Areo
  • Features
  • Politics
  • Culture & Media
  • Science & Tech
  • Psychology
  • Review
  • About
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Submissions
9K Likes
16K Followers
Areo
Areo
  • Features
  • Politics
  • Culture & Media
  • Science & Tech
  • Psychology
  • Review
Facebook 9K Likes
Twitter 16K Followers
  • Culture & Media
  • Psychology

Netflix Has Their “Han Shot First” Moment with 13 Reasons Why

  • July 24, 2019
  • 2 comments
  • 6 minute read
  • Christopher Ferguson
Total
14
Shares
14
0
0

Netflix recently announced they have bowed to pressure from complainants arguing that their show 13 Reasons Why’s graphic portrayal of a youth suicide was insensitive. Netflix have stated that they plan to edit the suicide scene so that it occurs largely off camera. The declaration comes just weeks after Netflix announced that it would cut smoking scenes from all shows rated for teens or younger. These two moves seem designed to portray Netflix as concerned about media effects on youth health. But, by engaging in self-censorship, is Netflix really helping kids, or weakening artistic freedoms?

Despite the controversy over 13 Reasons Why, good data has never established that the show is a causal factor in youth suicides. A recent meta-analysis I conducted found no evidence to link suicide-themed shows to actual suicides. Other studies of 13 Reasons Why have concluded that the show might actually reduce suicide risk for some viewers.

However, bad news tends to travel faster than good. This year, a pair of widely publicized studies claimed to link the show to an increase in teen suicides. One of these did no such thing. If 13 Reasons Why caused suicide among viewers, we’d expect suicides to increase among teen girls and young adult women: the demographic most similar to that of the show’s protagonist. But no effects were found for young adults, and suicides among teen girls actually decreased for one month after the show’s release. Only suicides among teen boys increased and only some months after the show’s debut. Suicides among teen boys were already increasing before the show was released, which suggests that the show’s timing coincided with a trend, not that it was a causal agent of that trend. The suicides of several male celebrities—including Aaron Hernandez, Chris Cornell and Chester Bennington of Linkin Park—at around the same time are more likely to have influenced the male suicides than the female-focused 13 Reasons Why. Indeed, many people who read this study were unimpressed.

A second study appeared to show clearer correlations, but didn’t control for seasonal patterns in suicide. April (when the first season was released) tends to be a high suicide month, and suicides have been increasing across age groups for several years. Thus, a peak in April 2017 was to be expected. This doesn’t mean 13 Reasons Why caused it.

Curiously, these two studies use the same Centers for Disease Control dataset. By running the data in different ways, they get different results. This is concerning. I have asked both groups for the data files used to calculate their results. Neither has complied. This means we have to take their word for it that their analyses are sound. Major decisions about artistic integrity should not be based on non-transparent science.

Concerns about smoking follow a similar pattern. This year, Patrick Markey at Villanova University, Rune Nielsen at IT University Copenhagen and I ran a meta-analysis of all studies examining the effects of film smoking on teen smoking. Overall, the evidence was underwhelming. Watching film smoking is associated with about 0.5% of the variance in teen smoking. If all we knew about a group of teens was the movies they watched and we wanted to predict who would become a smoker, our guess would be little better than a coin toss. But this hasn’t stopped advocates from making absurd claims. Even the Centers for Disease Control claim that giving an R-rating to movies depicting smoking would save one million lives. This extreme and data-starved claim is an embarrassment to our nation’s primary health organization. There’s no evidence, whatsoever, that this number comes from anywhere other than creative extrapolation and pure imagination.

In both these cases, the evidence of a causal connection is dubious at best. Even some critics of 13 Reasons Why admit that those two suicide studies are inconclusive. But poor quality social science has remarkable power to shape advocacy narratives—partly through something I call death by press release, which occurs when a university press release misrepresents the strength of a study’s data. That’s clearly the case for the first correlational study on 13 Reasons Why. News media have their own biases, often breathlessly reporting clickbaity claims. They frequently fail to adequately fact-check, seek divergent expert opinions, report on contrary evidence or acknowledge when alarming studies are later debunked—as they often are.

Even scholars and mental health advocates continue to mistake correlation for causation. We counsel our psychology students that correlation does not equal causation in their first introductory classes. Yet we drop this maxim whenever convenient to our own moral agendas.

The brouhaha over 13 Reasons Why will probably soon appear as silly as similar concerns about Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest in the 1980s do today. But Netflix caved to the pressure and, in doing so, have added to the mythology that humans are easily programmable robots, who unconsciously mimic what we see in the media.

The foolish reediting of 13 Reasons Why has, predictably, done little to assuage Netflix’s critics. Some have argued that the editing is too little too late, claiming that suicide contagion through fictional media is well documented—which it is not. Moral entrepreneurs are rarely satisfied by partial success. Some have now shifted to implying that the whole series should be banned. Moral outrage is never sated. There was nothing Netflix could have done to stop the extreme claims—based on ignorance and righteous indignation—once they got started. All Netflix has managed to do is appear weak.

Reedits of edgy material in the face of moral pressure seldom seem wise in hindsight. I was reminded of the infamous Han shot first episode from Star Wars: A New Hope. In the original, Han Solo shoots the bounty hunter Greedo before Greedo is able to haul him in. George Lucas clumsily reedited the scene to make it appear as if Greedo shoots first (missing Solo from about three feet away). Lucas explained: “when you’re John Wayne, you don’t shoot people [first]—you let them have the first shot. It’s a mythological reality that we hope our society pays attention to.” Setting aside the nonsensical idea of “mythological reality,” this implies that media impacts society in predictable ways, despite the lack of evidence to support that narrative.

The reediting of the 13 Reasons Why scene admittedly doesn’t change a character’s entire moral arc the way Han shoots first did. But it sets a similar precedent of industry weakness in the face of moral pressure that may cause real harm to freedom of speech.

Netflix has lost the opportunity to stand up for artistic expression—even though 13 Reasons Why may actually have helped some kids. Art should never be sanitized, rendered morally unambiguous or cleansed. It should push boundaries, cause us to confront our demons, and open up difficult conversations—even those conversations moral entrepreneurs don’t want us to have. Moral entrepreneurs are bullies—giving them what they want only emboldens them. When a behemoth like Netflix caves to their demands, it weakens the ability of artists everywhere to tackle topics of which society may disapprove.

Worse still, Netflix has contributed to continued misunderstandings of the phenomena of suicide and smoking, by feeding urban legends about the viewer as a tabula rasa, prone to mimic what she sees in the media. Tellingly, the debate around 13 Reasons Why neglects to mention that—according to the same CDC data used in the studies condemning the show—both overall rates and yearly increases in suicide are much higher among middle-aged adults than among teens. Among the enduring myths of suicide is that teens are particularly susceptible and that distal factors such as fictional media or music are causal factors. Similarly, misinformation distracts us from the real causes of teen smoking—smokers are often influenced by family members who smoke.

This is the cost of blind moral entrepreneurship. By reaching for low-hanging fruit, moral advocacy agendas impede progress on important, but less clickbaity, topics such as poverty, joblessness, overprescription of opioids, dysfunction in families and lack of mental health treatments. Netflix’s decision is a loss for artistic integrity and free speech and it also discourages reasoned, nuanced arguments which could help prevent negative life outcomes. It is a loss for teens. It is a win only for those who loudly proclaim their moral agendas and force the rest of us to live by them.

If you enjoy our articles, be a part of our growth and help us produce more writing for you:
Total
14
Shares
Share 14
Tweet 0
Pin it 0
Related Topics
  • Freedom of Expression
  • Media
  • Netflix
  • Suicide
Christopher Ferguson

Christopher J. Ferguson is author of Moral Combat: Why the War on Violent Video Games is Wrong as well as the historical mystery novel Suicide Kings. His forthcoming book How Madness Shaped History will be available in January. He is a professor of psychology at Stetson University in Florida.

Previous Article
  • Politics

Abortion and Soundbites: Why Pro-Choice Arguments Are Harder to Make

  • July 23, 2019
  • Kristina Grob and Nathan Nobis
View Post
Next Article
  • Politics

Roger Scruton’s “Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition.” Book Review.

  • July 25, 2019
  • Matt McManus
View Post
You May Also Like
View Post
  • Politics
  • Psychology

Come on B_by, Light My Fire: Challenges to Critical Thinking in Higher Education

  • December 9, 2019
  • Maximilian Werner
View Post
  • Features
  • Psychology
  • Science & Tech

The Uses and Abuses of the Human Sciences

  • December 3, 2019
  • Galen Watts
View Post
  • Culture & Media

Dostoevsky’s Campaign Against Rationalism and Progress

  • November 29, 2019
  • Alexander Blum
View Post
  • Culture & Media

Unlearning Race: A Letter Exchange with Thomas Chatterton Williams

  • November 29, 2019
  • Iona Italia
View Post
  • Psychology

A WEIRD Problem for Human Nature

  • November 27, 2019
  • Alejandro Rujano
View Post
  • Politics
  • Psychology

Trump Isn’t Selfish—That’s the Problem

  • November 20, 2019
  • Ben Bayer
View Post
  • Culture & Media

What Happens When Meaning Goes Away: A Review of Yuval Noah Harari’s “Homo Deus”

  • November 15, 2019
  • Sukhayl Niyazov
View Post
  • Politics
  • Psychology

The Disdain of the Clerks

  • November 14, 2019
  • Kevin Baldeosingh
2 comments
  1. Tom Smith says:
    July 27, 2019 at 2:25 pm

    You chastise others for mistaking correlation for causation shortly after you cite the celebrity suicides of Aaron Hernandez, Chris Cornell and Chester Bennington as a factor in the increase of male suicides. Are you not doing the same thing? Also, I can’t understand how the suicide of convicted murderer Aaron Hernandez would be an influence.

    Reply
  2. Andaro says:
    July 27, 2019 at 10:04 am

    There’s no such thing as “suicide risk”. Suicide isn’t something that happens to a person – it’s a choice a person makes. There is no right or wrong answer to whether a person should kill himself or herself. It depends on individual preferences and life circumstances. The key to individual liberty and autonomy is to respect whatever choice a person makes for his or her own life.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Read by Topic
Academia Alt-Right Art Conservatism Culture Democracy Donald Trump Economics Education Environmentalism Evolutionary Psychology Feature Feminism Freedom of Expression Free Expression Free Speech Gender Higher Education History Human Nature Human Rights Identity Politics Immigration Intersectionality Islam Islamism Letter Liberalism Media Mental Health Philosophy Political Correctness Political Polarization Politics Postmodernism Psychology Race Racism Regressive Left Religion Science Social Justice Social Media Terrorism Women's Rights
New to Areo
  • How Individualism and Social Constructivism Can Be Reconciled: Part 2
  • Antisemitism and Black Nationalism
  • Health and Justice: Neoliberalism, Apps and the Limits of Individual Choice
  • Threats to Free Speech at University, and How to Deal with Them—Part 1
  • Come on B_by, Light My Fire: Challenges to Critical Thinking in Higher Education
  • How Individualism and Social Constructivism Can Be Reconciled: Part 1
  • The Generational Divide and the Death of Dialectic
  • Australia: No Country for Celebrity Entitlement
Join the Discussion
  • Benny Markovitch on An Argument Worth Having: “Outgrowing God” by Richard Dawkins
  • Ray Andrews on An Argument Worth Having: “Outgrowing God” by Richard Dawkins
  • Benny Markovitch on An Argument Worth Having: “Outgrowing God” by Richard Dawkins
  • Benny Markovitch on An Argument Worth Having: “Outgrowing God” by Richard Dawkins
  • Benny Markovitch on An Argument Worth Having: “Outgrowing God” by Richard Dawkins
  • Ray Andrews on An Argument Worth Having: “Outgrowing God” by Richard Dawkins
Read by Category
  • Areo Magazine
  • Battle of Ideas
  • Culture & Media
  • Features
  • From Under
  • Letter from the Editor
  • Philosophy
  • Politics
  • Psychology
  • Report
  • Review
  • Science & Tech
  • Uncategorized
  • What We're Reading
  • What's in the Works
Read from our Vault
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
AreoMagazine.com uses cookies. To find out more, as well as how to remove or block these, see here: Our Policy
Areo
  • About
  • Submissions
2016– 2019 © Areo Magazine

Input your search keywords and press Enter.