A disability is a condition or function judged to be significantly impaired relative to the usual standard of an individual or group. The term is used to refer to individual functioning, including physical impairment, sensory impairment, cognitive impairment, intellectual impairment mental illness, and various types of chronic disease. Disability is conceptualized as being a multidimensional experience for the person involved. There may be effects on organs or body parts and there may be effects on a person’s participation in areas of life. Correspondingly, three dimensions of disability are recognized in ICF: body structure and function, activity, participation and the restrictions of these. The classification also recognizes the role of physical and social environmental factors in affecting disability outcomes. However at the same time disability is receiving worldwide attention, there has a been a major shift in contemporary culture that will affect how disability is defined and is perceived (Freidman 1999; McNeil 2000)
It is true to say that the media is an extremely important part of our everyday life and as an industry has been critical in the dissemination of information to the mass population. However the influence that the media holds over society has not always been used to society’s benefit, particularly in relation to disability, where the media has continued to add to the discrimination of disabled people. The media has contributed to disabled people’s discrimination via;
- Reinforcement of impairment and the use of the medical model of disability.
- Creation and underpinning use of disabled stereotypes.
- The role of media influences; the intended audience and current societal trends.
- The use of images, language and terminology related to disability.
- The under-representation of disability in the media.
Stereotyping is defined as the process where by a group of individuals categorise “groups according to an oversimplified standardized image and attribute certain negative connotations to all members of the group” (Moore, 2006:36). These negative stereotypes perpetuate the segregation of the disability community and contribute to the often subordinate status they occupy within society.
It has long been understood that the media has the power to shape the representation of social issues and effectively manage the understanding that the public has of the world. And the way in which disability is defined helps to explain how social perceptions and media portrays disability, definitions of disability usually fall into either one of two categories, medical or social models. The medical model perceives disability as the impairment owned by the person. This medicalised perception of disability allows little leeway for the role of society in the construction and depiction of disability. This definition of disability is based on the notion of normality and function with little thought to those cannot function normally in society within this perception. Stone (1995) concluded that the medicalised definition of disability ignore the aspects of disability itself treating disability as pitiable, helpless and unable to function in a “normal” society. The other model in which disability can be defined is the social model which is socially constructed to say that the responsibility for the disability lies within society rather than being solely the individuals responsibility this model argues that society disables individuals by limiting their worth and function in society therefore isolating them further. This model has a growing support as it “underplayed the importance of impairment in disable people’s lives, in order to develop a strong argument about social structures and processes” (Shakespeare and Watson, 1997:298). The introduction of the social model of disability has attempted to move the spotlight of research away from the medical model theories of disability toward an investigation of the impacts of societal perceptions of disability upon people with disabilities.
The media for the majority has notably depicted disability through the use of the medical model with impairment being the focal point, where Shakespeare (1999, pg. 164) states that “impairment is made the most important thing” and disabled persons are “objectified and distanced from the audience”. Where the disabled people’s inability to function in the “norm” of daily life is due to the direct result of their impairment, Media also uses the social theory of the medical model by degrading disability via stating the individual and the impairment as the problem requiring acceptance by their able-bodied counterparts in community to “fit in” (Nelson 1994, Smit & Enns 2001). However since the mid 1970’s there has been much call from the disabled community for society to recognise disabled people as equals to non-disabled people, and to take responsibility for societies contribution to creating disabling environments. The call for adopting the social model of disability has seen vast improvements to establishing the human rights of disabled people and much has been set in legislation. However the media continue to enforce disability stereotypes portraying disabled individuals which continue negative stereotypes and perceptions. A study carried out in 1991 by Paul Hunt identified key stereotypes that the media use to portray disabled people:
- The person as “pitiable” or “pathetic”
- An object of curiosity or violence
- Sinister or evil
- Laughable
- His/her own worst enemy
- As a burden
- As Non-sexual
- Being unable to participate in daily life
Shakespeare (1999) presents a potential reason behind the use of these stereotypes by saying “The use of disability as character trait is a lazy short-cut. These representations are not accurate or fair reflections of the actual experience of disabled people. Such stereotypes reinforce negative attitudes towards disabled people, and ignorance about the nature of disability”. Shakespeare continues to say “Above all, the dominant images are crude, one-dimensional and simplistic.”
Traditionally, disability has been perceived as “nothing more than a problem” (Stiker, 1999; Titchkosky, 2007). This understanding of disability is often legitimized through the use of apparent positive narratives of people who “overcome” their own personal tragedy. Images have played a massive part in the discrimination, perception and social meaning of disability and how disability and impairment is viewed (DePauw 1997). However there is more so literature that examines disability sport rather than the way in which it is portrayed, just as the images associated with disability have been focused on their contribution to the discrimination and social perception rather than how such images can help in the rehabilitation process. Stereotypical images used to portray disability are popular in mainstream media but they are most of the time continue to promote negative perceptions and connotations such as “monster” and are easily recognisable as dehumanising because of the close association and social perception as disability being “evil” (Longmore 1987). It comes as no surprise that traditional media outlets associated with sport, rarely use images of disability in a sporting sense.
Participation in sport is believed to help repair damage to an individual’s identity that occurs during the transitional period between an abled bodied and disabled body condition (Taub, Blinde & Greer 1999), it is also been noted to improve and enhance social networking (Ashton-Shaeffer, Gibson, Aintry & Hanson 2001). Disability sport is then seen as a tool in which to rehabilitate identity as much as it is used to rehabilitate impairments. This can be used in a societal context to improve disabled persons life’s by using sport and the impact sport can bring. The use of media and the effects they have on society and social life’s can change the perception of disability sport and therefore disability. However it is difficult for sport to reduce the stigma attached that contemporary culture assigns to disability and the disabled, in which modern society; images of disability and impairment have been long associated with negative stigma, connotations and portrayal.
The Olympics is where heroes are made. The Paralympics is where heroes come. (Steadward and Peterson, 1997, p. 8). One way in which disability sport is depicted in media is by the “disability as hero by hype”. This stereotype is more commonly referred to as “the super crip” portrayal. When not pitied, persons with disabilities are sometimes seen as “heroes,” or in other words, outrageously admired for their “courage” and determination. This stems from the belief that life with a disability must necessarily be horrific and unsatisfying, and as such, we must admire persons with disabilities for being able to live “the way they do.” Much like portraying disability as a form of lesser self-worth (as is often the case with the “disability as pity” stereotype), placing persons with disabilities on a pedestal is another way to denote this social group as “other”.
Current sports policy in the UK emphasizes a symbiotic link between the hosting of major sports events and participation in sport (DCMS/Strategy Unit, 2002). Implicitly, it is maintained that viewing sports events live or via the media is the key to revealing latent demand for active participation. The rational argument lying under such an image is that major events have positive effects and galvanise an increase in popularity for disability sport, and which can subsequently become exercised through the use of physical infrastructure developed as part of the hosting of the event as legacies (DCMS/Strategy Unit, 2002). The attention paid by the media to disability sport has inevitably reflected the invisibility of disabled people more generally in our popular culture. Both the Paralympic movement and the media have a stake in an enhanced public profile: the Paralympic movement needs publicity in order to raise awareness and to attract sponsors; the media recognises that the Paralympics is a fruitful source of copy. What is a precondition of a harmonious partnership, however, is that the media presents disability sport in an informed and unprejudiced way, and that this is reflected globally. Ian Brittain, in his summing up of research into the media’s portrayal of disability sport, draws attention to the sharp increase in the numbers of accredited media covering the Paralympic Games since the Barcelona Games of 1992 (Brittain 2010). It is clear from only a cursory examination of media sources that the attention paid to the Olympics far outweighs that given to the Paralympics. Some research has been done on this with Schantz and Gilbert (2001) concluding at the time of the Atlanta 1996 Olympics that many newspapers gave space to the coverage of the Paralympics only for image reasons, and cite research undertaken in the 1990s that has shown that the quality and quantity of print media coverage of people with disabilities was “of a low standard”.
More widespread coverage of disability sport raises the question however, of how this coverage is framed. One of the key themes in media and disability research is to investigate how media coverage can reinforce prejudice and misconceptions about disability. Detailed analysis by a number of researchers cited by Brittain has identified a number of common themes such as the amount of media coverage given to the Olympics as opposed to the Paralympics; the nature of the images used to portray disabled athletes, and the language used in describing them. The tendency of earlier media reporting to emphasise the heroic efforts of Paralympians in overcoming their disabilities, have angered Paralympians who wish to be regarded simply as athletes. Howe’s view is that the media have “framed Paralympic sport as a (sub) culture, establishing boundaries around it but seldom exploring what makes it culturally distinctive” (Howe, 2008). The reasons for a lack of coverage of disabled sporting games are varied. Perhaps the most notable one is the perspective of contemporary society and lack of understanding about disability. The lack of knowledge may resolve itself into a fear, a fear of watching, attending of even reading about a disabled sporting event. This implies a need for societal change of perspective. The media has the use of the “power of press” to change societies views and attitudes towards this subject. If the media can cover the event of disability sport as the main point of interest and the disability as a minor interest then disability sport movement can be perceived as a valid, unoxious reality. The continuing struggle for the equality of coverage by the media is not a new phenomenon, with the coverage of disabled sport being inconsistent and unremarkable at best. Notably a study by Schantz and Gilbert (1997) concluded the results were not unexpected in the way disability sport was covered by French and German press, however what did arise from the study as a note of interest was how the coverage was in the respect of how athletes handled their disability rather than their sporting performance. This coincides with the social view of disability using the medical model whereas the disability is seen as the problem and not society, more interest is taken on the actual impairment rather than the person as a person.
The way in which media perpetuates and displays images of disability can often have negative and detrimental effects on the way disabled athletes view and perceive themselves (Brittain 2004) which then in turn undermines the potential benefits of sporting participation. Disability sport needs a positive public image starting with media portrayal, to then have the desired effect of a positive impact on the self-identity of participants. The social acceptance of disability sport is not great (Leinert, Malone and Yilla 2003; Moeller, 2001; Schantz, 2003; Wanzel, Gilbeault and Tsarouhas, 2001). The Paralympic and disabled sport movement can be seen as “underdeveloped property with excellent potential” (Wanzel, Gilbeault and Tsarouhas, 2001) that surely with better media coverage of note could flourish. Schantz (2003) found in a field study at the 2000 Paralympic games that attitudes towards sport competition for disabled persons were “ambivalent and that freak show behaviours still abound depending on the sport” (p.85)
From Special Olympics to Paralympic games, sport segregated from disabled persons is often viewed as therapeutic, sport provides a sense of comradery (Brasile 1992), a sense of inclusion (Martin & Smith 2002) and physical benefits it can bring to participants (Guthrie 2001). However this seemingly positive step to engage disability into sport further highlight the fact these athletes are different and once again using the medical model to state the disability is the problem and viewing is as the main “issue”. With the emergence and raised profile of elite disability sport, for example the meteoric rise of Paralympic games, along with the recent surge of involvement between disabled persons in mainstream sports. This has correlated into a more globalised aspect to it and commercialisation of these events has seen a correlative rise in media coverage of these events and a rise in attention to these events and the athletes that compete in such mass sporting events. However the assumption that the increased coverage of these competitions is a positive step into the growing developments of disability sport. However this may be a forgone conclusion as the way in which is it portrayed by mainstream media may do more to reinforce negative connotations regarding disability sport rather than socially challenge stereotypical thoughts and perceptions of disability sport, the ability of the athletes and impairment and disability itself, which is why the need for real change should start with the mainstream media portrayal of everything that encompasses disability sport.
The underplayed contribution of those with a disability in Opening Ceremony’s is a significant cultural phenomenon which calls for scrutiny. As in our studies of telecommunications policy and disability (Goggin and Newell, 2000a, 2000b), they state inquiry into media, sport and disability through the frameworks provided by the disability movement and the growing critical disability studies literature. The recent emergence of disability studies as a critical scholarly discipline (Linton, 1998a, 1998b; Titchkosky, 2000) has added highlight to the importance of understanding the significance of culture, and also of media, as a dimension of the construction of disability. As there is a broader understanding in recent times that media plays a constitutive role in the social definition and reproduction of disability. The very notion of elite athletes who overcome their disability fits well within the established power relations and norms which actually oppress people with disability in society. These take disability to in here in the individual – rather than to be created by society. Media outlets are integral to this social, political and cultural shaping of disability apartheid, and to the designation of the Paralympics as the province of ‘special’ athletes with disability. Reporting on the Paralympics has tended to safely remain a restricted, special case of marginalised sport which need not upset the enduring general economy of ableist media representations of disability, though such a long-lived status quo faces new challenges from a new ethics and politics of disability, and its intersections with new media.
In recent times there has been a change in the extent and content to which elite disability sport was covered in mainstream media, as prior to the 1984 and 1988 Paralympic games. Brittain (2004) stated that interest in these elite disability games was said to be “non-existent” and any representation of disability sport was perceived to have reinforced negative stereotypes and connotations regarding disability sport and generally disability as a whole. Although media representation of disability sport has gradually improved somewhat over the following years, there is still no comparison to their abled bodied peers at the Olympics in terms of media representation and social significance. Also noted is the significant representation change in mainstream media between mega events, such as the Paralympics to which Cooke et al. (2000.30) notes; ”despite the little burst of interest which accompanies every Paralympic games, spirt for disabled people might well be taking place on another planet in the intervening four years” Brittain (2004:448) stated similarly that “interest from the media dies away completely within three weeks of the [Paralympic] closing ceremony” this said, suggests the true indication of the media’s low regard to which it holds disability sport and the performance of the athletes participation in elite disability mega events. Thomas and smith (2005) in their discussion of media representation of elite disability athletes note that contemporary media has characterised the portrayal of athletes is consistent with the medicalised theory of disability where the athletes are individualised by their disability and impairment, having to “overcome personal misfortune” in order to participate and succeed in sport. A study of Schell and Duncan (1999) of television coverage of 1996 Paralympic games noted the media coverage emphasised the perception that disabled athletes we “less than capable” (1999:35) and seen the athletes as “heroes” by “overcoming nearly insurmountable obstacles” (1999:37). This suggests the unsurprising fact that his type of media representation may well be reinforcing, rather than challenging” the traditional negative social stereotypes regarding disability sport, seeing them as more individualised in the sense of their disability using the medical ,model to the audience reached by the mass media. A key theme in media and their portrayal of disability athletes is to present athletes as “aspiring to or emulate the function of abled bodies athlete peers” (Thomas and Smith 2003:179) an example shown with Simon Jackson, a blind Paralympian being frequently compared to “the Paralympian equivalent of Steve Redgrave” (Thomas and Smith 2003:174) continuing the clear evidence of the way in which representation occurs in relation to elite disability sport. Brittain (2004:450) stated on ways in which the media can have a positive effect on disability sport “not only the amount of coverage but the content of coverage and the underlying perceptions upon which it is formulated” however he goes on to say that “it is argued that some coverage is better than no coverage, if that coverage is only reinforcing negative perceptions, it has to be questioned… whether it is actually doing more harm than good”. Brittain continues to say that “simply increasing coverage in the media of athletes with disability is unlikely, to bring about major changes in societal perceptions” of disabled people in a more positive way by those who are in a position to do so.