Submitted by Simon Minty October 9, 2009
In September D-MAP took the next big step and as the current Chair of the Media Advisory Committee, I met with some major US news networks. For as long as I can remember, disability has rarely been seen as a subject that is cool and sexy; however, television and media are seen as cool and sexy. So the plan was to see how we can become compatible. Of course in my back pocket, so to speak, I know those who work in broadcasting, print and online media are human beings, affected by the same things as everyone, including disability. Getting the meetings wasn’t easy.
We decided D-MAP should start with the big players, the US national newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters, both television and radio. Of the 15 or so companies I approached, about eight have not replied–yet. However, enlightened organisations, creative ones (and ones where I’d been given a contact) did agree to meet.
I spent two days in New York City meeting with CNN and NBC and two days in Washington, DC meeting with NPR, the Washington Post and the BBC News Bureau. Well, I was hoping to meet the BBC Editor, but this being news and therefore unpredictable with changes at short notice, he was called back to London the day before, so that meeting has been postponed for another visit.
At this stage, it is far too early for me to say how things will go. D-MAP’s aim is to work with major news outlets to get better, more accurate, less stereotyped reporting of disability, to remove the often cited bias in covering the Americans with Disabilities Act and disability issues generally, as well as getting people with disabilities as contributors on non-disability related stories.
It is about reducing the pity stories, reducing the inspirational heroes (who often don’t want to be) who are just living their lives. It is about making the whole subject a little more normal.
I say ‘reducing’ as I can’t see a time when clichéd reporting will completely disappear; sometimes, actually, it can be ok. But news should move forward, and so rather than bash those who get it wrong, I’d rather D-MAP work with the good organisations who are interested in better coverage, so we really start to redress the imbalance.
The people I met were either journalists, or news managers and editors. This was good news. Also positive was finding myself going down a well trodden path; many other single issue or minority organisations have been there already. I’m sure people with disabilities have been there before me, too, but those who I met saw this subject as something new.
D-MAP needs to learn from our predecessors and their experiences as to why they might not have had the success they hoped for. So, the path having already been cleared by other groups was a relief, but it also made me feel sometimes we are a little late coming to the media and news party. That has advantages—new, kid on the block—and disadvantages— “Oh no, not another group.” D-MAP is still young and will evolve and be able to change (as does news) yet stay true to its principles of reducing the stories that perpetuate discrimination.
Fortunately, I think we are on the right lines so far. Aspects from my meetings confirmed this. I was pleased to learn news networks are interested in new voices, including those with a disability. Learning how to pitch the “new voices” can be helped by deciding what we have to offer and what the media needs.
First, for example, the media could use experts on issues of disability who have a disability themselves. The news needs more of these voices, not leaving it to doctors, lawyers or other professionals to be seen as the expert and often to speak for us. Secondly, people who have disabilities and who are experts on other subjects, be it finance, travel, health, music, art, whatever.
These peoples’ voices will show we are multi-dimensional and have passion, skills and opinions as anyone does. I’ve mentioned other minority and lobbying groups already building links being useful. It also means there’s a lot of groups out there vying for news organisations’ attention. More than 400 stories are available on any given day, as many as 800 emails come in each day to a single News Editor (I get a bit tired after 40).
News organisations want to break the story, be first, the most interesting, appeal to the widest audience to get the most readers or viewers. On television, 25 stories might be picked to revolve, until a new one breaks. Breaking a story isn’t just the luck of being at the right place at the right time, it is about having pre-warning that something is coming, and being able to react quickly. It is about watching other stories, having reliable and knowledgeable contacts.
This is where D-MAP can work well with journalists. It is demanding though. If we see a news story and then take three days, five days, maybe even just one day, to canvass opinion, weigh up the pro’s and con’s, before we respond or to offer an expert, we’re not going to be heard.
This is not for the faint-hearted, and those bold enough to speak will inevitably make the odd mistake. That still sounds better to me than the dearth of coverage or the imbalance of tone and style. We should also be wise enough to know when to let it go—we don’t have to respond to every story.
Some tools for working with news organisations I knew, and were confirmed in the meetings. Building relationships and getting greater coverage, fall into natural time frames: Before, During and After: BEFORE: Sending advance notice of calendar and news hook events such as the ADA anniversary, health care debates, major disability events like the Paralympics. Timing is important here as two days’ notice is probably not enough; ten days is much more helpful. DURING: Breaking news—sending information about experts who can contribute and put things in context.
Our experts might have a relevant background, an interesting or alternative point of view on a news item. They might be helpful in advising what the appropriate language to use is. Response rates are measured in minutes and hours, not days and weeks for breaking news. AFTER: Staying in contact with regard to “older” stories (this means one that could run for more than a day!) and doing the same as above, perhaps allowing more depth to what was seen previously as something straightforward. Much to my surprise, those I met appreciate language advocates and welcomed input. And there was me going in thinking they must be fed up of being criticised for inappropriate or incorrect language.
Naturally, one of the news outlets explained they were pretty good at disability reporting, citing a story of a charity that shows films to children with disabilities who might not be able to see them in a cinema. Later in the meeting, we returned to the idea and I explained this is part of the imbalance: this was a “human interest” story packed full of emotion. Fine to have the occasional story like this if part of a balanced reporting mix, but I suggested this remains one of the formulaic ways of reporting disability, linked to all the pity/charity or hero/inspiration.
The realisation came and they got it! At the other end of this spectrum and what was new to one or two of the people I met, was a simple notion that people with disabilities should contribute to news items programmes without there having to be a specific reference to disability. In other words, mainstreaming or full inclusion of contributors, sources, journalists, media executives with disabilities.
This has been achieved over many long years for African-Americans and women, but this is not as clear and obvious, and yet to be realised with disability. I suggested there is a scarcity of people being interviewed in the street who happen to have a disability about a current news story, “vox pops” as we call them in the UK. An interviewer today would know that if they came back with their footage and had no female voice, no African-American voice or other minority voice, they would get a slap on the wrist, minimum.
I explained my experience shows there is a lack of confidence to interview people with disabilities. But this confidence will come. And they should know, if we give an interesting answer, use it, when we come up with nothing interesting, don’t use it. We don’t want to tick boxes either. To make D-MAP become invaluable to news media, it is clear we need to understand the needs of those reporting the stories. Some of the current internal issues for this industry will affect how and when they report on any subject.
For example, the idea that news is all about speed and scoops is clearly true, but now with 24/7 rolling news channels and online content, there is space to breath on some subjects, be it an authored piece by someone with a disability or a running blog. True journalistic research feels to me like it is under threat with the thousands of uncorroborated blogs (and here’s me writing mine) or Wikipedia, battling against rigorous investigation. This is a money thing, too. I suggested if disability reporting is seen as being something else that affects others or only a few, it won’t attract readers and viewers and therefore journalists.
However, it is all around us, be it linked to conflict, health care, travel, entertainment, housing, natural disasters—well, most subjects, really. What won’t attract readers and viewers is if the weary, dreary formula used to report such stories remains. If we can change this, get better stories, then more readers and viewers means more advertising and other revenue streams. As well as understanding how news gathering works, we need to understand the state of flux the industry is in now.
A big issue many news outlets are grappling with is how do they earn income from online content or advertising as newspaper sales decline and the market is so competitive? And news, like many aspects of the media, doesn’t work on fair and open recruitment; it doesn’t always get the widest input, varied opinions or voices. It is who you know, and about being in the loop.
How do you get in that loop? If we send unsolicited press releases or offer untested or not trusted experts, we will be ignored by many journalists, and rightly so. Building relationships, providing speedy responses, keeping up to date with calendar stories are a start. Disability isn’t going to be the number one priority for news media. We might not even get equal input compared to other minority voices, despite our great numbers.
The reality check is that what D-MAP is trying to do is very difficult. Other similar organisations have taken 20 or 30 years to achieve some degree of parity, but are still working on it. Plus, as it was pointed out to me, D-MAP comes from a liberal perspective that isn’t necessarily aligned to the news media, being hard-edged, profit-driven, and extremely competitive, experiencing difficult times in a rapidly evolving industry.
What D-MAP is trying to do, however, is fill a gap, and the people I spoke with confirmed that, as far as they know, no formal news network on disability is working with them. The reassuring aspect of the long road we are going down is those I met understood D-MAP’s aims very quickly. They knew of stories that could have been done much better, with some extra input from our team or other people with disabilities. And whilst they didn’t tell me directly, I’m reassured they or people they know have disabilities, so this is not alien to them. Maybe just alien, for now, in the news room?
Excuse the pun, but the very good news was none of the people I met stonewalled me nor went on the defensive with a plethora of excuses. We had mature, sensible and engaging conversations. The next step is to take up the various offers to meet face-to-face with Editorial Boards and journalists. Probably a precious 30 minutes, maybe an hour, to explain the history and purpose of D-MAP and highlight some real examples of what we want to see change. And then get their input as to how to do it best. Oh, and it would be good to hear from those 8 or so news organisations that haven’t replied yet! If you know anyone in the loop … let us know.
Simon Minty, Chair D-MAP Media Advisory Committee 28th September 2009