Seattle P-I Censorship Update: Feedback From P-I, Hoeller And Vonne Worth

February 21, 2004

Based on the response I got from the P-I and Hoeller's reply,

this is looking more like a case of a black listing of somebody solely

on the basis of his views. Below is my correspondence with the P-I and

Hoeller over the P-I's recent rejection of Hoeller's editorial against

mental health parity legislation. You can read the editorial here:

" Censorship Of Views Critical Of Mental Health Alleged At Seattle

P-I " . I will await a reply to Hoeller from the P-I until Monday

and then try to get this up a CounterPunch.org. Also, below my

correspondence with the P-I and Hoeller is a letter to Glenn Rosendahl

by Vonne Worth that I received early this evening. I would suggest

that it is now time for any fence sitters out there to start firing

off letters in support of Hoeller or op-eds opposed to mental health

parity to P-I Publihser Oglesby (Oglesby@...) and

P-I Reader Representative Glenn Drosendahl

(GlennDrosendahl@...) -Rick

My First Letter To P-I Publisher Oglesby (2/18/04)

Dr. Mr. Oglesby,

I'm a freelance writer in Seattle who specializes in writing about

mental health related issues and I get myself published at the

internet site for the D.C. based political newsletter Counter Punch

occasionally.

Hoeller has forwarded me an editorial in opposition to the

mental health parity legislation now being debated and voted on in the

Washington State Legislature. Hoeller says your paper has rejected

this editorial and that he is now permanently banned from getting

editorials on any subject related to mental health issues published in

the P-I. Hoeller tells me that Reader Representative Glen Drosendahl

informed him of this over the phone yesterday. Is this true? If it is

true, then please tell me why. I want to forward Hoeller's editorial

to CounterPunch.org and other Internet sites by Friday morning with

the P-I's response included, if, in fact, the P-I does not intend to

publish it.

Sincerely,

Rick Giombetti

Glenn Drosendahl's Response (2/18/04)

Dear Rick: Thanks for your message and the chance to set the record

straight. I did not say was permanently banned from writing

op-ed pieces for us. I said the op-ed editor would like to hear from

other voices on the subject now, since has submitted and had

published six op-ed pieces already.

One other thing he may have misinterpreted from our conversation: I

did tell him he wrote well and persuasively, but that was not the

reason our op-ed editor rejected his piece now. It's only that she

wants to hear from someone else with that viewpoint. Again, it's a

matter of trying to get a different voice on that side of the issue.

I appreciate you checking with us. If you have further questions,

please contact our editorial page editor, Mark Trahant (206-448-8387

or marktrahant@...).

Glenn Drosendahl

Reader Representative

Seattle Post-Intelligencer

(206) 448-8007

readerrep@...

My Response To Glenn Drosendahl (2/18/04)

Dear Glen,

So do psychiatrists in favor of involuntary committment and parity,

which is virtually every practicing psychiatrist out there, and

members of National Alliance for the Mentally Ill who have been

published on the P-I editorial page in the past not get published

either? That doesn't seem to matter now since the official editorial

position of the P-I on parity is in line with that of the American

Psychiatric Association and NAMI. This is an interesting position to

take on a piece of state legislation the P-I has editorialized in

favor of on February 3.

So what other voices on the subject would the P-I like to hear from,

other than the voice of its editorial board? Another academic

psychologist, such as Schaler at American University? A voice

of current and former psychiatric patients who lobby against

involutary committment and parity, like Oaks of Support

Coalition International? But Schaler lives in the DC area and Oaks

lives in Eugene. Hoeller lives in the state where the legislation the

P-I has editorialized in favor of passing is being debated right, is a

college instructor in psychology, edits a peer reviewed academic

journal and is the only academic in his field in the Seattle area

willing to speak out against involuntary committment and parity. So if

not Hoeller, who should be allowed to take a position on mental health

parity in opposition to the P-I's position?

Sincerely,

-Rick

My Second Letter To Oglesby Summarizing Hoeller's Response

(2/19/04)

Dear Mr. Oglesby,

Below is Hoeller's responses to Glenn Drosendahl's letter to me

yesterday.

I'll start with what I think is the most important point first. In

Glenn Drosendahl's letter to me he wrote that " has submitted and

had published six op-ed pieces already. " Hoeller replied that " They

are inventing 'pretexts' to justify their rejection of my op-eds. I

went to the Seattle PI website and I punched in the word Hoeller in

the search engine. I got 16 total hits since July, 1999 or almost 5

years. In this time, I published only 4 op-eds in the PI (not 6 or 7

as they claim). And only 2 of the 4 op-eds were on mental health. "

I have just done the same search Hoeller did and he is correct. Here

are the links to the four op-eds Hoeller has published: " No proof

mental illness rooted in biology " (Friday, August 29, 2003). " Don't

cut funding for long-term care help " (Thursday, January 30, 2003).

" Readers Soapbox: Mind-altering drugs both banned and pushed "

(Saturday, March 16, 2002). " Pay part-time college profs more "

(Friday, January 12, 2001).

Also, none of these op-eds are about mental health parity. Are there

any other editorials written by Hoeller that the P-I has published? If

not, then why did Drosendahl tell me six instead of four?

Furthermore, Hoeller says that the reasons for not publishing him have

changed over time: " While the Seattle PI was happy to publish my

op-eds for the last six years, since NAMI pressured them last August

they have not once, but twice, rejected op-eds by me. And the reasons

keep changing. About 3 months ago, Mills rejected an op-ed by

me, saying the Seattle PI had a policy of not publishing anyone twice

within a six month period. Mr. Drosendahl told me yesterday that the

PI has no such policy. "

Finally, Hoeller wants to know what input from the public the P-I

received before publishing its editorial in favor of the mental health

parity legislation: " Who did the PI Editorial Board invite in, and who

did they call, before writing their Feb. 3 op-ed in favor of parity?

Did they invite in, or call, just supporters like NAMI and legislators

who favor the bills? Did they invite in, or call, ANY opponents to

mental health parity? They are supposed to invite in, or call, people

from BOTH sides before writing such an editorial. "

I'm going to wait until Monday to see what your paper decides to do

about this before I forward Hoeller's rejected editorial with my

article to Counter Punch.

My Third Letter To Oglesby

Dear Mr. Oglesby,

Below is an e-mail summarizing Hoeller's response to Glenn

Drosendahl, for which I have received no reply. Please, respond to if

you want to by Monday. Thanks.

-Rick

Letter To Glenn Drosendahl By Vonne Worth

Dear Mr. Drosendahl:

When I studied for my Journalism degree at Seattle University,

Atkins taught me to make my writing objective, fair, balanced, and

unbiased. These are also journalism ethics of the Society of

Professional Journalists.

Last year, Hoeller wrote an article with a timely peg, the

hunger fast in California, and Hoeller expressed an opinion which was

later disputed by of the National Advocates for the

Mentally Ill (NAMI), an organization funded in large part by the Big

Drug Companies, and the American Psychiatric Association, also funded

in large part by the Big Drug Companies. In my experience, NAMI does

not advocate for the mentally ill, but for the families of the

mentally ill. NAMI advocates locking up their family members,

medicating them with dangerous drugs, and shocking or performing brain

surgery on them. NAMI does not advocate proven, inexpensive means of

enabling a " mentally ill " person to recover and enjoy a full life.

A writer from Oregon sent a letter to the editor which was published,

defending the hunger strike and Hoeller's op-ed. I also sent

Mills an article, an op-ed, and a letter. Mills said she

forwarded the letter to the letters editor and recommended it be

published. It was not.

As a writer, I understand that much is submitted that is not

published. However, as a former publisher and editor of a disability

rights newspaper (Different Times), I also understand that

disabilities of all types receive short shrift in the mainline

newspapers. I see this as bias.

Koeller, the Oregon writer, and I have far fewer dollars to use to

influence the media. In J-school, I was also taught not to let

advertising or money influence what is published. I never let this

happen on Different Times, which was making money at the time I became

ill with chronic fatigue and had to sell the newspaper.

I know that persons who are regarded as " mentally ill " are regularly

stereotyped as violent. It is untrue. I see things in the newspaper

often: " x shot y. x has a history of mental illness. " I never see " a

shot b. a does not have a history of mental illness. " It reminds me of

the time when blacks only appeared in the newspaper when a black

person committed a violent act. It was always on the first page. This

allowed sterotypes and prejudice to continue and increase. So does

this one-sided view of those regarded as " mentally ill " .

Many times, people are not mentally ill. I have been put in mental

wards four times when I actually have an unusual type of epileptic

seizure. I have been deprived of the medical treatment for epilepsy,

deprived of liberty, deprived of the ability to direct my care through

an AD (the hospital simply doesn't read it before involuntary

commitment, then ridiculse it after they have read it). Psychiatrists

know that there are approximately 26 medical conditions that are

routinely misdiagnosed as mental disorders. (ssen and Black, 3rd

ed.) These include epilepsy, 's Disease (an episcopal priest in

the area had this happen), diabetes, brain tumors, strokes, and more.

At present, mental wards are filled with poor people and people with

complex medical issues and disabilities which are not " mental

illness " . In the past, mental wards were filled with poor blacks, poor

and working class gays and lesbians, women, and children. In 1974, the

APA voted that homosexuality was not a mental illness, so gays and

lesbians do not get locked up so much anymore.

The treatments used for mental illness would make anyone sick.

Beatings, criticism, degradation, abuse, harassment, forced handling

of feces (remember I've been in these places, you haven't),

destruction of property, injury which is not treated, and rape. Tax

dollars pay for all of this. Of course, a person regarded as " mentally

ill " is, by definition, not to be believed when they tell about these

things. That does not mean these " treatments " do not happen. Also,

medications cause irreversible brain damage and in most cases, drug

companies are now beginning to admit that most of the time, the drugs

do not work.

Please retain objectivity on this subject by regularly asking our side

when you write articles and by allowing us to counter NAMI and APA

when the write.

I'm sorry this is so long. Thank you for reading it.

Sources include: www.psychrights.org, ssen and Black 3rd Edition

(a psychiatry textbook), Breggin, M.D., Oaks at

www.mindfreedom.org (in Eugene, Oregon), Courtenay Harding - Director

of the Sargent School of Rehabilitation at Boston University, Loren

Mosher, M.D., Szasz, M.D., CCHR International, and more.

Vonne Worth

February 21, 2004