Reporting the Mind, Emotions and Health

In this second installment I will look into what it takes for a man with a career and ties back home to break so far from everything he has been taught and the culture that surrounds him, and how the psychological tests might have not seen it coming. There are claims that the soldier had Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and questions are being raised about how someone with such issues could be allowed to deploy.

A PTSD diagnosis is a complex thing. First, it is so individual. Two people can experience the same thing and have two totally different reactions. Also, PTSD does not mean a total mental breakdown. Someone can have trouble sleeping and be considered to have PTSD. It is similar to a Purple Heart medal. The injuries can range from a minor cut to the loss of a major body part. People with PTSD have a large range of symptoms and reactions. Some should not be in the military anymore, and some are completely fit for duty.

There are actually a number of different tests and evaluations that the Army uses to determine of a soldier is fit for duty. The easiest test to get around is a questionnaire that is filled out at the end of the deployment while still in country. I have taken this test; it is pretty easy to see where the questions are leading. Many soldiers feel that answering some of the questions about feelings of depression will delay their redeployment and so they do not accurately answer the questions. The mentality is to answer that everything is okay and deal with it later.

There is another, more comprehensive test that is currently being used. The questions are more in-depth with a range of options. The test is online and soldiers must answer with how they are feeling at the time of the test. For example, soldiers are asked about how they feel, how easily agitated and how well they sleep at night. Answers range from always to almost never. When taken months prior to deployment, the answers can be compared to answers post deployment. The test is more comprehensive and would be more difficult to cheat on because remembering specific answers later would be difficult.

I have taken the online test and I didn’t occur to me to record my answers until after I had navigated through a few of the screens. If this test is administered prior to, in the middle of and after a deployment there will be small differences that a trained professional will be able to detect and could act on.

For specialized training like Special Forces or sniper school, there is a different, comprehensive psychological screening that soldiers undergo. This soldier passed that evaluation. These evaluations are also accompanied by a psychologist interview to review the answers. A sniper or a member of Special Forces will be under stress and operate in extreme conditions. The military does not want to waste the money training someone who will not be able to perform and is also concerned with teaching dangers skills to a sociopath.

Even if we discount the less comprehensive evaluation that are easy to circumvent, it is the sniper evaluation that would have determined that at one time, this soldier was in a sound mental state. To be accepted into sniper training, a soldier must possess the mental resiliency to accomplish a difficult task, like shooting another person from a long distance, but not be the kind of person that would enjoy the taking of a life.

The military takes the mental welfare of its members very seriously. While some people do slip through the cracks, every effort is made to weed those types out. There is one fact that many people are overlooking. He turned himself in. I think that is a critical piece of information. A sociopath would not think what he did was wrong. The so called “Kill Team” did not apologize for what they did. They killed innocent civilians and took war trophies. I speculate that the soldier that killed the children burned them possibly to cover his shame rather than to conceal the crime.

While this soldier could have faked the evaluations on previous deployments, the sniper psychological evaluation would have established that at one point he was in a sound mental state. The fact that after the crime he turned himself in should demonstrate that he was not always a sociopath and should show that he had some sort of break from his senses. By focusing on PTSD and not looking deeper into the situation we are missing critical information.

Editor’s note: A news event that persists for a long time offers journalism teachers rare opportunities to connect the daily disclosures to broader educational goals. The intense media attention on the life and alleged actions of Staff Sgt. Robert Bales still leaves many relevent issues unexplored. This series of comments by Peter Sessum describes the structure the Army has in place to build discipline and prevent violations of military conduct. Sessum is a freelance journalist and an Army veteran of over 15 years. A former sergeant, he has been deployed multiple times as both Infantry and Psychological Operations and has spent close to three years in Afghanistan.

By Peter Sessum

The taking of a life is a tragedy no matter the circumstances. However, when the perpetrator is someone who holds the public trust, like a police officer or the military, the crime is unforgivable. This is what makes the killing of 16 innocent Afghans by Army Staff Sergeant Robert Bales so horrific. For far too many reasons, it should never have happened.

In this first installment, we will look at how the actions of the single soldiers violate the Army’s laws and culture from the youngest private in basic training to the most senior leaders. These are rules that apply to everyone in uniform.

As stated in section 1-60 in the Army Field Manual (FM)-1, “The Army is a values-based organization. It upholds principles that are grounded in the Constitution and inspire guiding values and standards for its members.” For soldiers, these values are expressed in the Warrior Ethos, Army Values and Soldier’s Creed. According to FM-1 these codes are mutually dependant and provide a foundation that the Army culture is based upon.

As a Staff Sergeant, Bales would also be bound by the Non Commissioned Officer’s Creed. In taking The NCO Creed, all NCOs swear that they will “at all times conduct myself so as to bring credit upon the Corps, the Military Service and my country regardless of the situation in which I find myself.”

Code of Ethics

Every year, the Army requires that soldiers complete training on the Army code of ethics. Having been in the military for 11 years, Bales has had that code of ethics drilled into him. He would have also had regular briefings on the Law of Land Warfare. I have attended these exhaustive annual briefings. Attendance is mandatory and recorded. In some cases, like the Army values, there is online training that is required and a certificate of completion must be presented to the unit for record.

I couldn’t quote the Geneva Conventions verbatim, but every soldier must have a good understanding of the laws of modern warfare, especially as it deals with non-combatants and protected personnel. Unarmed civilians, women, children and people not posing a threat are not to be harmed. Any such actions would be considered a war crime and would be punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

These briefings would also be part of the pre-deployment process. Soldiers are not just told to grab their gear and get on a plane, Units have to go through a certification process prior to each deployment. It is done to make sure that the unit is ready to deploy and prepared to carry out the mission.

Rules of Engagement

Included in the pre-deployment process is a complete covering of the rules of engagement (ROE). Each country and conflict has specific ROE. It would be different in Afghanistan and Iraq. ROE will also change in theater as the military efforts shift from combat to reconstruction. Even the most lax ROE will say that hostile intent, and the ability to act on it, is required for deadly force to be authorized. Women and children sleeping in their homes would not have hostile intent and the ability to act on it.

Soldiers deploying today know that their actions will not be seen as actions of an individual, but as a representative of the U.S. Army and the policies of the nation. As a Staff Sergeant and leader of men, Bales would know that and most likely had to enforce those rules and regulations on a number of occasions. At 11-years of service, he would be on the downhill side towards retirement. It is the accepted norm for a person to stay in the military for a 20-year retirement once that person passes the 10-year mark and has a successful career. For Bales to commit the actions he took would mean some sort of complete departure from the value system that he has been taught to follow, the rules and regulations he has sworn to follow and the culture that he has been a part of for over a decade.

Posted March 19, 2012 11:09 a.m. PDT

By Roger Simpson

Posted 2/2/2011 1:22 PM PST

Nineteen students in our advanced reporting course talked in small groups today with five visitors who are living with serious mental conditions.  A mental illness advocacy group enlisted speakers willing to share their life experiences with such mental diagnoses as bipolar disorder, depression and schizophrenia.  The students in groups of three or four talked with a guest for a half hour or so, then welcomed a second visitor for another half-hour conversation.   We closed the session with comments from each of the guests.

Our aim was to involve future journalists in comfortable, yet candid, conversations about mental illness.  The session followed a two-hour orientation earlier in the week to the issue of media coverage of mental illness with a focus on stigmatization of people with mental illness.  Jennifer Stuber from the School of Social Work faculty at the University of Washington reviewed the solid evidence related to social prejudice about mental illness and we discussed ways that news coverage supports such attitudes.

The visitors praised the students for not asking invasive questions, for showing their openness to the conversation with introductions, firm handshakes and eye contact. 

It is our hope to continue this focus on understanding mental illness in this course.  The course is Advanced Reporting and is team taught this term by Joanne Silberner and Roger Simpson.

By Roger Simpson

Posted 2/1/2011 2:54 PM PST

There is a news story that routinely conflates a shooting or death with some terms that instantly convey mental illness. It is all too familiar to read or hear that a person acting strangely is viewed as a threat by police and has been wounded or killed. In many instances of this story, the first-day report includes a key word identifying mental illness, such as “bipolar,” “schizophrenic,” “delusional” or “depressed.” 

This news is reported in good faith with the link to possible mental illness provided by family members, police, neighbors, one-time classmates, etc. 

Is it fair to ask if first-day reporting needs this information, often speculative or based on hearsay.  If the police say someone was shot in response to posing a threat, that fact has considerable relevance, at least in the first effort to get a handle on the incident. If the supposed threat is linked indirectly to an attribution of mental illness, but without credible verification, the story takes on a new meaning: Mentally ill people are dangerous and threats to their communities.

The evidence does not support that conclusion, yet news reports persist in repeating it.  Can we discuss the simple expedient of withholding mental health information from first-day stories?  Comments welcome.

By Roger Simpson

Posted 1/28/2011 1:42 PM PST

I was reminded of the  challenge those who teach about mental illness face with the label problem. Two discussions published 15 years apart (1995 and 2010) made the point that “bipolar disorder” is a diagnostic label adopted by psychiatrists to replace the terms “manic depression” or “manic-depressive illness.”  Noting that the change in terms may have reflected an effort to reduce stigmatization, both writers argued that the earlier usage better reflected their experience with the condition.

A guide to reporting on mental health notes how casually journalists insert such terms as “schizoid” and “schizophrenic”  into copy when there is no reference to an individual’s illness.  

Journalism teachers might deal with these issues by emphasizing the details that would be part of a description of behavior.  Someone is indecisive, not schizophrenic. A person may act excitedly or enthusiastically, but not in a manic way.  He couldn’t speak in detail about what he had just experienced, instead of saying he was traumatized.

[Editor's Note:  The Seattle Times on Sunday reported that a county prosecutor had turned down a request to reopen a case involving the shooting by police of a man who had threatened officers with an ax.  Tracy Tardiff, a recent graduate of the University of Washington, had studied the case after the shooting in late October of last year.  Her commentary, offered below, argues that mental health resources should be offered by the media in stories that link violence by or against persons with mental disorders.  It is a fair question to raise in classroom reviews of reports of this kind.  RS]

By Tracy Tardiff

Posted 1/24/2011 1:47 PM PST

In Bainbridge Island, a suburban town a half-hour ferry ride from Seattle, a man called 911 on Oct. 26, yelling incoherently. Police recognized the man at the address. According to the police commander, there had been “prior reports dealing with mental issues” with this same caller. When they arrived to the scene, they found an aggressive and angry 43 year old man. After the man charged the police several times, the police shot a taser. But the man continued with the erratic behavior then ran into his garage apartment. The police followed him in, and after the man wielded an axe toward the officers, he was shot and killed.

Police frequently are called to cope with these situations. It is unknown in this case what mental illness the man had suffered, or whether he was receiving treatment. However, in the media coverage of the above incident, there was a missed opportunity to educate the public about mental illness. Read all »

By Tracy Tardiff

Posted 1/21/2011 1:30 PST

Why are journalists leaving out the mental illness connection?

In my recent analysis of reporting about violent incidents in the Seattle area, I discovered that when journalists cover a crime committed by a person with a mental condition, the mental-health angle of the story does not get much coverage. It’s rare to see a connection made to the mental illness and rare to see resources on mental health in the story or a sidebar.

In a recent tragedy in West Seattle, a troubled woman who had struggled for decades with schizophrenia killed several family members and then committed suicide. I checked the regional media coverage about her,  and of 14 articles and blog posts, just two included a list of mental health resources. Yet according to the National Institute of Mental Health, schizophrenia is a manageable disease. We know that mental illness affects many families. NAMI reports that one in four adults – approximately 57.7 million Americans – experience a mental health disorder in a given year. Read all »

By Roger Simpson

Posted 1/19/2011 2:48 PST

For years, the journalism program here at the University of Washington has given every student knowledge about traumatic emotional injury and provided experiences in the classroom that simulate the reality of news coverage in violent situations.  Students interview actors in a scenario that brings many kinds of emotions into play for the actors and the student reporters.  Our goal is to foster sensitive interviewing and to give students early awareness of how they may affected in their reporting.

While the students learn about traumatic injury and its severe form, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), they are learning most about how we present emotions to others in stressful situations.  They learn, for example, that when you interview and emotional person who are likely to be more emotional.

Roger Simpson is the Dart Professor of Journalism and Trauma at the University of Washington

By Roger Simpson

Posted 1/14/2011 at 1:04 PST

NPR’s Morning Edition today took us seven minutes into a nine-minute report on a study of public official assassins before it stumbled.

The report usefully cited invisibility and a desire for notoriety as reasons for the actions of people who attempted or succeeded with assassination efforts.  The report drew on the researchers behind a study published in 1999 in the Journal of Forensic Sciences.  Then at seven minutes into the story, the reporter used the words “crazy” and “insane” in offering an assumption some might make about such violent persons, and the researchers took up the terms in their replies. Read all »

By Roger Simpson

Posted 1/13/2011 12:23 PST

The past five days have offered a storm of thoughts about violence, emotions, mental health and illness, healing and resilience.  As our students process these unfolding responses to Saturday’s violence, we can help them learn more in the classroom. Read all »

By Roger Simpson

Posted 1/12/11 at 2:19 PST

I’m returning today to a few more words in David Brooks Tuesday column in The New York Times.  He identified knowledge about mental illness as a necessity for a collective understanding of the events in Tucson.  He concluded with this: ” . . . contemporary punditry lives in the world of superficial tactics and interests. It is unprepared with an event opens the door to a deeper realm of disorder, cruelty and horror.” Read all »

By Roger Simpson

Posted 1/11/12 12:50 PST

The unfolding Tucson story offers journalism teachers a rare opportunity to focus on the many ways mental illness is addressed in breaking news coverage.  I don’t have a class to face today, but here are some thoughts about addressing the subject. Read all »

By Roger Simpson

1/10/2011 2:16 PM PST

A wise mentor told me long ago that journalists will provide us with an answer to Why? long before they have a right to say they have an answer.  That inclination was in abundant evidence this past weekend as national and local media fought to get the newest bits of the Arizona shooting story out first. Read all »