Friday, November 27, 2020

Comments by Laura Van Tosh

Showing 3 of 3 comments.

  • As far as I can read, I don’t see Judi calling it anti-woman. She’s a feminist. I get her point. Laura could speak for herself or the article speaks for itself with/out flaws but another journalist needed to swarm in and defend his previously written book (Anatomy) because the article written by Aviv, a woman, who apparently didn’t quite do the book enough justice. Meanwhile, I didn’t realize the article was supposed to have that much sun on it, but that’s me. I look forward to hearing more from Judi.

  • There are actually two – one that I missed.

    Under header in article: A Glass Half Full, or Half Empty?

    “Several noted the sly DIG at me and Anatomy, with a text from my daughter my favorite: “I was reading one moment about dinosaurs and the next about how my father has been on a crusade!”” (emphasis added)

    and

    “But newspapers and magazines have their institutional boundaries, and so I wouldn’t be surprised if the sudden pivot of the article—from a personal article about Laura into one about coming off psychiatric drugs—came about during the editing process, with the LITTLE DIGS at Anatomy dropped into the piece that way as well.” (emphasis added)

  • This retort made me feel as if Bob Whitaker made it more about himself with statements like, “But newspapers and magazines have their institutional boundaries, and so I wouldn’t be surprised if the sudden pivot of the article—from a personal article about Laura into one about coming off psychiatric drugs—came about during the editing process, with the LITTLE DIGS AT ANATOMY (Emphasis added) dropped into the piece that way as well.” Bob also notes Aviv’s apparent limited contact with him while doing research for the article, and several times seems to express frustration his book wasn’t more central to the piece. They were gratuitous and unnecessary remarks and began to make his argument sound more like disappointment his book would not get the attention it deserved as a result of the article (sales). At that point, I nearly stopped reading his piece and felt queasy. I agree with Bob’s overall observation about the narrative-factor and tilt and the challenge for the media to get their hands dirty with psychiatry’s realities. But it’s not simply psychiatry as a discipline but also governments and overseers that require a microscope as well! They regulate and pay for drugs. (But that’s for another day.)

    The focus of the article was on one woman’s life so far, and an interesting and dynamic coming of age piece. I was engrossed with it as I first saw a psychiatrist at 13 and then involuntarily committed and medicated at 17. I wanted more than what was there (in the article). I know Laura and we have spoken over the years and been in each other’s company. I admire her tenacity and focus. Because of the “sanitary” narrative issue it fell short as a piece of work that any others of us can relate. For example, does it further or hinder strategies for ‘coming off’? And that is more of a problem with the narrative than if the reporter cited one book or not. The article shouldn’t have been about Bob or his book per se and could have stretched beyond one story especially if it took a year to write (!) (the tokenism is in and of itself a phenomenon the media frequently perpetuates) even though Laura’s story is indeed compelling and inspiring to her peers and others.