When a satellite is launched into orbit, we do not expect the accompanying news story to note that while squarely in the minority, some still question the legitimacy of the notion that the earth is spheroidal. The same holds for the politics of space exploration. When NASA’s budget is debated, journalists do not seek comment from the Flat Earth Society.

With mental health news, we’re halfway there. This week, the New York Times reported that scientists had found an association between schizophrenia and mutations in genes that code for the development of elements of the nervous system. Nowhere in the article was it noted that some skeptics deny the existence of major mental illness.

But the political coverage of psychiatry and psychology is another matter. In Sunday’s Week in Review, a Times writer analyzing the insurance “parity” bills passed by the House and Senate, trotted out the while squarely in the minority rhetoric, claiming that some professionals “still question the legitimacy of calling any mental ailment a disease.” The prime witness was one of Thomas Szasz’s followers, quoted as saying, “Schizophrenia and depression refer to behavior, not to cellular abnormalities.”

Is this detour necessary? Disease—think of epilepsy—often refers to observed behaviors. As for cellular abnormalities, that’s what those aberrant genes code for. Theorists disagree about definitions of specific disorders, and the “how much treatment” question is open to debate. But “the legitimacy of calling any mental ailment a disease?” Note to the editors: the paper could have run a complete and thorough review of the issues without raising that canard. Sometimes fringe is fringe.

Then again, the Times may serve as an accurate indicator of where the culture stands. As I’ve written elsewhere, mental illness is one domain where science and popular belief correspond only approximately. When we read a “debate over mental illness” and the while squarely in the minority view makes no appearance, that event will be worth noting.