On a recent episode of CNN NewsNight, host Abby Phillip and her panel offered a textbook example of how mainstream media can fumble complex issues—especially when it comes to mental illness and public safety.
The segment, sparked by the brutal murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska aboard a Charlotte light rail train, quickly devolved into a shouting match. The accused, Decarlos Brown Jr., has schizophrenia and a long history of violent behavior. Yet the panelists, including Phillip, appeared baffled by the suggestion that Brown should have been institutionalized before the attack.
“He served time for his violent offenses in the past,” Phillip said, dismissing the idea that his mental illness compounded the risk. When National Review columnist Caroline Downey pointed out that Brown’s schizophrenia and criminal record made him a public safety threat, she was met with disbelief. “I can’t believe you actually said that somebody should be locked away in jail forever for schizophrenia,” Phillip responded.
That’s not what Downey said. She argued for institutionalization—not incarceration—and tried to clarify that schizophrenia exists on a spectrum. But nuance was nowhere to be found.
The panel’s failure to distinguish between severe psychosis and mild mood disorders reflects a broader media blind spot. Mental illness isn’t binary. There are degrees of impairment, risk, and treatability. Yet CNN’s coverage treated it as a monolith—either you’re sick and deserve sympathy, or you’re criminal and deserve punishment.
Keith Boykin, a former White House aide, added to the confusion by conflating civil rights with public safety. “You’re saying that this man should have been roaming the streets, that is your position?” he asked Downey, ignoring the fact that Brown’s own mother had tried to get him committed due to his violent delusions.
The result? A panel that shouted past each other, missed the legal context, and failed to inform viewers about the real issue: the dangerously narrow “imminent danger” standard that governs involuntary commitment in most states.
In the end, the segment wasn’t journalism—it was theater. And it left the public no closer to understanding why Iryna Zarutska died, or how many more will follow unless the law changes.
Let me know if you’d like this expanded into a media critique or paired with a policy analysis.