A good friend of SubScribe took to me task over the weekend, complaining that my blog about Andreas Lubitz was unfair. 
In less strident terms than Brendan O'Neill, my correspondent said: "It's wrong to say we shouldn't be exploring his depression as background. If someone crashes a plane into a mountain we should consider whether his problems caused him to do that, while, of course, not tarring people with depression as being unfit to work."
Of course it is legitimate to ask questions about motivation. It is not normal to kill 149 people; something strange must have been going on in Lubitz's head. And that something will have been more than a fit of the blues.
My problem with Friday's papers was the way that "depression" was used as a catch-all term to cover any mental state from melancholy to psychosis and personality disorder.
In a way, O'Neill does that in his column, saying that we should be allowed to call Lubitz "mad", while gibbing at people who describe themselves as depressed when they're really just a bit sad.
There are, however, millions of people who fall into neither category. People who struggle to get out of bed, go to work, look after their families, mix with friends. That is not the sort of "lifestyle choice" most would make. These people don't want to tell their family or friends how they feel or the dark thoughts they harbour - and they certainly wouldn't want their employer to know.
This is where the stigma fears come into play. The self-loathing that comes with severe depression is bad enough, why risk making matters worse by telling the boss, who is bound to regard you as weak, unreliable or unstable?
Once you have "come out" you can never climb back into your closet. Every time you make a mistake or take a day off sick, you will fret that colleagues are whispering about your mental health and suspect that they regard you as weak, as a passenger.
Destroying those preconceptions, among sufferers and among employers, is an incredibly difficult task and that is why the way the media treat mental health and the choice of language is so important. 

As it happens, I find the Mirror heading more objectionable than the Sun's. The Sun headline is blunt, but it doesn't mention depression on the front page. Take take that out of the equation and just consider how Lubitz locked the pilot out the cockpit and deliberately crashed the plane: these are, indeed,  the actions of a maniac.
Then consider the Mirror. Simply factual, it seems the less offensive. But to me it suggests that suffering from depression is enough to turn into someone into a mass murderer. 

The same goes for the Express and Star - both offering simple explanations for Lubitz's actions where the truth was bound to be more complicated. The Mail's question is a valid one to ask today, in the light of the information thathas emerged over the weekend, but on Friday all we knew was that an acquaintance had told a German paper that  Lubitz had once been treated for depression. Should that be enough to bar him from the cockpit - and by extension any depressive from driving a bus, train or taxi -  forever?
It's obvious that anyone charged with the safety of others should undergo checks that they are fit to do their jobs. Lufthansa said that Lubitz had passed all its tests and was "100% fit to fly". He clearly wasn't. 
It is right that we should examine how employers can ensure that their staff aren't putting others in danger. But we also need to take care not to push them into unwarranted intrusions into workers' privacy or to rejecting job candidates on the ground that they once suffered from depression.
Lufthansa was aware of Lubitz's medical history and, under EU rules, should have been monitoring him, both for his own and the passengers' wellbeing. Scrutinising its failings in that regard is a legitimate function of the media. 
Implying that depression alone makes you a killer is not.

Sometimes our newspapers make me want to weep.
When Robin Williams killed himself last year, British papers had  plenty of time to get the story right. Organisations such as the Samaritans also had plenty of time to alert editors to the pitfalls of reporting suicide. They and mental health charities had staff available to guide journalists - and deal with the surge in inquiries from sufferers. 
But, as with the death of L'Wren Scott earlier in the year, most Fleet Street papers took not a blind bit of notice.
I thought the Williams coverage was a low point. But today's effort was even worse.

Just look at those front pages. "Madman in the cockpit" screams the Sun splash, coupled with a strapline and intro that describe Andreas Lubitz as a "crazed rookie pilot".

In the second of two inside spreads, the lead story asserts that Lubitz took a six-year break from his training after suffering from depression and burn-out.
A six-year break? Really? Six years? No. He took a break six years ago. Not quite the same thing. And this is just hearsay from the mother of a friend. Chinese whispers. 
The Times tells us - courtesy of Bild in Germany - that Lubitz was going through a "personal life crisis" and had broken up with his girlfriend. The Express has the same speculation and translates it into a headline that confidently declares that this was why he flew his plane into a mountain. The Mail, which two days ago was demanding to know why the plane was in the air, today demands to know why the pilot was in the air. 
There's no point in going through them one by one. It's too disheartening.
This is an amazing story. The detail of events revealed by the voice recorder was so chilling, so explicit that it needed no embellishment. There was nothing that could make it more dramatic, more terrifying. 
But it had been on the television, radio and internet, so papers were looking for a new angle.
And what a wonderful angle most of them found:
Lubitz may, we learn at third hand, have split up from his girlfriend. A situation that affects almost every one of us at some point. 
He may have suffered from depression, an illness that affects about a quarter of us at some point. 
He may have suffered burn-out six years ago. That's what kept Antonio Horto-Osorio off work for a few months shortly after he took over at Lloyds Bank - much to the hilarity and derision of the Press and the City.
Out of the window went every ounce of compassion and thoughtfulness and in came the clichés, the crazed maniac theories.
Oh come on, I hear people say, he had to have a screw loose to fly a plane into a mountain.
To which the answer is: there had to be something very wrong to make him do that. But being depressed or losing your girlfriend or suffering burn-out six years ago doesn't cut it. Anyone with an ounce of sense must realise that there has to be more behind this.  
In just one evening, the Times and the Mirror devalued all the work they have done on mental health issues.

The Mail and Sun made a nonsense of all their trumpeting about Press freedom by using that freedom to stigmatise a quarter of their readers. Because, yes, Mail and Sun readers suffer from depression too, and they wouldn't dream of crashing a plane with 149 people on board.
The Independent, Guardian and - to a lesser extent - the Telegraph managed to tell the story compellingly without playing the amateur psychiatrist. 
As to the rest, they make me sick.

I spoke to Mind this morning. They were very busy as a result of the press coverage, and one contact said: "We're stunned by the headlines this morning."
In the vain hope that someone with some influence in our papers might read it, here is their statement:

“The terrible loss of life in the Germanwings plane crash is tragic, and we send our deepest sympathies to the families. Whilst the full facts are still emerging, there has been widespread media reporting speculating about the link with the pilot’s history of depression, which has been overly simplistic.
"Clearly assessment of all pilots’ physical and mental health is entirely appropriate - but assumptions about risk shouldn't  be made across the board for people with depression, or any other illness. There will be pilots with experience of depression who have flown safely for decades  and assessments should be made on a case by case basis.
"Today’s headlines risk adding to the stigma surrounding mental health problems, which millions of people experience each year, and we would encourage the media to report this issue responsibly.”

Will we ever learn?