The dicy role of reporting on disabilities

One day while hanging out with my friends, one of them told a ridiculous joke. The other went, “Lol you’re such a retard!” I told her that wasn’t a word to be used lightly or to be poked fun at because it is an insulting way to refer to people with mental, physical, and emotional disabilities. It is especially used offensively on those with intellectual disabilities. The same goes for idiot, imbecile, and moron. They are not good words at all regardless of the context in which they are being used. When I called out my friend on that, she just said, “Lol you take life too seriously! It’s just a word!” Words aren’t just words. They are powerful; no wonder why we have the adage, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” The tongue is too. Words have the power to heal or rip people’s hearts to shreds thus need to be chosen carefully.

Language use if a big factor that works to sideline or include other people. When it insults people with disabilities, it is termed ableist language. Ableist language is any word that causes intentional or unintentional harm or insult to a person with a disability, either of the body or the mind. People usually mean no offence when they say the derogatory words. They just flow freely and some have just become part of everyday speech. Still that does not make it right to say them. The same way people feel about racism, xenophobia, and religious intolerance is the same way people with disabilities feel about ableist language; it is the same way everyone should feel about it.

The word disabled itself is loaded with negative connotations if used thoughtlessly.  Think of someone saying, “Please disable the Wi-Fi.” In this context it would mean deactivate it, put it out of action, make it not work. Once people hear dis-ability, then they are ready to dismiss, disregard, and even discard the individual with the disability. These undertones are what make the term people with disabilities more preferable to disabled people. The former is known as people-first language while the latter is identity-first language. Although most people prefer people-first language, there are some that prefer identity-first language.  Those that are pro-people-first language say it avoids defining a person in term of his or her disability while the other group considers their disabilities to be inseparable parts of who they are.

The discrepancy in how people with disabilities prefer to be described poses a challenge for journalists and other communications people in some instances. In other instances, however, journalists use downright unacceptable terms. In such cases it is usually due to pure ignorance of what’s appropriate, rather than a deliberate intention to offend. Some offensive terms were actually used, some of them still are, in legal and medical contexts, but are not supposed to be thrown around in the dissemination of news and in general conversation. The medical and legal terms ought to be changed too. I have seen news articles describing deaf people as deaf and dumb, where dumb is meant to mean non-verbal. Dumb or mute are not acceptable to the Deaf community anymore. Dumb, in particular, is also used casually to mean foolish. It is also not considered right to talk about “normal people” in reference to those that do not have disabilities. When you classify them as normal, then what would be the opposite? There would be a group that you are classifying as abnormal, and that is not appropriate. It is more suitable to refer to a specific disability an individual has instead of just generalizing and describing them as disabled or abnormal. As for those without disabilities, activists say the term typical is more welcome, and the opposite would be atypical. One might roll their eyes and say it’s just semantics, but it really is not. There is always a better way of saying something.

On the subject of mentioning disabilities in news articles, disability advocates emphasise that disabilities should only be mentioned if they are relevant to the story. For instance, sometime last year a man who had albinism was murdered and headlines were screaming with “Albino murdered”. While there are some unfortunate events when people with albinism are killed for their body parts around the continent, this particular man had no missing body parts and there was no proof that his albinism had anything to do with his murder. In the end, emphasis seems to be on the albinism rather than the fact that a man had been killed. There have also been instances when there are reports of people with disabilities committing crimes. Some reporters will be very keen to mention the disability, even though it has no bearing on the case.

Regarding cognitive disabilities, sometimes there are reports about children suffering from autism or Down syndrome. “Suffering” gives the impression that these children are in distress or are writhing in agony, which is hardly the case. If anyone is in distress where autism is concerned, it would be the parent not the child who has it. Others in the community will also refer to such children or individuals as sick, and that’s also a poor choice. Some are just tactless, but most are just at a loss of the appropriate thing to say. This is where the media should come in to inform the community on the right thing to say, not perpetuate discrimination. When my son’s autism rears its ugly head in public, I’ve seen people struggling for the right way to ask what’s up with him. I can see them tiptoe on eggshells asking any of the questions: “What’s wrong with him, does he have ‘issues’, is he different, does he have a condition?” Thankfully, I do not mind responding and explaining autism as many people don’t know about it until they meet someone who has it.