Research Bbc Query - Ptsd And Social Media

[anthony]

And to suggest so is a mockery of what happened to us to need this forum. Viewing any type of media content no matter what it is can not cause PTSD.

I believe the media would still need to meet the level of criterion A, however; people need to accept that criterion A does allow for someone who's job is to watch media all day, that if the media is of death, sexual violence or serious injury, as part of their employment, then they can get PTSD.

The criterion A(4) precludes people intentionally watching violent content online and then claiming PTSD, versus, when you are paid to do it for whatever reason and you reach a point of breaking, and thus PTSD forms.

I did expect this to be problematic when casting the net wider than the criterion scope allows, which falls into intentional exposure and self injury.

 

[Ed Norton]

A nonprofessional capacity was mentioned in the thread.

I've seen some horrible things online, myself...burning 'witches' executions, etc. But like Anthony said my viewing was not part of work. It was actually kind of private research...but I didn't view it day in and day out. Hence the emphasis on 'non professional' which the OP's post seems to imply.

 

[Friday]

@Ed Norton (& @SamBBC ) I think the media has a bias of wanting to jump on this one... Because editors & journalists are a lot like cops... Having to watch thousands of hours of incredibly graphic reel for even 10 seconds of air play. Plus knowing the photographers & journalists in the field getting all those images and stories, or being one themselves, and losing people, etc. It's both professional, and personal, and extremely difficult. So even though they themselves may meet CritA? They want to normalize their own problems by saying "Clearly, anyone who has to watch this stuff would be that affected."

When... No. There is a really big difference between a cop or a journalist going through thousands of hours of filth & misery, over hundreds of cases & stories, over years and years...in order to present an understanding of it... And someone sitting in the safety of their own home making a choice to watch something disturbing.

 

[Neverthesame]

@SamBBC Big thing to bear in mind.

The little x in the top corner of every window. This little button has very different meanings to different people:

-Average Joe internet/social media user. This is the 'Click here when you have a bad feeling about it, make it go away. Sometimes this person feels an odd compulsion... No, it's not even that. Morbid desire is far more accurate. Can't explain that, not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Not even much of a people person. But they are out there. I would guess it becomes a form of entertainment, to watch the most horrible stuff the world can film. To these people I have no doubt there is a nice shiny, long medically fear mongering media friendly name for it, I just don't know it, or care to learn it.

Then you have the professional, looking at horrible things because it is their job, often more than just a professional obligation. It is a legal requirement, as not viewing this kind of media may very likely be a deriliction of duty. Looking at law enforcement for example. They have the little x in the corner of the page as well, however. Clicking on it, means failing the poor person on the screen, denying them justice, and failing to uphold their duty. Their career will be over, life as they know it, will be over, everything they worked so hard for will be gone. Not really a choice now is it?

 

[anthony]

I think we should also try and stick with the main point here... being those who wish to go on radio about this subject, PC them to discuss.

 

[NovemberStar]

Ok, I do not see the point in being angry or throwing abuse at the OP. He is not doing the study, merely looking to explore it.

Some have said they don't want the media to portray PTSD in the wrong light - yet too many posters here let rip and were pretty abusive - THAT is not going to leave a good portrayal of how PTSD sufferers are or treat other people.

Secondally - I'm wondering if Criteriion A could be met via the 'indirect' exposure - what if someone saw online, video footage of their loved one being killed (as reported in the media)?

I'm not 100% convinced PTSD could ONLY occur form online sources if it was work related. I suppose the argument there is 'they had no choice but to keep watching as it was their work' - but again, what if 'you' stumbled across video footage of your loved one being killed - the criterion says you don't need to WITNESS or experince a life threatening event - that you CAN get PTSD from LEARNING of a loved ones traumatic death. So to me, given that criterion exists, it doesn't seem too far fetched that in SOME situations it COULD be possible.

One example from my own backyard - I live in a city besieged with 2 years of earthquakes, several of them very large and caused a lot of damage. One quake was fatal, killing around 200 people. There is plenty of video footage of quake aftermath, as well as during the large quake. In the first few hours it was live and unedited. And more aftershocks sent more buildings down. One building was sandwhiched form 5 stories down to one and was on fire -it was widely reported and know , over a hundred people were missing in that burning rubble. Anyone watching could see examples of people being killed, or of bodies half exposed under rumble, and serious injuries. One man was pulled half alive and struggling to breath; the footage went around the world. Days later it was revealed he died soon after that video was taken.

It wasn't work related - but in such a situation you really cannot, not watch - I wasn't forced to watch it all unfold, but at the same time I was in such a state of shick, numbness and disbelief, I wasn't able to walk away and turn the TV off.

Now, I had my PTSD triggered form that quake - my trauma from the quake (and believing I was going to die as it hit) triggered childhood abuse flashbacks. So in my case, I can't say my PTSD was chased by watching the events live on TV. But I'm not convinced some watching it live (ie those in the city feeling the shakes as they occurred) were not FURTHER traumatised as a result of SEEING the devastation on media reports, AS it was happening?

But what of those who lost relatives in the quake? Some may have even seen the footage of their loved one being killed / body under rumble. Is it that far fetched to say it's possible they got PTSD from seeing that unfold on tv??? Surely in such a situiaon it would be more traumatic to SEE the footage of a traumatic event than to not have seen it on TV and just HEAR yr loved one was killed in a traumatic way?

What about the shootings and hostage situation in the Sydney cafe ealrier this year? Much of that was live on TV too.

Or the Boxing Day tsunami? Some people might have been on the fringe of the disaster - were in the country but didn't SEE death or destruction; SURELY then seeing it on TV, would hit home how close they were to being killed / worse off

And I also think it's possible those watching 9/11 live on TV could be and were traumatised and had PTSD symptoms. TECHINCALLY, under the current criteria, they could not be diagnosed with PTSD - but I really think that it is only a matter of time before the diagnosis criteria is expanded even more - yet again

It wasn't that long ago that only those who had been to war 'could' have PTSD; but that has changed over the years. I'm sure there was (and probably still are) many war veterans who are upset and insulted that others who hadn't been to war could have PTSD. They probably are just as outraged had insulted as some are now, with the idea media exposure could cause PTSD too.

At the end of the day, trauma is trauma. I don't think it can be compared and one trauma be 'worse' than another offical diagnosis or not, anyne traumatised suffers like hell and need support

 

[anthony]

I'm wondering if Criteriion A could be met via the 'indirect' exposure - what if someone saw online, video footage of their loved one being killed (as reported in the media)?

That specific example does meet criterion A... regardless of the media footage portrayed, if it was a close family or friend, indirect death meets criterion A for PTSD.

A person didn't get PTSD from watching violent media footage, they got PTSD from their loved one dying.

 

[NovemberStar]

That specific example does meet criterion A... regardless of the media footage portrayed, if it was a close family or friend, indirect death meets criterion A for PTSD.

A person didn't get PTSD from watching violent media footage, they got PTSD from their loved one dying.

How could anyone be sure of that though? If they saw and heard it? I would argue SEEING it would be FAR more traumatic than 'just' hearing about it

Don't you think it's a bit odd, that, as the criterion is at present, SEEING your loved one killed (on media footage, not in person) you could not have PTSD; yet if you simply HEARD about it (down the telephone) you could have PTSD? Doesn't quite make sense to me (yes I know it's the diagnosis criteria but that doesn't mean it isn't flawed / needs adjusting / expanded further)

 

[anthony]

Don't you think it's a bit odd, that, as the criterion is at present, SEEING your loved one killed (on media footage, not in person) you could not have PTSD; yet if you simply HEARD about it (down the telephone) you could have PTSD?

You can be diagnosed with PTSD from criterion A by watching your loved one die via media. The media aspect only applies to criterion A(4) and not 1 - 3.

A. Exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence in one (or more) of the following ways:

1. Directly experiencing the traumatic event(s),
2. Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others,
3. Learning that the traumatic event(s) occurred to a close family member or close friend. In cases of actual or threatened death of a family member or friend, the event(s) must have been violent and accidental.
4. Experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of the traumatic event(s) (e.g., first responders collecting human remains; police officers repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse).

It is there to stop people watching such things online, repeatedly, strangers and such, then claiming PTSD due to exposing themselves to it intentionally. They would fit an adjustment disorder under such circumstances, not PTSD.

 

[SamBBC]

Hello all,

Thank you for all of the responses.

I can't post a link here but if you search google news for 'social media ptsd' you should reports of the study we're looking into.

It's worth pointing out that the study doesn't conclude that social media causes the condition, but 'symptoms similar to PTSD'.

We're talking to a range of people in our research, and still exploring the issue.

Thanks again for all the points you've made here, we'll definitely take them into consideration.

Sam

 

[digger]

if you search google news for 'social media ptsd'

I tried this but can only find various articles talking about the research, but no link to the actual study. You can contact admin here with a link to the study and they could add the link for you if they thought it appropriate. Personally, I'd like to see the study before commenting on it.

 

[joeylittle]

Link Removed

This is the link with more info on the study, if anyone's interested.

no link to the actual study.

It's not published (yet), as far as I can tell. The findings were presented recently at a conference.