Montana
Mental health crisis in Montana: A conversation with the editor – Daily Montanan
Mental health isn’t an unfamiliar topic in Montana.
For years, the Treasure State has been at the top of lists for states with the most severe suicide rates.
Even under the best circumstances, mental health care providers are limited, if not scarce. And, a host of factors make mental health a difficult, persistent problem.
This year, journalism students at the University of Montana School of Journalism tackled the multi-faceted challenges of mental health under the Big Sky. The Daily Montanan, in collaboration with the students, will be publishing a series of articles from the students’ publication, Byline magazine, every Sunday through March, in an effort to highlight the important work of the journalists and the timely topic of mental health in Montana.
Daily Montanan editor Darrell Ehrlick sat down with Byline editor-in-chief McKenna Johnson for an interview about the reporting challenges and findings the team discovered while working intensively on the subject.
Please note this interview has been edited for length and clarity:
Daily Montanan: Tell me a little bit about the genesis. Where did you get the idea for this particular topic?
McKenna Johnson: I’m not entirely sure who came up with that idea. We ended up settling on mental health in Montana, specifically we wanted to focus on just stories in Montana. And we had thought, ‘You know, we could go broad; we could go more specific,’ but I think this is what is going to serve our audience best if we focus on mental health in Montana. We wanted to focus on stories that we didn’t see as much.
DM: Did it take a lot of convincing the staff that this was a good topic, or was there a hunger for this topic? Because it’s sometimes a tough topic to report and cover.
Johnson: I don’t think it took much convincing at all. I think if there were any people who weren’t super convinced they didn’t show it, or it was really easy to find different niches within that topic. I think once people got into the process, they realized there are so many different ways you can go with this topic. There’s so much that we mentioned that we talked about that we didn’t get to put in the final magazine, and I think that’s really a testament to just how how eager everyone was to dive into these stories. Kind of the hard part was really picking and choosing where to focus our attention. You know, we have a classroom situation. We only have a semester. We had so much interest in so many specific topics to choose from within the realm of mental health and I think part of that, too, is our generation specifically. I think the conversations we’re having around mental health are becoming a little bit more free flowing, and people want to talk about these stories. And some of it was we maybe thought there was a story that was done on a topic that we thought was done really well and we wanted to dive deeper into it. And then there were stories that maybe we didn’t see published and so we wanted to go write those ourselves. You’re right: It can be a really hard topic to talk about. And so we decided we were going to break it down a little bit, have that experience of reporting on something hard that makes sense.
DM: It’s interesting to me that you would choose that topic because to me that’s a really hard topic. It can be nuanced. It’s not exactly always an uplifting topic. I mean, the first story you did was on isolation and suicide. Did you have any hesitation as the editor or did the staff have hesitation about covering a topic that, I think as you mentioned it in your column, has a taboo surrounding it?
Johnson: We had a lot of conversations on getting kind of the whole picture on mental health. This was the state of mental health in Montana. Like you said, that first story by a reporter was about isolation and suicide and all of the factors that you know, make Montana kind of a unique situation in that regard. We wanted to do those hard stories, but I think we talked a lot about balancing out with, like, for example, in the print edition right after that story is a little bit of a lighter piece about crisis line workers and one of the callers. We talk about what works for a crisis line and talk about methods that people are doing to uplift — maybe that wasn’t quite the right word — but like, combat some of the harder stuff with mental health. So we wanted that to be representative in our coverage.
DM: What were you most surprised to learn about mental health in Montana?
Johnson: One of the facts that I was most surprised to learn in this came from a guest speaker that we had come into the class while we were kind of early on in our pitching stage of the magazine. It came in from NAMI, the National Alliance on Mental Health, which talked about in Montana, how two of the most at-risk groups for mental health challenges are Indigenous men and then kind of middle-aged, most often, white ranchers. And so that was that was one of the statistics that kind of sparked that first story about what are all of these factors that go into mental health in Montana? Those are two demographics that you might not know.
DM: So after doing this and really studying the issue intensively, what do you think you can say definitively about mental health in Montana as it currently is?
Johnson: I think there’s always something we can do to provide more resources, more open conversations and reaching out to communities who don’t have those resources. People in general, they’re just so resilient. And you know, I think I mentioned it to in my editor’s column: Everyone can be susceptible to mental health challenges. We should have and be able to have these open conversations about it, while also recognizing like how hard it is to deal with it. I think that was something that just from multiple sources in every story that kind of shines through is just the resiliency of people, especially here in Montana.
DM: Is there something about Montana that makes this series of stories different than what they would be in other states?
Johnson: We tried to choose stories that were very specific to people in Montana, and some of the stories might be a little bit more broad, but specific to a Montana angle. I think in some ways, yes. And in some ways, no, because I think Montana is such a special place. We have the great outdoors, and then with that comes some of the struggles. We keep coming back to isolation, for example, that you might not get if you’re going to do a mental health magazine in a state like New York.
DM: Was there anything the staff really wrestled with when it came to covering a particular topic or aspect of mental health in Montana?
Johnson: I think one thing that we wrestled with was we didn’t want to have the whole magazine be like: Oh my gosh, the state of mental health in Montana is horrible. And it’s never gonna get like we want it to be And one of the things that we kind of realized going into it is that not every story, but a couple of the stories, tended to center on suicide. We kind of wrestled with whether that is gonna be like a deterrent for some people because it is such a hard topic to cover and report. And we also really recognized it’s a hard topic to read about, too. Some of the stories maybe didn’t set out to be about something like that, but that’s where the source landed. And that’s where the stories ended up going. And so we wanted it to be honest.
DM: How did you overcome the kind of idea that talking about suicide, or mental health might be damaging to an audience? You know, there’s always been that, ‘If you mention it, it might happen?’ Or you might you might be giving suicide or mental health too much attention.
Johnson: I don’t think we spent too much time worrying about it because we had made the decision that we were going to tackle some of those hard topics. We brought in a couple of guest speakers. And we looked at how do you cover these while being sensitive? We sat down a lot with reporters and the faculty advisors when we were looking at some of those suicide stories. We really looked at, are we covering these in a sensitive way? Are we being respectful to the sources? Are we doing this in a way that is going to reduce harm and also tell the truth? I feel like we talked about a lot of that in journalism school, and so we knew we wanted to cover those topics. And so we didn’t necessarily shy away from them. It was more of a question of: OK, how do you do this right?
DM: So, I mean, you you asked the question: How do you do it right?
Johnson: I mean, it’s hard. I don’t know if I have have a wonderful answer. And, you know, I still wake up and think about it sometimes. I really think it comes down to reading it and thinking, ‘OK, if I was the source, how would I take it, reading this, or if I was someone coming at this like from a completely blank slate? How would I read this, and thinking about it from different angles, and really having having empathy in your reporting — we talked about that a lot, too. So it’s hard and I don’t have an easy answer.
DM: How did you make sure that you were taking care of the staff’s mental health because reporting on mental health can be a challenge to your mental health?
Johnson: For me as a leader, I tried to check in with people and tried to have open lines of communication. I think one thing we tried to convey to our staff is like, ‘You guys, we are people first, this is really hard to report on mental health.’ We brought in right at the beginning some guest speakers who had covered very mentally taxing topics, and they talked about their coping mechanisms and, and things like that, that we can use. We tried to have some open dialogue, open conversation about it, and recognize that this is gonna be a really hard thing we’re doing. Also, we were like, it’s fine not to be fine all the time, if that makes sense.
DM: Let’s talk for a moment about if you could have a magic wand or you could be a policy director, high up in the state, what would your recommendations be to improve mental health in Montana?
Johnson: One of the things is the Mental Health Commission (being led by Rep. Bob Keenan), being very aware of the power of this commission and using it correctly. I really think another thing that is talked about is mental health in Montana is something that a lot of people struggle with, it’s just a stigma. And I think anything that people can do, to just bring about open conversations and try to decrease that level of stigma that people have is one thing that people can do to make the situation better because it’s really hard to offer resources and help people without breaking down that stigma.
DM: Did you find that it was as much of a stigma as you thought? In other words, was it hard to get people to share their stories?
Johnson: Depending on the story, some of them were a little bit harder. Some needed a little bit more time and being patient and letting people be comfortable with the idea of opening up. I think what a lot of people found is a lot of people want to talk about their story, right? And so when somebody comes and says: We want to hear your story, we want to tell it, what what can we do to help tell your story? I think people in general found that people were very open to talking about your story, and it can be hard sometimes to ask, especially when you’re talking about such a tough atopic, but I think sometimes we can, as reporters, get in our own head and believe they might not want to talk about it, but I think in our experience, people were very open to sharing their stories.
DM: What has been the reaction of people who have read the magazine?
Johnson: It’s still pretty fresh out there. But so far, it’s been pretty positive.
DM: So what do you hope for this publication? What do you hope people take from it?
Johnson: If we can bring a little bit of understanding of the state of mental health in Montana. If this magazine reaches someone who maybe is struggling but doesn’t have the resources or you know, the knowledge to maybe recognize they’re struggling or or reach out and talk. They might see story like this and maybe resonate with someone in the magazine and maybe that will help them in their situation. Or maybe they’ll give it to someone who will relate to it or get them someone to read and go, ‘Oh, I’m not alone in that situation.’ Like I said, there were so many things that we didn’t get to cover. But if we can bring a story to someone that might make them think a little bit more about mental health and how they think about mental health and how it plays a role in their lives, maybe they’ll want to read even more about it and educate themselves even more.
DM: Do you think just having the conversations, being out there having a publication, having photographers, having editors, having people research it, do you think that is beneficial in and of itself?
Johnson: It’s very beneficial having those conversations, I think, but coming back to stigma, hopefully this magazine we’re putting out does, just even if it’s just a little bit, chip away at that stigma. At least it’s something people can go to that will hopefully inspire people to have have conversations
DM: Do you think it is becoming easier for us to talk about mental health, mental illness?
Johnson: I think it’s definitely becoming easier. I definitely don’t think the work is totally done, and I don’t know if it will ever be done. I think it’s becoming easier to report and just easier to talk about. In general even, not in a journalistic sense, if I’m just talking with my friends. Especially after doing doing a project like this, I feel a lot more comfortable talking to people about mental health than I did when I started. Even if when I when I started this at the beginning of the semester I thought I felt really comfortable. Now, on the other side of it, I’m like, Oh my gosh, I feel so much more comfortable talking about mental health to people than I did before.
Montana
‘It was apocalyptic’, woman tells Crans-Montana memorial service, as bar owner detained
Tragedy brought people together in Crans-Montana and brought the country to a standstill.
On Friday, just down the road from the bar where 40 young people were killed by fire on New Year’s Eve, church bells rang in their memory.
They tolled right across Switzerland, to mark a national day of mourning.
Then, moments after the last notes of a special memorial service had faded, came the news that one of the bar’s owners had been detained.
Swiss prosecutors said Jacques Moretti, a French national, was a potential flight risk. He and his wife Jessica, who is also French, are suspected of manslaughter by negligence, bodily harm by negligence and arson by negligence.
Many of the victims’ families had demanded action like this from the start: more than a week after the fire, the anger in this community has been increasing.
At the main ceremony in Martigny, down in the valley, relatives of the dead were joined by survivors. Some had come from hospital for the memorial. People held white roses in their laps and gripped each other’s hands for support.
“The images we faced were unbearable. A scene worse than a nightmare. Screams ringing out in the icy cold, the smell of burning. It was apocalyptic,” a young woman called Marie told the audience.
She had been in a bar opposite Le Constellation when the fire broke out and suddenly found herself helping the injured as they ran from the flames.
She said she would never forget what she’d seen.
Listening in the front row were the presidents of France and Italy, whose citizens were among those killed and injured in the fire. Both countries have opened their own investigations.
Back in Rome, Italy’s prime minister vowed to make sure all those responsible were identified.
“This was no accident. It was the result of too many people who did not do their jobs,” Giorgia Meloni said.
She wants to know why the music wasn’t cut as soon as the fire started.
“Why did no-one tell the young people to get out? Why did the council not make the proper checks? There are too many whys.”
In Crans-Montana people have the same questions and many more.
For now, the only two formal suspects are the co-owners of Le Constellation, Jacques and Jessica Moretti. Early on Friday, the pair were called in by prosecutors. They are being investigated for causing death and injury through negligence but have not been charged.
Now Jacques Moretti has been remanded in custody. In a statement, the public ministry said the move followed a “new assessment of the flight risk.”
“I constantly think of the victims and of the people who are struggling,” his wife told a crush of TV cameras after several hours of questioning at the ministry.
It was her first public comment since the fire.
“It is an unimaginable tragedy. It happened in our establishment, and I would like to apologise.”
Nine days on, Le Constellation is still obscured from view behind white plastic sheets. A lone policeman stands guard, his face covered against the relentless snow.
What unfolded inside the building’s basement has gradually become clearer – and it’s the story of a disaster that should never have happened.
Mobile phone footage shows a sparkler tied to a champagne bottle apparently starting the fire as it brushes the ceiling. Covered with soundproofing foam that was never safety tested, it ignites quickly.
When the crowd eventually rush for the exit in panic, there is a crush on the stairs. It seems the emergency doors were blocked.
But another video, from six years ago, suggests the risk was well known. On the footage, a waiter can be heard warning that the material on the ceiling is flammable.
“Be careful with the foam,” the voice shouts, as people wave the same sparklers.
But the questions here are not just for the owners.
This week the local authorities in Crans made the shocking admission that they hadn’t carried out mandatory safety checks of the bar for five years.
They offered no explanation.
“It was a hell inside that bar. More than 1,000 degrees of temperature. There was no way to escape,” Italy’s ambassador to Switzerland, Gian Lorenzo Cornado, told the BBC, citing a long list of safety violations.
Six Italians were killed as a result.
“Italy wants justice, the Italian government wants justice and the Italian people want justice, for sure. The families want justice,” the ambassador stressed.
That includes for those with life-changing injuries.
The regional hospital in Sion took the first major influx of patients. The stress was compounded by the fact that many doctors’ own children were partying in Crans for the New Year.
“They were all scared the next stretcher to arrive would be carrying their own child,” hospital director Eric Bonvin remembers.
But he’s proud of how his team coped.
Some casualties were unconscious and so badly burned, it took time to identify them.
The most serious cases were moved to specialist burns centres elsewhere in Switzerland and in Europe where some are still in a critical condition.
All face a long, tough path to recovery which the doctor likens to a “rebirth” because many of his young patients have severe burns to the face.
“First the body needs to be protected, like the foetus in a mother’s womb. That’s what’s happening for many now. Then they will have to re-enter the world and find their identity,” Professor Bonvin says.
“It will take a lot of work and resilience.”
Add to that the anguish of surviving.
“They came round and at first they felt lucky to be alive. But some now feel this guilt, wondering why they are here, but not their friend or brother,” Bonvin explains.
“It is a delicate moment.”
In central Crans, the heap of tributes for the dead is still growing, protected from the elements by a canvas.
After leaving their own fresh flowers on Friday, many people then stood in front of the ruins of the bar itself for a moment. Remembering, in silence.
Montana
Montana pediatrician group pushes back against CDC vaccine changes
This story is excerpted from the MT Lowdown, a weekly newsletter digest containing original reporting and analysis published every Friday.
On Monday, Jan. 5, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced it would downgrade six vaccines on the routine schedule for childhood immunizations. The changes scale back recommendations for hepatitis A and B, influenza, rotavirus, RSV and meningococcal disease.
That decision — shared by top officials at the federal Department of Health and Human Services — took many public health experts by surprise, in part because of how the administration of President Donald Trump departed from the CDC’s typical process for changing childhood vaccine recommendations.
Montana Free Press spoke to Atty Moriarty, a Missoula-based pediatrician and president of the Montana Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, about her perspective on the CDC’s changes. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
MTFP: What happened in this most recent change and how does that differ from the CDC’s normal process for adjusting childhood vaccination schedules?
Moriarty: The way that vaccines have traditionally been recommended in the past is that vaccines were developed, and then they traditionally went through a formal vetting process before going to the [CDC]’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, which did a full review of the safety data, the efficacy data, and then made recommendations based on that. Since November 2025, that committee has completely been changed and is not a panel of experts, but it is a panel of political appointees that don’t have expertise in public health, let alone infectious disease or immunology. So now, this decision was made purely based unilaterally on opinion and not on any new data or evidence-based medicine.
MTFP: Can you walk through some of the administration’s stated reasons for these changes?
Moriarty: To be honest, these changes are so nonsensical that it’s really hard. There’s a lot of concern in the new administration and in the Department of Health and Human Services and the CDC that we are giving too many immunizations. That, again, is not based on any kind of data or science. And there’s a lot of publicity surrounding the number of vaccines as compared to 30 years ago, and questioning why we give so many. The answer to that is fairly simple. It’s because science has evolved enough that we actually can prevent more diseases. Now, some comparisons have been made to other countries, specifically Denmark, that do not give as many vaccines, but also are a completely different public health landscape and population than the United States and have a completely different public health system in general than we do.
MTFP: Where is the American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] getting its guidance from now, if not ACIP?
Moriarty: We really started to separate with the [CDC’s] vaccine recommendations earlier in 2025. So as soon as they stopped recommending the COVID vaccine, that’s when [AAP] published our vaccine schedule that we have published for the last 45 years, but it’s the first time that it differed from the CDC’s. We continue to advocate for immunizations as a public health measure for families and kids, and are using the previous immunization schedule. And that schedule can be found on the [AAP’s] healthychildren.org website.
MTFP: Do any of the recent vaccine scheduling changes concern you more than others?
Moriarty: I think that any pediatrician will tell you that 20-30 years ago, hospitals were completely full of babies with rotavirus infection. That is an infection that is a gastrointestinal disease and causes severe dehydration in babies. I’m nervous about that coming roaring back because babies die of dehydration. It’s one of the top reasons they’re admitted to the hospital. I’m nervous about their recommendation against the flu vaccine. [The U.S. is] in one of the worst flu outbreaks we’ve ever seen currently right now and have had many children die already this season.
MTFP: Do you think, though, that hearing this changed guidance from the Trump administration will change some families’ minds about what vaccines they’ll elect to get for their children?
Moriarty: Oh, absolutely. We saw that before this recommendation. I mean, social media is such a scary place to get medical information, and [listening to] talking heads on the news is just really not an effective way to find medical information, but we see people getting it all the time. I meet families in the hospital that make decisions for their kids based on TikTok. So I think that one of the effects of this is going to be to sow more distrust in the public health infrastructure that we have in the United States that has kept our country healthy.
LATEST STORIES
Former judge-elect sentenced to probation in drug case
A Lake County attorney who was elected judge but resigned before even taking the bench was sentenced to three years of probation in the very courtroom he was once going to oversee.
Group refiles corporate political spending ban days after court setback
The Transparent Election Initiative, an anti-dark money group, filed with the Montana Secretary of State two ballot initiatives that aim to prevent corporate political spending. The filing came just two days after the state Supreme Court found an earlier version of the initiative legally insufficient.
Montana
Montana Lottery Lucky For Life, Big Sky Bonus results for Jan. 8, 2026
The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big. Here’s a look at Jan. 8, 2026, results for each game:
Winning Lucky For Life numbers from Jan. 8 drawing
05-12-13-39-48, Lucky Ball: 13
Check Lucky For Life payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from Jan. 8 drawing
05-15-20-28, Bonus: 16
Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.
Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results
When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?
- Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
- Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
- Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
- Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
- Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
- Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
- Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.
Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.
Winning lottery numbers are sponsored by Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network.
Where can you buy lottery tickets?
Tickets can be purchased in person at gas stations, convenience stores and grocery stores. Some airport terminals may also sell lottery tickets.
You can also order tickets online through Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network, in these U.S. states and territories: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Washington D.C., and West Virginia. The Jackpocket app allows you to pick your lottery game and numbers, place your order, see your ticket and collect your winnings all using your phone or home computer.
Jackpocket is the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network. Gannett may earn revenue for audience referrals to Jackpocket services. GAMBLING PROBLEM? CALL 1-800-GAMBLER, Call 877-8-HOPENY/text HOPENY (467369) (NY). 18+ (19+ in NE, 21+ in AZ). Physically present where Jackpocket operates. Jackpocket is not affiliated with any State Lottery. Eligibility Restrictions apply. Void where prohibited. Terms: jackpocket.com/tos.
This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.
-
Detroit, MI7 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology4 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX5 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Dallas, TX2 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Iowa4 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Health6 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska3 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Delaware1 day agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach