Disabling Imagery and the Media
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
DISABLING IMAGERY AND THE MEDIA An Exploration of the Principles for Media Representations of Disabled People the First in a Series of Reports COLIN BARNES THE BRITISH COUNCIL OF ORGANISATIONS OF DISABLED PEOPLE Ryburn Publishing 'The history of the portrayal of disabled people is the history of oppressive and negative representation. This has mean that disabled people have been presented as socially flawed able bodied people, not as disabled people with their own identities'. David Hevey, 25 March 1992 First published in 1992 by The British Council of Organisations of Disabled People and Ryburn Publishing Limited Krumlin, Halifax © BCODP and Colin Barnes All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission of the publishers and copyright owners except for the quotation of brief passages by reviewers for the public press. ISBN 1 85331 042 5 Composed by Ryburn Publishing Services Printed by Ryburn Book Production, Halifax, England CONTENTS Preface and Acknowledgements Part One: Introduction 1. Discrimination and The Media 2. Background to the Study 3. General Outline Part Two: Commonly Recurring Media Stereotypes 1. Introduction 2. The Disabled Person as Pitiable and Pathetic 3. The Disabled Person as an Object of Violence 4. The Disabled Person as Sinister and Evil 5. The Disabled Person as Atmosphere or Curio 6. The Disabled Person as Super Cripple 7. The Disabled Person as an Object of Ridicule 8. The Disabled Person as Their Own Worst and Only Enemy 9. The Disabled Person as Burden 10. The Disabled Person as Sexually Abnormal 11. The Disabled Person as Incapable of Participating Fully in Community Life 12. The Disabled Person as Normal 13. Conclusions Part Three: Principles for Media Representations of Disabled People 1. The Language of Disability 2. The Portrayal of Disabled People in the Media 3. The Portrayal of Disabled People in Advertising Media Part Four: Complaints Procedures 1. Books 2. Films and Video 3. Broadcasting Services: Television and Radio 4. The Print Media: Newspapers and Magazines 5. Advertisers Appendix: References Preface and Acknowledgements This report was conceived, sponsored and written with the full co-operation of disabled people and their organisation -in particular the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People (BCODP). It is the outcome of a co-operative effort. From its inception the project has been under the direction of the BCODP Media Images Group and a research advisory group chaired by Jane Campbell (Joint Head of Disability Equality Training at London Boroughs Disability Resource Team and Co Chair of the BCODP) which included Jacqui Christie (London Disability Arts Forum), Kath Gillespie Sells (Joint Head of Disability Equality Training at London Boroughs Disability Resource Team and Regard) and Richard Wood (Director of the BCODP). Funding was provided by the Kings Fund Centre, London, and research facilities came from the Department of Social Policy and Sociology at the University of Leeds. Work of the study began on 16 September 1991. Findings are based on a detailed content analysis of previous research in this field and contributions from several sources including disability organisations, media organisations and advertisers. At the start of the research a letter was circulated to al1 82 BCODP member organisations and a random sample of 25 media organisations and advertisers. It contained a brief outline of the nature of the project along with a request for information on media portrayals of disabled people. Data was subsequently analysed and a preliminary draft of the report produced. This was circulated to all contributors and media monitoring bodies including The Advertising Standards Authority, The British Board of Film Classifications, The Broadcasting Standards Council, The Broadcasting Complaints Commission, The Charity Commission and The Press Complaints Commission together with a further invitation for comment. Received comments were then incorporated into a second draft. The revised document was discussed at a research advisory group meeting in February 1992. Further amendments were made and the final report was submitted to the BCODP Media Images Group for approval a month later. This report could not have been completed without the enthusiasm, help and co-operation from those mentioned above. Additionally, special thanks must go to Lesley Aston (Independent Television Commission), Jane Atkinson (Lady Hoare Trust) , Hilary M. Barnes, Steven Bradshaw (Spinal Injuries Association), Mike Brothers (Greater London Association of Disabled People) , Chris Davies (Disabled Workers In the Media Alliance), Alison Davis (Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child), Maggie Davis (Derbyshire Coalition ofDisabled People), Dawn Brooks (Disabled People in York), Bob Findlay (Birmingham Disability Rights Group), Bob Franklin (Department ofPolitics, Keele University), Francis Hasler (Greater London Association ofDisabled People), Maggie Heaton (British Epilepsy Association), David Hevey, Rachel Hurst (Greenwich Association of Disabled People), Bushy Kelly, Barry Lane (Arts Council) , Geof Mercer (Department of Social Policy and Sociology, University of Leeds), Robert C. Mitchell (ICI), Elspeth Morrison (Disability Arts In London), Mike Oliver (Thames Polytechnic), Ann Pointon (Disabled Workers In the Media Alliance), Anne Rae (Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People), Leo Rawlings (Artsline), Austin Reeves (British Deaf Association), Richard Rieser, (Integration Alliance) , Richard Shaw (Derbyshire Centre for Integrated Living), Steve Smith (The Spastics Society), Ian Stanton (Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People), Jill Stewart (Rethink), Barbara Stocking (Kings Fund Centre), Sian Vesey (National Disability Arts Forum), and Rosalie Wilkins (Disabled Workers In the Media Alliance) for their comments, contributions and support. However, it may be argued after reading this document that important aspects of media bias against specific sections of the disabled community have not been given the attention they deserve. The way the media ignores the sexual, ethnic and racial divisions within the disabled community as a whole, and generally undervalues the role of disabled women are two important examples. Unfortunately this was unavoidable for two main reasons. Firstly, one of the key aims of the project was to produce a short overview of disabling imagery in the media accessible to both media personnel and disabled people. Secondly, funding was limited and therefore the study had to be completed within a remarkably short period of time -four months. I accept full responsibility for these and any other shortcomings apparent in this report but hope that they will not detract from its intended purpose: to initiate from all media organisations a firm commitment to eradicate disabling imagery in all cultural forms and so help facilitate an end to institutional discrimination against disabled people. Colin Barnes, March 1992. Part One: Introduction 1. Discrimination and the Media This study focuses on stereotype portrayals of disabled people in the media and provides a number of important recommendations which will contribute to their demise. Although the misrepresentation of disability in charity advertising is of particular concern this report deals with the media as a whole: notably books, films, television, radio and the press. This is because the images used by charity advertisers are derived mainly from representations of disabled people in other cultural forms, and because the negative impact of charity advertising can only be fully appreciated when viewed alongside these depictions. The impetus for the project stems from a growing awareness among disabled people that the problems they encounter are due to institutional discrimination and that media distortions of the experience of disability contribute significantly to the discriminatory process. Unless otherwise stated therefore it does not deal with specialist disability media -some of which is run and controlled by disabled people -that present a positive alternative. Examples include BBC Television's 'One In Four', Channel 4 's 'Same Difference', Derbyshire Coalition of Disabled People's newsletter 'Info' or Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People's quarterly magazine 'Coalition'. Indeed, there is now clear evidence from several sources that Britain's six and a quarter million disabled people experience a lifestyle characterised by poverty and dependence.1 Traditional medical explanations suggest this is because impairment has such a traumatic physical and psychological effect on individuals they are unable to achieve a comparable lifestyle by their own efforts. Disabled people and their organisations reject this as a sound basis for understanding the problems associated with disability.2 They, along with a growing number of professionals and policy makers, particularly overseas, maintain that it is not 'impairment' - individually based functional limitations whether physical, sensory, intellectual or hidden -which prevents people from achieving a reasonable lifestyle but restrictive environments and disabling barriers. Thus, 'disability' refers to a complex system of social constraints imposed on disabled people by a highly discriminatory society (see Part Three). The problem of discrimination is compounded for disabled members of the lesbian and gay communities, disabled black