Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

Introduction

The role of the media has been the subject of intense debate since its inception (Fowler,

1991), particularly in relation to the socio-economic development of countries considered

part of the ‘minority world’ (Stone, 1999). According to Golding (1992), political and market

exploitation and marginalisation requires an ‘ideological basis’, formed through public

opinion and facilitated by the media. There is, of course, a positive interpretation to be found

in the media’s role in the battle for cultural diversity and equality (Bagdikian, 1983), however

this is largely overshadowed by the institutional racism and ethnicism practiced by some parts

of the media and the socio-political ideologies of those that control them (van Dijk, 1991).

Whilst the majority of media outlets will not condone extremism, discrimination or exclusion

(van Dijk, 1993), the role of television and news-related media has served to aggravate social

or ethnic division , for instance, in South Asia and the countries of former Yugoslavia

(Sparks, 1994; Meeuwis, 1993).

Through research (Herman, 1992), the Western media continue to advance stereotypes and

prejudices toward minority groups, which are potentially absorbed into the public and

political consciousness. Forgoing, for the moment, the problems encountered by other

minority groups, it is disabled people who form the core focus of this paper. ‘Disability’ as

an umbrella term very readily applied to issues concerning physical impairment, learning

difficulties or mental health conditions, has not enjoyed an empowering, or even a

particularly positive, relationship with the media (Barnes, 1992).

Disability imagery is often impairment-focused, wherein impairment is portrayed as the cause

of disability, and which is, therefore, ignorant of any social constraints imposed by a non-

disabled society (Darke, 1999). Whilst certain assumptions, myths or superstitions about

disabled people are constantly formed and reformed as part of mainstream cultural they are

1
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

subsequently reproduced by the media (Ross, 1997). The struggle for the mainstreaming of

disability issues across society has resulted in an attitudinal shift by those in broadcasting.

According to Darke (1999), a reduction in the number of programmes that focus solely on

disability has coincided with a shift in focus on the part of consumerist broadcasters

concentrating toward viewing figures and/or profit. He suggests that the politicised arguments

of disabled people, who promote a social model perspective to a diverse audience, has been

replaced by the occasional transmission of impairment-related imagery, usually from a

charity or ‘freak’ perspective.

By reviewing academic literature, this paper will assess the idea that misrepresentations of

disability in the media are responsible for the negative attitudes directed towards disabled

people by the general population. It will analyse the various media outlets broadcasting news,

information and fictional imagery to audiences which, along with, a review of the recurring

stereotypes, will prove paramount for understanding the root cause of negative attitudes. The

effect of these stereotypes upon disabled people will be discussed, as well as the global

impact of media portrayal on disability. The emergence of ‘new media’, allows discussion of

the positive opportunities and negative effects this has for disabled people and, some level of

a conclusion on the primacy of the role of the media in the circulation and propagation of

negative attitudes towards disabled people.

Defining the Key Concepts

Media Theories

It is clear that ’the media’, as an institution, is a pervasive aspect of modern society (Herman,

1992), however, before assessing its impact on disability, there is a need to address how it

exists, and for what purpose. According to Mayer (1999) the media is a communicative tool

which has developed and expanded to include various outlets, with the expectation that they
2
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

will act as conduits to reach large and diverse audiences. Media saturation has ensured the

public have continuous access to consumerist ideology (Stokes and Reading, 1999), fact and

opinion, in a dynamic mix which reflects and creates ‘culture’ (Tulloch, 2000).

There are currently three theories which attempt to explain the effect of the media on the

individual (Laughey, 2007). The first of these, the Limited-Effects Theory (Iyengar and

Kinder, 1987), considers audiences are in control of their choices and opinions, with the

media itself having only a negligible influence. Supporters of this theory explain how

individuals rely on prior knowledge and personal experience (Baran and Davis, 2002) to

formulate opinion, without thoughtlessly aligning themselves to ‘media-induced opinion’.

The second, Culturalist Theory, argues that audiences interact with the media, by receiving

messages and images and consequently, create their own interpretations (Curran and Morley,

2005). Culturist opinion holds that the vast number of options produced and distributed by

the media is controlled, largely, by audience desire (Poster, 2010). This theory demonstrates

the reciprocal relationship between audience and media, and concludes by deeming the

personal perspective of audiences as superior over the decisions made by large media

corporations (Poster, 1990). Finally, Class-Dominant Theory claims the media reflects the

opinions of minority elites which control the service and distribution methods (Berger, 1982).

There are concerns herein for the merging of major media corporations, which would

subsequently limit competition and restricting or manipulating the choice of broadcasts

shown (Stevenson, 1995).

Stereotypes are simplified concepts of individuals based upon prior assumptions; embodying

the personal ignorance towards the individual being representation (Ewen and Ewen, 2006).

Attitudes follow a process of transition, depending on the diversity of experiences an

individual goes through (Petty and Kosnik, 1995); an attitude is part of a judgement,

3
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

including emotional response, indication by behavioural action and finally, an evaluation of

the individual’s belief (Pratkanis, Breckler, and Greenwald, 1992).

While the media continues to use printed material, television or radio to distribute

information and imagery, the ‘new media’ phenomena has underpinned a fresh, interactive

opportunity to experience entertainment and revolutionise learning (Lister, Dovey, Giddings,

Grant and Kelly, 2003). According to Manonvich (2001), ‘new media’ is a global term used

to address the various technologies available; this includes new textual experiences, including

simulators and computer games, and identifies new media genres . ‘New media’ has also

aided the construction of relationships between audiences and media outlets, with

opportunities for consumers to challenge journalists or develop relationships with celebrities

and role models (Miller and Slater, 2000). The new phenomena allows for individuals to

tailor social experiences through Internet-based chat rooms, social networking sites and blogs

(Negroponte, 1999); generating a new concept of real versus virtual existence, which is

established for individuals to control (Spigel, 2001).

Disability Theories

Before analysing the media portrayal of disabled people, the concept of disability must be

reviewed. Numerous models of disability exist to explain what causes an individual to be

considered ‘disabled’. Firstly, the individual model locates disability as the functional

limitations which arise from being identified as a disabled person. It is common for non-

disabled individuals to view disability as a personal tragedy (Oliver, 1990), with clear

associations to the individual model. The medical model of disability considers the health of

the individual to be the primary disadvantaging factor (Oliver, 1990). According to

Shakespeare and Watson (2002) the medicalization element renders the individual abnormal

4
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

and dependent upon medical professionals, with rehabilitation and segregation from the

mainstream as the only means by which disability can be overcome.

Continuing the focus on the medicalization of the individual, Foucault’s (1980) research has

produced additional perspectives on the portrayal of disabled people; to the extent that

representations of disability in film are now studied using a Foucaultian analytical model

(Darke, 1994). Foucault (1988) highlighted how society attempts to rationalise abnormality,

through a process of categorically achieving a state of ‘normality’ by supervision and

examination, which concludes with knowledge and the opportunity to exert power. His work

(1980) has focused on the power struggles within society, with the physical body at the centre

of the debate. To exert power, one must learn knowledge through the organisation of claims

and assumptions. In relation to disability, the relationship between impairment and disability

has emerged, and persists, in order for the regime to legitimise the practices which generated

it in the beginning (Tremain, 2001). For the sake of media imagery, Foucault (1976)

explained how the emphasis on the physical body, especially those considered abnormal,

displaced the individual as an independent source of meaning (Hall, 1997). Rather, the

medical emphasis to achieve ‘normality’ ensured the perceptions of the abnormal body, i.e.

disabled people, were stigmatised and isolated in order to assert it as a true illustration

(Foucault, 1976).

The third model of disability pertinent to the debate over representation and portrayal of

disability in the media is the ‘social model of disability’ (Oliver, 1990). The social model is a

formalised set of values (Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation, 1976)

originally considered the ‘fundamental principles’ of the. According to Shakespeare (1994),

the social model allows for clear distinction between impairment and disability, with no

relationship between the two. The social model contends that disabled people are not

5
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

excluded and oppressed due to the nature of the medical condition; rather, it argues, disability

is rooted within society’s failure to accommodate disabled people with a variety of diverse

impairments (Oliver, 1990). As Priestley (2003) identifies, the social model recognises the

‘impairment’ as the health condition and the ‘disability’ as a product of oppression and

exclusion.

To evaluate the role of the media in its portrayal of disability, there is merit in reviewing what

academics and media professionals have recorded when looking at the different stereotypes

of disabled people, and how the non-disabled audience has responded to them.

Media Stereotypes of Disability

Stereotypes of disability are based on, and around, traditional myths and earlier historical

beliefs (Barnes, 1992) and, while the perpetuation of traditional beliefs is an inherent aspect

of normative cultural behaviour , they have been replicated, and, importantly transmitted

beyond their original socio-cultural boundaries through a network of various communicative

channels, including the media (for instance, see Shakespeare, 1994). As previously

mentioned, there is a continuing dispute over the social role of the media and, by extension,

the influence of mass media upon the general population (Iyengar and Kinder, 1987; Curran

and Morley, 2005; Berger, 1982). Nevertheless, the media is a pervasive feature of daily life,

with statistics showing that the most popular activity for men and women in England is

watching television, with listening to music on the radio and reading also highly desired

activities (Office for National Statistics, 2010).

As noted by Hunt (1966) some disabled people are perceived as examples of triumph over

adversity, whilst, others are objectified as pitied individuals to stimulate charity funding. Yet

the question remains, what types of disabled imagery are manifested in the media, and how is

it contextualised? According to Darke (1999) the negative portrayal of disability, expressed

6
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

by Hunt (1966), has not changed. Using Barnes’ (1992) breakdown of recurring stereotypes,

there is clear evidence that the public are exposed to negative images, which construct

disability as a threat to the well-being of the non-disabled community.

Firstly, the disabled person has been stereotyped to appear pitiable or pathetic (Barnes, 1992),

which maximises the potential for raising monetary funding for charitable causes (Holden,

1991). Charity advertising has continued to use such imagery, usually in black and white, to

illustrate show the tragic situation of disabled people who yearn for relief from the torment

imposed by their impairment (Corker and French, 1999). These images offer only short- to

mid-term benefits for the charity, and do nothing to raise awareness of the disabling barriers

imposed by society (Swain, French and Cameron, 2003).

Where fictional characters are concerned, it is a regular practice to depict disabled people as

visibly passive and dependent upon others, in order to demonstrate the altruistic and sensitive

side of the character that provides the platonic love, care and/or support (Barnes, 1992). In

films such as The Elephant Man (1980), the protagonist, Merrick, has a severe abnormality

which facilitates his tale of exploitation, abuse and institutionalisation. Throughout the film,

Merrick is seen as a literate, talented, thoughtful individual; however, according to Darke

(1994), it is the focus on these actions which instigates feelings of pity towards the character.

The audience’s perception of a man with severe physical abnormalities, who possesses the

capacity to think and talk, is viewed through tragedy; particularly evident in the tears shed by

the protagonist at his own image.

The second stereotypical depiction is disabled individual as object of violence (Barnes,

1992). Here, disability equates to vulnerability, and the individual becomes a candidate for

violence (Murphy, 1987). Television has displayed images of disabled people as victims of

violent abuse, ‘disabled villain who is punished’ or ‘disabled survivor of abuse’ (Gartner and

7
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

Joe, 1987); this stereotype concludes with the disabled character portraying a range of values,

whether the violence is committed to demonstrate tragedy – child with autism distressed and

bullied because of impairment (e.g. Black Balloon, 2008), or comedy – man with learning

difficulties whipped to force him to perform an action (e.g. Blazing Saddles, 1974).

News articles have also adopted this stereotype, with many sensationalising violence against

disabled people (Haller, 1998). The emphasis of these articles fixate on describing the abuse

and failures in the support services which led to the opportunity to cause violence (Michalko,

2002); the effects upon the individual are seldom described, and therefore the individual is

held up as ‘example’ rather than ‘source’, implying the disabled community cannot speak for

itself (Hall, 1997).

The depiction of the disabled individual as sinister and evil is one of the primary stereotypical

images (Barnes, 1992). Characters which embody these traits are visible across the spectrum

of popular media outlets. Davidson, Woodill and Bredberg (1994) comment on the use of

impairment to create tension in fictional stories; particularly the focus on physical

disfigurement when the character is performing an evil act, which ensures that the reader

implicitly associates impairment with evilness. Ross (1997) references films such as the

Treasure Island (1950) or Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1941); both have characters with physical

impairments, however the concentration on impairment exaggerates their depiction as ‘other’

and an associated absence of rational thought and moral standards.

Mental health conditions are associated with similarly corrupt behaviours (Barnes, 1992).

Newspapers continue to associate the evil or sadistic nature of an individual to instability of

the mind (Haller, 2010), reinforcing inaccurate perceptions that all mental health conditions

are dangerous for society, and most importantly, the majority of the community who are non-

disabled.

8
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

Darke (1994) demonstrated how the media stereotypes disabled people as objects of curio.

There are various reasons why storylines depict a disabled person for enhancing a particular

atmosphere, yet perceiving disability as a curiosity encourages non-disabled audiences to

consider impairment imagery as an opportunity for voyeurism (Barnes, 1992). The portrayal

of disabled individuals in a ‘freak-show’ model remains prominent in modern filmmaking,

especially with the popularity of the science fiction and horror genres (Pointon and Davis,

1997). Herein, disabled characters are placed for their shock or ‘scare’ value ensuring their

continued perception as an objectified ‘other’ as which impairment and behaviour is a

recognised trait of their non-human or inferior status (Shakespeare, 1994).

Even factual documentaries ensure that their portrayal of disability highlights a range of

impairments, from the recognised to the mysterious, to encourage a lewd fascination in the

audience (Sweeney, 2005). Recent documentary series, such as Extraordinary Bodies (2011)

and Little People, Big World (2010) exploit disabled people for the benefit of curiosity

(Media Watch, 2011). These programmes ignore their potential for raising awareness of

barriers towards inclusion and rather showcase only the tragic; highlighting the disrespect or

indignity faced by the individual. .

An equally pervasive stereotype is that of the ‘super cripple’; the disabled individual capable

of great acts of courage and/or determination (Barnes, 1992). The ‘qualities’ of which these

individuals are possessed are frequently unrealistic; for instance, in cinema, loss of vision or

visual impairment is usually compensated for with superior hearing (Schwartz et al, 2010).

Furthermore, the media links the supposed ‘remarkable’ qualities or actions of the disabled

person to the generosity or compassion of others (Van Kraayenoord, 2002). Many news

articles consider the role of a parent or carer, or, indeed, of an altruistic individual, as an

9
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

important factor for ensuring the disabled person reaches their potential, however, as Barnes,

believes (1992), the reproduction of such imagery can have detrimental consequences.

This image is not representative of the disability community (Darke, 1994); viewers

subsequently assume disabled people can compensate for their ‘debilitating health condition’

by utilising their superior abilities and therefore do not experience barriers to participation

(Karpf, 1988). Charity advertising has used similar messages to acquire funding from

sympathetic viewers. Many demonstrate the potential talents of disabled children. These are

usually relatively mundane skills which would go unrecognised in a non-disabled child, but

which are held up and celebrated in view of impairment, i.e. their hindrance (Corker and

French, 1999).

In juxtaposition to the ‘super-cripple’ model is the stereotype of the disabled individual as

object of ridicule (Barnes, 1992). Mainstream comedy has continually used disabled people

to extract humour from the functional limitations imposed by their impairment (Hasler,

1993). This can manifest through characters with limited cognitive capacity (Blackadder,

1993) or those who engage in illogical thinking and behaviour (Fawlty Towers, 1992) (Clark,

2003). Characters who appear mentally distressed for the purposes of comedy are typically

paired with a partner who appears content throughout the programme; the ‘voice of sanity’,

who is always depicted as a non-disabled person (Clark and Marsh, 2002). Such portrayals

undermine the idea that disabled people can be valued and respected members of their

community and significantly lower the self-worth of the individual (Biken and Bogdana,

1977).

Disabled sexuality in the media has been characterised by asexual behaviour or abnormality

(Barnes, 1992.). In many productions, sexual opportunities centre on male characters only,

illustrating the undesirable nature of romanticising with a disabled female (Kent, 1987).

10
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

Films, fictional radio productions and theatre shows have depicted people with physical

impairments as impotent, whilst displaying individuals with learning difficulties or mental

health issues as desperately craving lustful activities (Darke, 1999).

The final stereotype outlined here exists as a product of the portrayal of disabled people as

‘ordinary’ figures in society (Barnes, 1992). While this has been positively received by many

(Campbell, 1990), there are worrying trends accompanying the model. The lack of

appearance as a character with significant purpose to the plot, on the whole, is non-existent

(Schwartz et al, 2010); characters with physical, visual or hearing impairments are most

noticeable for having bit-part roles, not directly pertinent to the story (Clark, 2003). This

one-dimensional approach to disability fails to utilise the conduits of radio, television and

print, to publicise the reality of what disabled people encounter when participating within

their community (Ross, 1997).

There are many other stereotypes listed by Barnes (1992) and Hunt (1966); although they are

not rigid in their depiction. Many traits for one stereotype can be seen in others not

mentioned here, such as: burden, participation in the community and bitter because of

impairment (Shakespeare, 1994). There is evidence to show different media stereotypes

significantly influence audience attitude towards the national and communal identity (see

section titled: New Media, New Problem?) of a disabled person (Schwartz et al, 2010). The

stereotypes covered in this section are overwhelmingly negative, and have outlined what

perceptions they confer upon the non-disabled audience, but the effects have been analysed

further and on a global scale.

Audience Reaction

The media representation of disability, through television, radio or print, has a significant

formative effect on the opinions and attitudes of non-disabled people. (Sancho, 2003).
11
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

Across the Western world, the media continues to influence the public and political

consciousness by enforcing stereotypes and prejudices toward minority groups (Herman,

1992). Research has demonstrated how media discourse is embraced or rejected by

audiences based on the specific socio-temporal context in which it is published (Wilde,

2010), a fact evident in individual responses to disability (Cumberbatch and Negrine, 1992).

According to Wilde (2010), non-disabled audiences have difficulty in positioning the

‘dominant ideology’ of what disability represents within a social context; the lack of

consensus on what is a tangible depiction of disabled people in the media further complicates

the marginalisation of the disability community (Abercrombe and Longhurst, 1998). This

issue raises questions over the different identities constructed by disabled and non-disabled

people, and subsequently the emergence of a ‘theory of normality’ (Darke, 1998). This

theory makes evident the thought processes adopted by non-disabled individuals when

accepting disabled people as equal. With the media continuing to subsume the disability

community within a variety of negative stereotypes (Barnes, 1992), the audience assumes that

disabled people can only be accepted by others when conforming to the same media

representations (Darke, 1998). Whilst some disabled people emulate these portrayals to gain

acceptance (Nochimson, 1997), those who refuse are further oppressed by audiences (Sancho,

2003).

This oppression is borne from the notion that disabled people are rejected by non-disabled

people, because of discomfort and fear and ultimately a sense of difference between the

dominance of media portrayal and reality (Sancho, 2003). The objectification of disabled

people by the media has encouraged the ‘fetishism’ described by Shakespeare (1994);

furthermore, disabled people are used by communication outlets, including the media, to

project emotions and represent specific values. Sontag (1982) describes the use of freak-

12
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

shows in Britain during the nineteenth century, which depicted disabled people as sub-human

and reinforced the conceptual ‘otherness’ already held by a majority of non-disabled people.

Nevertheless, the behaviours represented by these ‘freak-shows’ are not consigned only to

19th C Britain, as noted by Abercrombie and Longhurst (1998).

Modern media has encouraged the phenomenon of self as a spectacle, especially for those

disabled people who believe they must perform for an imagined audience (Abercrombie and

Longhurst, 1998). The prominent, overwhelmingly negative, characteristics of disabled

people in the media (Barnes, 1992) fuel a desire by non-disabled people for increased

knowledge about disability (Wilde, 2010). This knowledge, however, is predominately curio-

or impairment-focused, and does not offer any prospect of equality for disabled people

(Pointon and Davis, 1997).

According to Mallett (2009), mainstream media portrayal of disability is the cause of

negative and discriminatory attitudes across British literature. Such approaches result in the

formation of theoretical and political mechanisms subsequently utilised to assert a set of

principles for ‘critical correctness’, or rather, to dictate acceptable terminology in the context

of disability representation (Mallett, 2010). Damaging stereotypes exist in the absence of

public outcry, discussion or official sanction (McRuer, 2006); which thus allows the media to

continue to expound messages about disability, for comedic or altruistic value etc., with the

expectation that non-disabled audiences desire a form of representation which adheres to

indecorum and transgression, and is devoid of chastisement (Tyler and Cohen, 2008).

In a similar manner to Shakespeare’s (1994) articulate description of the non-disabled

perception of disabled people as inferior as a product of media imagery, McRuer (2006) has

expanded on media involvement in the issue of global inequality for marginalised groups, by

claiming that the neoliberal capitalism which dominates our economic and cultural system

13
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

can only exist when ‘ablebodies’ demonstrate a tolerance towards minority groups. He

further explains how limited liberation movements have questioned the success of

heterosexual, non-disabled people; however, for such people to remain in power, they must

demonstrate a dutiful tolerance of such minorities. The media, McRuer (2006) argues, aides

this tolerance by repeatedly placing disabled characters in subordinate positions, ensures, as a

result, the wealth, power and desirability of non-disabled people, by establishing a distinct,

but, importantly, comparable, group. The end result being that, non-disabled people

sympathise with the minority groups struggling against oppression, but are, ultimately,

attracted to the elitism of non-disabled characters.

The media representation of disabled people has determined society’s expectation that

disabled people exist in social suspension, are isolated from society as undefined, ambiguous

people (Murphy, 1987). Accumulated stereotypes have engrained negative attitudes upon

non-disabled people, identifying those with physical impairments or learning difficulties or

mental health conditions as having warped or malfunctioning bodies (Murphy, 1987). The

concept of the ‘broken body’ as inferior and an object to control, relates to the discussion by

Foucault (1988) on the fixation of the body as an entity of power or, in this case,

powerlessness.

Disabled imagery is used to evoke emotion or symbolise, in a majority of cases, negative

circumstance (Barnes, 1992). Literature has argued that the media imagery of disabled

people has intensified the exclusion of disabled people by the non-disabled community

(Shakespeare, 1994). According to Morris (1991), the physical characteristics of disability

causes fear among people to the extent that non-disabled people fear becoming disabled

themselves and, by extension, objectified, asexualised or maligned. The consequence of such

is, inevitably, the separation and exclusion of disabled people from community and society

14
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

life (Morris, 1991). Nevertheless, Heavy (1991) believes it is not disability which frightens

people, but the impact of impairments upon society. This is associated with media

representation of disabled people as, according to Darke (1999), the majority of portrayals are

impairment focused.

Considering the global impact of the media on non-disabled people’s attitude towards

disability, Haller, Dorries and Rahn (2000) state that media coverage of disability issues

excludes language which favours the social inclusion of disabled people. Jones and

Harwood’s (2009) evaluation of media representation in Australia outlined how news

coverage of disability publicises the potential for miracle cures, and, by extension, create an

unrealistic hope for disempowered individuals and families. Such messages reinforce the

negative connotations surrounding impairments or mental health conditions, and

subsequently create a standardised cure-focused media model (Farnall and Smith, 1999).

Research pertaining to the influence of disability representation upon audiences in Japan,

attempted a comparative analyses from theoretical perspective of cultivation theory (Bryant

and Zillmann, 1994). Japanese media has, previously, been inclined to operate around a

hierarchy of impairments, which directly affects the decision to portray disabled characters

(Saito and Reiko, 2005); almost unanimously in one-dimensional roles which emphasise

their impairment in line with a number of social and environmental barriers which they must

overcome (Iwao, 2000). The reproduction of particular impairments and identical obstacles

has resulted, incorrectly, in an assumed knowledge, by the non-disabled audience, on the

issues faced by disabled people (Klobas, 1988). Their belief in an accurate portrayal of

disability, albeit drawn from a fictional source, generated an assumed duty of control over

disabled people (Shapiro, 1994), which, again, relates to Foucaultian principle of the body as

an object of power (Foucault, 1988).

15
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

In Romania, similar research was carried out in relation to media influence on disability

perception. Ciot and Van Hove (2010) explained the educational impact such media outlets

have had for Romanian society. He believed the media had contributed to the social

inclusion and acceptance of a minority group; however non-disabled people viewed positive

images of disability as individuals who triumphed over adversity, or sought cure to their

medical problem. Negative images had connotations of disabled people as victims of abuse

or passive ‘burdens upon society’. As Nelson (2000) highlights, such portrayals are

problematic for the struggle against exclusion, since even positive representations do not

align with the agendas of Disabled People’s Movements (Lang, 1998). As a result, non-

disabled audiences will empathise with disabled people who adopt a medical or individual

model of disability (Oliver, 1990) and ignore supporters of the social model.

Representations of disability focus on the medicalization component, i.e. the health condition

or impairment (Barnes, 1992), the result being that the media systematically treat disability as

a singular ‘problematic’ theme throughout fictional and non-fictional productions (Jones and

Harwood, 2009). Audiences have come to accept these stereotypes as valid representations,

and have acted accordingly towards disabled people in their communities (Shakespeare,

1994). Hitherto, the focus has been on conventional media outlets, i.e. film, radio and print;

however more recent research has also come to recognise the influence of ‘new media’. As

such, the next section of this paper will discuss how the Internet, virtual reality simulators

and new forms of media communication, has represented disability and, subsequently,

influenced popular perception.

New Media, New Problem?

16
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

The development of ‘new media’ has revolutionised communication, with the opportunity to

instantly express thoughts and opinions, develop multi-cultural understanding and, ultimately,

become immersed in a virtual world controlled and dictated by those who use it (Jenkins,

2008). This technology has the potential to support the inclusion of disabled people, and

change the attitudinal inequalities that previous media forms have encouraged (Burns and

Jacobs, 2006). New media has the capability to change or promote social, cultural and

political aspects of our society; however, according to (Ellis and Kent, 2011), whilst this is an

ideal chance for new media to alter the portrayal of disabled people and, subsequently,

popular attitudes, currently disabled people are marginalised within the digital world.

Films, television programmes and fictional stories which all adhere to the stereotypes

previously mentioned (Barnes, 1992), are now available to purchase and download directly

from the Internet (Ulin, 2006). The realignment of distribution towards online formats has

resulted in an increased accessibility for negative portrayals of disability (Ellis and Kent,

2011). These negative images, which result in prejudice, ignorance and intolerance towards

disabled people, are readily available for public or private consumption (Ulin, 2006). Yet,

whilst new media outlets are not responsible for the development of this imagery, they are,

nevertheless, responsible for their distribution. This is a situation which cannot be resolved

without a focused and direct deconstruction of the origins of these stereotypes (Sancho,

2003).

Discussion forums exist to allow users of new media technology to share opinion and

criticism, not least as they relate to entertainment services (Allan, 2008). They have the

potential; however, to reproduce the negative imagery of traditional media, as users articulate

their acceptance of disabled stereotypes and reinforcing their views among like-minded

17
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

individuals (Mallett, 2010). Messages which refer to particular stereotypes can evolve into

real-world ridicule and dislike for disabled people (Shakespeare, 1994).

This idea of user-generated content has significant implications for the attitudinal barriers

imposed upon disabled people (Allan, 2008). As conventional media is criticised for an

inability to delivery content aligned with public interest (Ellis and Kent, 2011), new media

formats, such as social networking sites and mobile applications, have allowed users to

upload newsworthy or entertaining pictures, videos or stories (Richardson, 2007). Whilst this

has benefited disabled people in the fact that events can be uploaded to serve as accurate

representations of those within a minority group, they are typically paired with journalistic

narratives similar to those stereotypes noted above (Barnes, 1992). Documented events

related to disability are edited, narrated and presented to conform to pre-existing illustrations

of disabled people, reinforcing the negative and disempowering attitudes of non-disabled

people (Jones and Harwood, 2009). There is also evidence of the exploitation of user-

generated content to abuse the marginalised and oppressed social status of disabled people

(Kowalski, Limber and Agatston, 2007). ‘Happy Slapping’, for instance, describes the new

media phenomena of filming the physical abuse of an individual for comedic value and,

ultimately, mass distribution (BBC, 2010). Considering disabled people are perceived as

‘vulnerable individuals’, thusly they are a target of bullying and abuse; the desire of the

audience to access this imagery raises deep concerns for disabled people’s equal status within

society (Shakespeare, 1994).

(Paciello, 2000) has argued that the Internet, a form of new media, holds the potential for

disabled people to take responsibility for their own image and to alter popular perception.

Currently, disabled people are perceived as inferior, sub-human and having a

‘malfunctioning’ body (Shakespeare, 1994; Murphy, 1987); the Internet, however, frees

18
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

disabled people from this social status. It allows for interaction with a diverse audience and

an opportunity to communicate which would not be possible in the real world (Thomas,

1997). Furthermore, by appearing on social networking sites and within virtual worlds,

disabled people can create avatar identities without disclosing their impairments and,

consequently, heighten their social role (Sharkey, 2000). This form of new media allows

individuals to promote messages of empowerment and to demonstrate the true potential of

disabled people without being stigmatised (Paciello, 2000). Yet, as might be expected, there

are also potentially harmful side effects. Online identities are ultimately, anonymous and

need bear no similarity to their creator (Thomas, 1997); this means negative messages

towards disabled people can be broadcasted and replicated with a complete absence of

responsibility (Huang and Guo, 2005).

Social networking sites have been credited as platforms for E-governance, facilitating an

extension of individualism, social relationships and community involvement (Ellis and Kent,

2011). Non-disabled people can be informed of the political mobilisation and social

interactions required for the disabled community to effectively battle against oppression

(McRuer, 2006), and can facilitate the organisation of an empowered, multi-national, disabled

group in an online context. There has, however, been criticism from user-led disability

groups in relation to the inaccessible and hostile environment of social networking sites

(Pachiello, 2000), which reflect a failure by education systems and social cohesion initiatives

to implement the needs of disabled people within the non-disabled society (Ellis and Kent,

2011).As a result, the relationship between minority and majority is further strained, as the

non-disabled public perceive these accessibility issues as a difficulty attributable directly to a

burdensome minority social group (Huang and Guo, 2005).

19
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

The hype of virtual reality has intensified with the development of popular virtual worlds,

such as Second Life and PlayStation Home (Reeves and Read, 2009) which provides users

with a virtual environment for communication, stimulation and creativity (Helsel and Roth,

1991). Virtual worlds hold great prospects for equality between disabled and non-disabled

people (Sharkey, 2000), whilst simultaneously recognising the socially-constructed disabling

barriers within reality (Oliver, 1990). The cultural, physical and attitudinal variation visible

amongst the users of virtual worlds allow for a culture where disability is considered within

an ethics of diversity inherent to the virtual community (Huang and Guo, 2005); although this

depends on whether disabled users feel compelled to use such opportunities to change public

perceptions of disability (Pajtas, 2007).

According to Ellis and Kent (2011), new media should be viewed in hope rather than

trepidation, when considering the public perception of disability. The various technologies of

new media permit users to take control of content and choose the information to publicise

(Jenkins, 2008). There is a risk of exploitation, abuse and continuation of traditional

stereotypes influencing attitudes and behaviours of non-disabled people; however, new media

presents the potential for disabled people to gain control and firmly place attitudinal

discrimination on the mainstream agenda (Ellis and Kent, 2011).

Conclusion

The media can be a powerful tool for developing cultural diversity and equality within

society (Bagdikian, 1983) and, whilst most media outlets will condone extremism,

discrimination and exclusion, many fictional and non-fictional programmes have exacerbated

social and ethnic division (van Dijk, 1993). According to Herman (1992), Western media

persist in depicting minority groups with negative stereotypes; generating prejudice and

discriminatory behaviour as a result. For the purpose of this paper, stereotypes of disabled

20
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

people were analysed to determine the influence such portrayals had on the majority of the

population. The effects of these stereotypes was assessed in line with the global impact of

media portrayal on disability; and finally, with the emergence of ‘new media’, the positive

and negative effects this had on influencing attitudes towards disabled people.

Media influence has been intensely debated (Fowler, 1991), with multiple theories emerging

to explain its existence. Literature has argued how audiences are primarily in control of their

own opinions, with the media having an insignificant role, or one which only serves to reflect

popular demand (Iyengar and Kindler, 1987; Curran and Morley, 2005), whilst others

(Berger, 1982) suggest that media reflects only the opinions of the minority elites which

control them. Similarly, the concept of disability has been scrutinised. One of the most

common perspectives is the identification of the disabling barriers as the functional

limitations of the individual, or considering the health to be the defining factor for

disadvantage (Oliver, 1990). The ‘social model of disability’ has become the dominant force

behind the inclusion of disabled people in society (Shakespeare, 1994), as it outlines the

inability of society to accommodate disabled people, rather than accepting inequality as a

result of impairment (Priestley, 2003).

According to Darke (1999), media portrayal of disability is heavily impairment-focused;

nevertheless, stereotypical depictions of disabled people are based on traditional myths and

historical beliefs, which are continually replicated and transmitted through communicative

channels (Barnes, 1992). Popular perceptions are constructed around triumph over adversity,

or focus on disabled individuals as objects of pity, evil or ridiculous (Barnes, 1992); none

promote or empower disabled people, and a majority of non-disabled spectators view these

stereotypes as an illustration of reality (Shakespeare, 1994). Clear evidence (such as...)has

shown how media can influence audience attitudes towards disabled people (Schwartz et al,

21
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

2010); therefore the false and/or negative portrayal of disability will only further distance

disabled people from the majority (Sancho, 2003).

Stereotypes promote the development of ‘normality theory’, whereby non-disabled audiences

will only accept disabled people into society when they conform to media representation

(Darke, 1998). Furthermore, the objectification of disabled people incites the ‘fetishism’ of

audiences, intrigued only be impairment or the particular characteristics of disability

(Shakespeare, 1994). As Abercrombie and Longhurst (1998) suggest, audiences have a desire

to view disabled people as a spectacle; oppressing their existence and reinforcing their

inferiority (see Foucault, 1988).

Whilst attitudinal discrimination cannot be the total responsibility of either traditional or new

media, (Allan, 2008); equality demands that the media act as a vital conduit for the disability

movement to promote positive messages of inclusion, aimed at the non-disabled population

(Sancho, 2003). Across the globe, media outlets are broadcasting images aligned with

individual and medical model concepts of disability (Darke, 1998); by adopting a social

model perspective, the media can help eradicate social stigma (Barnes, 1992).

References
22
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

ABERCROMBIE, N. and B. LONGHURST. 1998. Audiences. London: Sage.

ALLAN, M. 2008. Conceptualising Social Space in Cyberspace – A Study of the Interactions

in Online Discussion Forums. Saarbrucken: VDM Publishing.

BAGDIKIAN, B.H. 1983. The Media Monopoly. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

BARAN, S.J. and D.K DAVIS. 2002. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment,

and Future. California: Wadsworth Publishing.

BARNES, C. 1992. An Exploration of the Principles for Media Representations of Disabled

People. Halifax: Ryburn.

BBC, 2010. Happy Slapping gang members admit killing Ekram Haque. BBC News [online].

16 June 2010 [Accessed 13 May 2011].

Available from: < http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10331547>.

BERGER, A.A. 1982. Media Analysis Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

BIKEN, D. and R. BOGDANA. 1977. Media Portrayal of Disabled People: A Study of

Stereotypes. Inter-Racial Children’s Book Bulletin. 8, pp. 4-9.

23
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

BLACKADDER. 1983. Television Series. Produced by BRITISH BROADCASTING

CORPORATION. Northumberland: British Broadcasting Corporation.

BLAZING SADDLES. 1974. Film. Directed by Mel BROOKS. California: Crossbow

Productions.

BRYANT, J. and D. ZILLMANN. eds. 1994. Media effects: advances in theory and research.

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

BURNS, A. and J. JACOBS. eds. 2006. Use of Blogs. New York: Lang.

CAMPBELL, J. 1990. Developing Our Image – Who’s in Control. In: Cap in Hand, January

1990, London. London: Camerawork.

CIOT, M.G. and G. VAN HOVE. 2010. ‘Romanian approach to media portrayals of

disability. Disability and Society. 25(5), pp. 525-538.

CLARK, L. 2003. Disabling Comedy: “Only When We Laugh!”. In: Finding the Spotlight,

30 May 2003, Liverpool. Liverpool: North West Disability Arts.

CLARK, L., and S. MARSH. 2002. Patriarchy in the UK: The Language of Disability.

[online] [13 April 2011]. Available from: <http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-

studies/archiveuk/Clark,%20Laurence/language.pdf>.

24
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

CORKER, M. and S.FRENCH. ed. 1999. Disability Discourse. Buckingham: Open

University Press.

CUMERBATCH, G. and R. NEGRINE. 1992. Images of disability on television. London:

Routledge.

CURRAN, J. and D. MORLEY. 2005. Media and Cultural Theory. London: Routledge.

DARKE, P.A. 1994. The Elephant Man (David Lynch, EMI Films, 1980): An Analysis from a

Disabled Perspective. Disability and Society. 9(3), pp. 327-342.

DARKE, P.A. 1999. The Cinematic Construction of Physical Disability as Identified Through

the Application of the Social Model of Disability to Six Indicative Films Made since 1970: A

Day In The Death Of Joe Egg (1970), The Raging Moon (1970), The Elephant Man (1980),

Whose Life Is It Anyway? (1981), Duet For One (1987) and My Left Foot (1989). Ph.D.

thesis, University of Warwick.

DAVIDSON, I.F.W.K., G. WOODILL. and E. BREDBERG.1994. Images of Disability in

19th Century British Children’s Literature. Disability and Society. 9(1), pp. 33-46.

DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE. 1941. Film. Directed by Victor FLEMING. California:

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

25
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

ELLIS, K. and M. KENT. 2011. Disability and New Media. New York: Routledge.

EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE. 2011. Television Series. Produced by CHANNEL 4. London:

Channel 4 Productions.

EWEN, S. and E. EWEN. 2006. Typecasting: On the Arts and Sciences of Human Inequality.

New York: Seven Stories Press.

FARNALL, O. and K.A SMITH. 1999. Reactions to people with disabilities: Personal contact

versus viewing of specific media portrayals. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly.

76(4), pp. 659-672.

FAWLTY TOWERS. 1979. Television Series. Produced by BRITISH BROADCASTING

CORPORATION. Middlesex: British Broadcasting Corporation.

FINKLESTEIN, V., S. FRENCH and M. OLIVER, ed. Disabling Barriers – Enabling

Environments. London: Sage.

FOUCAULT, M. 1976. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1. New York: Pantheon Books.

FOUCAULT, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-

1977. New York: Pantheon Books.

FOUCAULT, M. 1988. Discipline and Punish. London: Penguin.

26
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

FOWLER, R. 1991. Language in the News. Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London:

Routledge.

GARTNER, A. and T. JOE. ed. 1987. Images of the Disabled, Disabled Images. New York:

Praeger.

GOLDING, P. 1992. Communicating Capitalism: Resisting and Restructuring State Ideology:

The Case of Thatcherism. Media, Culture and Society. 14(4), pp.503-521.

HALL, S. ed. 1997. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices.

London: The Open University/Sage.

HALLER, B., B. DORRIES. and J. RAHN. 2006. ‘Media labelling versus the US disability

community identity: a study of shifting cultural language.’ Disability and Society. 21(1), pp.

61-75.

HALLER, B.A. 1998. News Coverage of Disability Issues. [Report]. San Diego: Center for

an Accessible Society.

HALLER, B.A. 2010. Representing Disability in an Ableist world: Essays on Mass Media.

Louisville: Advocado Press.

HASLER, F. 1993. Developments in the disabled people’s movement. In: J. SWAIN, V.

27
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

HELSEL, S.K. and J.P. ROTH. eds. 1991. Virtual Reality. Westport: Meckler.

HERMAN, E.S. 1992. Beyond Hypocrisy. Decoding the News in an Age of Propaganda:

Including a Doublespeak Dictionary for the 1990s. Boston, MA: South End Press.

HOLDEN, L. 1991. Forms of Deformity. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

HUANG, J. and B. GUO. 2005. Building Social Capital: A Study of the Online Disability

Community. Disability Studies Quarterly. 25(2), pp. 23-31.

HUNT, P. 1966. Stigma: The Experience of Disability. London: Geoffrey Chapman.

IWAO, S. 2000. Messages of television dramas: social psychological analysis. Tokyo: Keiso

Shobo.

IYENGAR, S. and D. KINDER. 1987. The priming effect. News that matters: Television and

American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

JENKINS, H. 2008. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York:

New York University Press.

JONES, S.C. and V. HARWOOD. 2009. ‘Representations of autism in Australian print

media’. Disability and Society. 24(1), pp. 5-18.

28
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

KARPF, A. 1988. Doctoring the Media. London: Routledge.

KENT, D. 1987. Disabled women: portraits in fiction and drama. In: A. GARTNER and T

JOE, ed. Images of the Disabled, Disabled Images. New York: Praeger.

KLOBAS, L.E. 1988. Disability drama in television and film. Jefferson: McFarland.

KOWALSKI, R.M., S.P. LIMBER. and P.W. AGATSTON. 2007. Cyber Bullying: Bullying in

the Digital Age. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.

LANG, R. 1998. A critique of the disability movement. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation

Journal, 9(1), pp. 1-12.

LAUGHEY, D. 2007. Key Themes in Media Theory. Berkshire: Open University Press.

LISTER, M., J. DOVEY., S. GIDDINGS., I. GRANT. and K.KELLY. ed. 2003. New Media:

a critical introduction. London: Routledge.

LITTLE PEOPLE, BIG WORLD. 2010. Television Series. Produced by LIVINGTV. London:

LivingTV Productions.

MALLETT, R. 2009. Choosing stereotypes: Debating the efficacy of (British) disability-

criticism. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 9(1), pp. 4-11.

29
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

MALLETT, R. 2010. Claiming Comedic Immunity Or, What Do You Get When You Cross

Contemporary British Comedy with Disability. Review of Disability Studies: An International

Journal. 6(3), pp. 5-14.

MANOVICH, L. 2001. The Language of New Media. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.

MAYER, P. 1999. Computer Media and Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McRUER, R. 2006. Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability. New York: New

York University Press.

MEDIA WATCH. 2011. Here’s to ‘Freakshow TV’. Disability Now Quarterly. 2.

MEEUWIS, M. 1993. Nationalist Ideology in News Reporting on the Yugoslav Crisis: A

Pragmatic Analysis. Journal of Pragmatics. 20(3), pp.217-237.

MICHALKO, R. 2002. The Difference That Disability Makes. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press.

MILLER, D. and D, SLATER. 2000. The Internet: an ethnographic approach. Oxford: Berg.

MORRIS, J. 1991. Pride Against Prejudice. London: Women’s Press.

30
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

MURPHY, R.F. 1987. The Body Silent. London: Phoenix House.

NEGROPONTE, N. 1999. Being Digital. New York: Knopf.

NELSON, J. 2000. The media role in building the disability community. Journal of Mass

Media Ethics. 15(3), pp. 180-193.

NOCHIMSON, M. 1997. Amnesia ‘r’ us: The retold melodrama, soap opera, and the

representation of reality. Film Quarterly. 50(3), pp. 27-38.

OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS. 2010. Social Trends. (ONS 40 Edition) [Online]

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [Accessed 12 February 2011]. Available at:

<http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/Social-

Trends40/ST40_2010_FINAL.pdf>.

OLIVER, M. 1990. The Politics of Disablement. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

PACIELLO, M.G. 2000. Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities. London: CMP

Publishing.

PAJTAS, P.E. 2007. ‘Navigating Virtual Reality Platforms: Virtual World as Niche for

Support Groups and Philanthropy. Harvard Brain. 14, pp. 12-14.

31
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

PETTY, R. and J. KOSNIK. eds. 1995. Attitude Strength. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

POINTON, A. and C. DAVIES. 1997. Everywhere: Disability on Film. London: British Film

Institute.

POSTER, M. 1990. The Mode of Information: Poststructuralism and Social Context.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

POSTER, M. 2010. McLuhan and the Cultural Theory of Media. Media Tropes. 2(2), pp. 1-

18.

PRATKANIS, A.R., S.J BRECKLER. and. A.C. GREENWALD. eds. Attitude Structure and

Function. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

PRIESTLEY, M. 2003. Disability: A Life Course Approach. Cambridge: Policy Press.

REEVES, B. and J.L READ. Total Engagement: Using Games and Virtual Worlds to Change

the Way People Work and Businesses Compete. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press.

RICHARDSON, I. 2007. Pocket Technospaces: The Bodily Incorporation of Mobile Media.

Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies. 21(2), pp. 205-216.

32
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

ROSS, K. 1997. But where’s me in it? Disability, broadcasting and the audience. Media,

Culture and Society. 19(4), pp. 669-677.

SAITO, S. and I. REIKO. 2005. The invisible minority: under-representation of people with

disabilities in prime-time TV dramas in Japan. Disability and Society. 20(4), pp. 437-451.

SANCHO, J. 2003. Disabling prejudices: Attitudes towards disability and its portrayal on

television. London: British Broadcasting Corporation.

SCHWARTZ, D., E. BLUE., M. MCDONALD., G. GIULIANI., G. WEBER., H. SEIRUP.,

S. ROSE., D. ELKIS-ALBUHOFF., J. ROSENFELD. and A. PERKINS. 2010. Dispelling

stereotypes: promoting disability equality through film. Disability and Society. 25(7), pp.

841-848.

SHAKESPEARE, T. 1994. Cultural representation of disabled people: dustbins for

disavowal? Disability and Society, 9(3), pp. 283-299.

SHAKESPEARE, T. and N. WATSON. 2002. The social model of disability: an outdated

ideology? Research in Social Science and Disability, 2, pp. 9-28.

SHAPIRO, J.P. 1994. No pity: people with disabilities forging a new civil rights movement.

New York: Times Books.

33
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

SHARKEY, P. 2000. Proceedings of the International Conference on Disability Virtual

Reality and Associated Technologies: 3rd Conference: Reading: University of Reading.

SONTAG, S. 1982. A Barthes Reader. London: Jonathan Cape.

SPARKS, C. 1994. The Media after Communism. Special Issue: Media, Culture and Society.

16(2).

SPIGEL, L. 2001. ‘Media homes: then and now.’. International Journal of Cultural Studies.

4(4), pp. 385-411.

STEVENSON, N. 1995. Understanding Media Cultures: Social Theory and Mass

Communication. London: Sage.

STOKES, J. and A. READING. ed. 1999. The Media in Britain: current debates and

developments. London: Palgrave.

STONE, E. 1999. Disability and Development. Leeds: The Disability Press.

SWAIN, J., S. FRENCH. and C. CAMERON. ed. 2003. Controversial Issues In A Disabling

Society. Buckingham: Open University Press.

34
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

SWEENEY, B. 2005. BBC radio 4 and the experimental dimension of disability. Disability

and Society. 20(2), pp. 185-199.

THE BLACK BALLOON. 2008. Film. Directed by Elissa DOWN. Holsworthy: Australian

Film Commission.

THE ELEPHANT MAN. 1980. Film. Directed by David LYNCH. London: Brooksfilms.

THOMAS, B. 1997. The Internet for Scientists and Engineers: Online Tools and Resources.

Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

TREASURE ISLAND. 1950. Film. Directed by Byron HASKIN. Buckinghamshire: Walt

Disney Productions.

TREMAIN, S. 2001. “On the Government of Disability.” Social Theory and Practice. 27(4),

pp. 617-636.

TULLOCH, J. 2000. Watching Television Audiences: cultural theory and methods. London:

Arnold.

TYLER, M. and L. COHEN. 2008. Management in/as comic relief: Queer theory and gender

performativity in “The Office.” Gender, Work and Organisation. 15(2), pp. 113-128.

35
Media and Disability Author: Miro Griffiths May 2011

ULIN, J. 2006. The Business of Media Distribution. Waltham: Focal Press.

UNION OF THE PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED AGAINST SEGREGATION. 1976.

Fundamental Principles of Disability [online]. London: Union of the Physically Impaired

Against Segregation. [Accessed 14 November 2010]. Available at:

<http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/index>.

VAN DIJK, T.A. 1991. Racism and the Press. London: Routledge.

VAN DIJK, T.A. 1993. Elite Discourse and Racism, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

VAN KRAAYENOORD, C. 2002. Celebrity and Disability. International Journal of

Disability, Development and Education. 49(4), pp. 333-336.

WILDE, A. 2010. Spectacle, Performance and the Re-Presentation of Disability and

Impairment. Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal. 6(3), pp. 34-43.

36