thing that,” as Dr. Stollznow noted, “simply wasn’t possible before the digital age.” When I asked Krebs about the role me- dia plays in shaping our understanding of suicide, she didn’t hesitate to reframe the question. “It’s more about the producers of the media than its type, platform, or genre,” she said, steering me away from the instinct to blame or praise entire formats. Still, she admitted that some spaces lend themselves more naturally to nu- ance. “If I had to pick,” she continued, “I’d say that podcasts are an increasing- ly beneficial space for people to have nu - anced discussions about suicide because the medium is conversation driven.” In a world where so much content is com- pressed into sound bites or stitched into sec- onds-long clips, the idea of conversation felt almost radical. She believed in what could happen when people were given enough time to unravel their own thoughts aloud. “When people can share their stories and perspectives with the goal of being heard and generating empathy and understand- ing, that’s a huge plus. And podcasts are often packed with follow-up questions that allow for deeper understanding.” Krebs’ perspective clarified something I had only sensed intuitively: not all repre- sentations are created equal. “To me,” she said, “good representation means engaging with nuance, challenging stereotypes, and encouraging audiences to care for one an- other.” It was a definition anchored less in accuracy and more in empathy, media as a catalyst for connection rather than spectacle. But she didn’t shy away from calling out the shortcomings of well-intended but shal- low portrayals. “It represents a superficial
understanding of suicide,” she explained, “that can end up unwittingly harming peo- ple by leading them to believe that these ser- vices will fix them and that there aren’t real risks on the table.” Too often, media prefers resolutions over realities. And people watch- ing, already vulnerable, already searching, may internalize the idea that failing to be “fixed” means something is wrong with them. “There are massive limitations of our mental healthcare systems and their approaches to suicidality,” she added, “and it would be help- ful if more media engaged with these issues.” “Today, there is a greater awareness and un- derstanding of suicide,” Dr. Stollznow said. “It is now understood less as a personal or moral failing and more as a social and cultur- al issue, something that is shaped by inequal- ity, isolation, stigma, and access to support.” This shift wasn’t just conceptual, but it was lin- guistic. Dr. Stollznow walked me through the evolving vocabulary, how we’ve begun to step away from moralizing or criminalizing terms like suicide victim, committed suicide, and toward language that is more neutral, more compas- sionate, more attuned to lived experiences. “Language matters here.” The words we choose don’t just describe suicide, they shape the emotional terrain around it. “They can either reinforce shame or help to reduce it,” she explained. They can make some- one feel condemned or welcomed, silenced or seen. They can determine whether a per- son feels safe enough to seek help, or wheth- er they retreat further into themselves. She then widened the frame, showing me how institutions, those massive, slow-moving engines of culture, shape the language we in- herit. “Each institution frames suicide through its own moral or professional lens,” she said,
Winter 2026
39
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator