Disability terminology in the media: a comparison of newspaper reports in Canada and Israel.
The terminology used to refer to persons with disability may both reflect and influence attitudes towards them. Negative references may perpetuate negative attitudes and stereotypes. This is of particular importance in the mass media which reaches a broad spectrum of the population. This study looked at disability terminology used in major newspapers in Canada and Israel. It focused on the nature of that terminology and whether its use was related to other factors, such as the disability model reflected in the article, the content of the article (e.g. attributes of the disabled person) and its context (e.g. type of newspaper, feature versus news items). Overall, the use of inappropriate terminology of varying types was quite prevalent in both countries. In addition, in Canada there were a considerable number of articles which had no direct reference to the disability. In general, the terminology used was considerably more positive in articles dealing with individual persons with disabilities (as opposed to groups), with disabled children and with problems of mobility and rights. The results of the study indicate that the choice of terminology cannot be explained by journalistic expedience and conciseness alone.
Auslander
G K
GK
Paul Baerwald School of Social Work, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, Israel. msgail@mscc.huji.ac.il
Gold
N
N
D001294:Attitude to Health; D002170:Canada; D003146:Communications Media; D006233:Persons with Disabilities / Q000145:classification*; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007557:Israel; D008297:Male; D009524:Newspapers as Topic; D012494:Sampling Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D009626:Terminology as Topic