons why’ help Latino families talk about mental health? NBC news. (2017). Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/can-13-reasons-why-help-latino-families-talk-about-mental-n756326
80. Marshall, A. Netflix deletes ‘13 Reasons Why’ suicide scene. The New York Times. (2019). Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/arts/television/netflix-deleted-13-reasons-why-suicide-scene.html
81. Saint Louis, C. For families of teens at suicide risk, ‘13 reasons’ raises concerns. The New York Times. (2017). Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/well/family/for-families-of-teens-at-suicide-risk-13-reasons-triggers-concerns.html
82. Eustachewich, L. Posh school tells parents that ‘13 reasons why is too ‘dangerous for kids. (2017). New York Post. Available at: http://nypost.com/2017/04/21/posh-school-tells-parents-that-13-reasons-why-is-too-dangerous-for-kids/
83. BBC News. Netflix adds warning to 13 reasons why after criticism from mental health charities. (2017b). Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articles/39778848
84. Bucklin, S. (2017) ‘13 reasons why’ may not help teen suicide prevention. New York Post Available at: http://nypost.com/2017/04/19/13-reasons-why-may-not-help-teen-suicide-prevention/
85. Jensen, E. ‘13 reasons why star Dylan Minnette defends show: ‘People need to talk about this’. USA Today (2017). Available at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2017/05/01/dylan-minnette-defends-13-reasons-why-on-ellen-degeneres-show-with-katherine-langford/101146758/
86. The New York Times. How ‘13 reasons why’ depicts teenage suicide. (2017). Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/opinion/how-13-reasons-why-depicts-teenage-suicide.html
87. Dastagir, AE. 13 reasons why a conversation about rape culture is as important as one about suicide. (2017). USA Today Available at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/03/13-reasons-why-conversation-rape-culture-important-one-suicide/101141694/
88. Boston Globe. One more reason ‘13 reasons why’ is unworthy. (2017). Available at: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/letters/2017/05/02/one-more-reason-reasons-why-unworthy/cMUKJJFOw6I2ghVn5y7URJ/story.html
89. News Day. 13 reasons why on Netflix looks at teen suicide, sparks discussion. (2017). Available at: https://www.newsday.com/lifestyle/family/13-reasons-why-on-netflix-looks-at-teen-suicide-sparks-discussion-1.13504237
90. CBS News. Netflix hit “13 reasons why” faces tough criticism from teachers and parents. (2017). Available at: https://www.cbsnews.com/newsNetflixx-hit-13-reasons-why-faces-tough-criticism-from-teachers-and-parents/
91. Wang, H, and Woelfel, J. Netflix series 13 reasons why as compound suicide messages: using the Galileo model for cognitive mapping and precise measurements. Qual Quant Int J Methodol. (2021) 56:751–8. doi: 10.1007/s11135-021-01145-3
92. Wang, H, and Singhal, A. East Los high: transmedia edutainment to promote the sexual and reproductive health of young Latina/o Americans. Am J Public Health. (2016) 106:1002–10. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303072
Keywords: 13 Reasons Why, Netflix, suicide, mental health, social impact entertainment, entertainment-education, content analysis
Citation: Wang H, Yue Z and S D (2023) Challenges with using popular entertainment to address mental health: a content analysis of Netflix series 13 Reasons Why controversy in mainstream news coverage. Front. Psychiatry. 14:1214822. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1214822
Edited by:
Joemer Maravilla, The University of Queensland, AustraliaReviewed by:
Marko Ćurković, Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, CroatiaNoor Yousef, The University of Queensland, Australia
Copyright © 2023 Wang, Yue and S. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Hua Wang, hwang23@buffalo.edu