My impression is that there's a fairly vicious catch-22 at work here; there isn't a substantial dialog in our culture about mental health issues "from the insid

My impression is that there's a fairly vicious catch-22 at work here; there isn't a substantial dialog in our culture about mental health issues "from the inside," and as a result, people with said issues aren't accustomed to identifying as "people with mental health issues" in the same way as they might identify as "person with non-standard sexual orientation" or "person into such-and-such sport." And as a result, there's no one to have a dialog about mental health issues from an insider standpoint, and around we go again. I would guess that a print magazine is not an agile enough platform to jump-start such a dialog effectively. Obvious comparison; tumblr, among its multitude of various unusual communities, hosts a thriving little culture of mental illness thought, almost entirely derived from the freely available writing of non-professionals with first-person experience living with such conditions. A zero-buy-in medium is much friendlier to people with little initial commitment to the subject; a decentralized medium with no gatekeepers is able to fluidly adapt to the changing opinions of its user-base.