Although “inclusion” has become the catch-phrase of the new millennium, the media still lags behind when it comes to the portrayal of people with disabilities.
It is true that improvements in this area are not nearly as influential or beneficial as advancements in education and quality of life issues. But the fact remains that the media, a powerful and influential advertising machine, continues to find it mostly unnecessary to include people with disabilities as their target demographic.
For the most part the portrayals of disability in film and television have served as comedy relief. Unfortunately, inclusion in this manner limits both depth and substance of character. Although some attempts have been made to include people with disabilities in programming, is it a step in the right direction?
Shows like Joan of Arcadia and Blind Justice illustrate an effort on the part of producers to fill a niche, but the fact remains it is long overdue and serves only as a beginning.
Print media also finds itself culpable when it comes to including disabled persons in its market environment. The majority of ads in print media limit exposure in advertising products to those only directly associated with a disability. They seem to forget that people with disabilities also buy mainstream products like toothpaste, soft drinks, and designer sneakers.
Is it that difficult to fathom that people with disabilities should be included in the market environment in which they participate? Or is it just too difficult to find a woman and a guide dog who will sit still long enough to pose for a print ad?
Also, people with disabilities are primarily used as icons for a cause or a product that is related only to a disability, yet never as pop icons. This is best seen in deserving spokesmen like Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeves, and Muhammad Ali.
Undoubtedly all three figures deserve much admiration; however, it must be stated that media portrayal of these men tends to be in the classic “inspiration” format. It is hard to find images of people with disabilities living, enjoying life, or drinking milk, unless they have a sign in their hand that begs for money for some overrated research organization.
Ultimately, exposure of the Disabled culture in media is a reflection of the acceptance, or lack thereof, for people with disabilities in popular culture. Here, an argument can be made in two directions. The first is that people with disabilities still experience extreme prejudice when it comes to their viable role in society.
Included in this statement is an idea that being Disabled prevents a person from enjoying normal everyday life, so images portraying people with disabilities in normal everyday life is not necessary. This argument, although completely unfounded, can be made, and probably is made, by top ad executives and is therefore reflected in what we see in the media.
The second argument that can be made is that people with disabilities have not yet fully penetrated the media culture. Seldom do we see actors, writers, or models with visible disabilities. Barriers to entrance in these fields results in barriers to exposure in these fields. Unfortunately, this forms a vicious cycle.
It is difficult to say who, or what, in the media is to blame for the lack of realistic portrayals of people with disabilities. Currently the trend still remains that the Disabled are either icons of inspiration or vehicles of levity. For persons not achieving the level of success of an Erik Weihenmayer, who climbed Mount Everest, the media often overlook the dignity and integrity that people with disabilities exhibit in dealing with the social and architectural barriers that hinder equal participation. In addition, they seem to believe that in our world there is no need to concern ourselves with name-brand clothing or world travel.
Why not? Our money is just as green as theirs.
