Affiliation:
1. Centre for Disability Studies and Inclusive Education, Department of Special Education, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University, Belgium
2. Centre for Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Belgium
Abstract
Although the relations between media coverage and the public are complex, the media has a powerful influence on the way ‘disability’ as a phenomenon is perceived and on the process of attitude formation. Hence, it is important to document the depiction of people with disabilities and the myths and stereotypes perpetuated by media portrayals of persons with disabilities. This paper reports on a quantitative examination of the extent and nature of the coverage of people with disabilities in the print media in Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. Seven newspapers and 16 magazines between January 2003 and December 2012 were content-analysed. Key findings include a sorely limited coverage, or even total lack of representation, in certain media sources. The study also discovered interesting correlations between gender, age and type of magazine on the one hand, and the type of disability on the other. Analysis also revealed that print media focuses on certain disabilities. In addition, the results showed that, looking over the ten-year time span, some events have more influence than others on the evolution of the quantity of coverage. The paper concludes with a discussion of these findings and their implications, from the perspective of disability studies and with reference to Cooley’s concept of the looking glass self. It is argued that media representation of disability reflects certain broader ideologies and socio-political processes shaped by basic exclusionary social frames. Yet, the media do more than hold up a mirror to basic mindsets and frames. As the media functions as mechanisms for strengthening and entrenching the social order, they transmit hegemonic conceptions and play a significant role in the ongoing construction of disability discourses.
Reference46 articles.
1. AUSLANDER, G. K., & GOLD, N. (1999). Media reports on disability: a binational comparison of types and causes of disability as reported in major newspapers. Disability and Rehabilitation, 21(9), 420-431. doi:10.1080/09638289929 7404
2. BELGIAN DISABILITY FORUM (2014). Alternatief verslag verdrag inzake de rechten van de personen met een handicap. Belgium, 20 February 2014. Retrieved on 17 of December 2014 from http://bdf.belgium.be/nl/themes/hum an_rights/uncrpd/belgian_ratification/rapport_alternatif_bdf.html
3. BIESTA, G. (2011). Disciplines and theory in the academic study of education: A Comparative Analysis of the Anglo-American and Continental Construction of the Field. Pedagogy. Culture and Society, 19(2), 175-192. doi:10.1080 /14681366.2011.582255
4. COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (CRPD). (2014). Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Belgium, 28 October 2014, CRPD/C/BEL/CO/1. Retrieved on 7 of December 2014 from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/ ENACARegion/Pages/BEIndex.aspx
5. COOLEY, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献