Jump to content

Talk:Disability in the media

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Useful Sources

[edit]

Also various articles in the Disability Studies Quarterly

Copied from: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability#New high importance "core theme" article

[edit]

I have just created a stub Disability in the media, please feel free to expand it. I listed a number of good sources on the Talk page. Roger (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a good article to have, but I question any overly-extensive use of Society for Disability Studies writings, or those of their closest allies, without ensuring that other sources from within the same circles but with differing viewpoints are also included. Otherwise this could all easily become a one-trick pony. Your newly-created article is going to have to eventually have "teaser sections" for larger articles the way disability in the arts does. One of the reasons I can already tell you why that would be necessary, in fact, is that the article I created long ago on inclusion (disability rights) could then finally, at long, long last, be broken up and most of its contents distributed to articles corresponding to the media organizations and grouplets themselves (such as the disTHIS! Film Series, which I do believe should have its own page, and also the Ouch! Podcast from the BBC). People here might not have thought I'd want to see the content of an article that is "one of my babies" distributed across several articles, but in fact I do, especially given the renewed vigor with which we all have been pursuing this stuff now. I believe that a proper (re)distribution would clear the inclusion article of clutter and make it much more easily readable to the average joe n' jane. If the content articles were created for these inclusive phenomena being described in the inclusion article, then we would automatically readily have several "media-based examples" of inclusive practices that we could then immediately incorporate into the disability in the media article.... see?. If done properly, then there would barely be any need at all for the article on inclusion except for its widely-accepted core definition. We could pare it down, if there were articles that corresponded to the phenomena introduced. That is the point I would like to see reached as a result of all this work being done on Disability on the wiki. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(End of copied section)

I agree that no article should rely too heavily on only one source. I am a complete "newbie" to the topic of Disability Studies. I was vaguely aware of its existence but only discovered the existence of the SDS and its publication a few days ago as a direct consequence of my involvement in the WikiProject. Thus I have no opinion about the "politics" of the SDS as I don't know anything about it. So far I have referenced the DSQ only once in this article. Please feel free to "redistribute" any material you feel is relevant and so expand this article. I never claim ownership of anything I do on WP - I welcome all constructive participation in anything I am involved in here. I have posted an invitation to participate in this article on WikiProject Journalism's Talk page. Roger (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes section relies on examples from fiction

[edit]

This article is about the depiction of disability in the media in the sense of news and actuality. The Stereotypes section relies mostly on examples from fiction - it even references fairytales - which are not really useful or relevant in the context of this article. Roger (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral point of view

[edit]

Whilst constructed well, I believe this particular article lacks neutrality. The overall tone of the article feels opinionated and critical of representations of disability in the media and disabled activists and chooses to omit positive media support of disabled people. This is particularly evident in the first two sections and the photography and responses sections which provide niche viewpoints from apparent activists, but no counterbalance or evidence of these viewpoints from popular media. The line "This is seen by many disability rights activists as a way to, as some in these circles term it, "piss on pity", lack appropriate citation to justify the claim, and even the linked article only provides one citation from a niche website. The line is also written with opinion. Another example "The first photographer to become widely known for depicting the visibly disabled was Diane Arbus.[citation needed] Her photographs, which are in fact art photographs, have been, and remain, highly controversial", contains language that would suggest opinion "which are in fact". The title of the article also implies that it contains an overview of all representations in media, when the actual content largely tends to focus on negative representations only, characterised by the "stereotypes" section.

Overall i believe this article needs a wider reference base to support the statements made, and needs to be counterbalanced with both negative and positive aspects of media in relation to disability to fulfil the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMendonsa (talk • contribs) 08:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to Stereotypes in Media

[edit]

Hi all! I have added the following to the list of stereotypes on the Disability in the Media page:

"Asexual, undesirable, or incapable of sexual or romantic interactions (commonly associated with caucasian youth, examples include adolescent coming-of-age storylines such as Artie Abrams on Glee, and “teen sick-lit” such as The Fault in our Stars)"

I am currently in the process of performing a review of existing literature on disability, sexuality, and media, and there is some documentation of stereotypes as I've noted, and for which I also provided a citation. I think much more information and subsections could be added to this page as there are a growing number of documented issues on disability in the media than noted on this Wikipedia page.

I know there was a previous concern about the types of media used to document stereotypes from Roger, but I would have to disagree with his assessment that the article is about news and "actuality" media and therefore scripted or fictional media is not appropriate. News media isn't even mentioned until the last section of the article.

Furthermore, Social Cognitive Theory and other socialization theories attributed to Albert Bandura explain the process of learning or being socialized through media, none of which exclude particular types of media (such as cartoons). Often cartoons are the very first media which is responsible for socializing children at a very young age. Scripted or fictional stories also provide socialization. I think this article is actually significantly lacking in the inclusion of various types of media and their impact on disabilities.

Hope that clarifies!

DonnellProbst (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DonnellProbst, I'm very interested in these developments, you present a strong argument for including fictional media. However, we also have an article Disability in the arts which includes forms of fiction such as literature, drama, film, etc. There is also Draft:Disability in literature which I started quite some time ago. I provisionally structured it as a historical culture by culture overview. We should try to keep the scope of each of these articles focussed on their distinctive aspects. Unfortunately I am very busy irl, so my free time for contributing to WP is under considerable pressure. I strongly suggest that you open a broader discussion of this issue at WT:WikiProject Disability. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Disability in the media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant section removed from the article

[edit]

This material could be used in an article about accessible media. It is however completely off-topic here. Unfortunately it is entirely unsourced. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility and the media
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Part of the agenda for a growing number of media companies is determining how to best reach audience members with a disability. Hearing and visual impairments, or computer accessibility, can limit the reach of media companies, but new technology and creative adaptations of existing capabilities are bringing media to more people with disabilities.

Today, digital media formats (MP3, E-text download, CD, DVD, DAISY Digital Talking Book) are used to bring recordings and other programming to the visually impaired, and to provide real-time captioning to programming and films for audiences with impaired hearing.

Major media companies delivering accessible programming and services

[edit]

Australia:

Canada:

  • Accessible Media - closed captioning, descriptive video
  • AMI-audio - 24-hour English-language reading and information radio broadcasting for the visually impaired
  • AMI-tv - basic cable channel. Broadcasts general entertainment programming with an "open" format—using described video as the primary audio track, and providing closed captioning for all programming.
  • Canal M - 24-hour French-language reading and information radio broadcasting for the visually impaired

United Kingdom:

United States:

Course assignment

[edit]

Hi ChrisMoreno24, Prof.bgreg and Shalor (Wiki Ed), I'm really happy to see this article get some attention, it has seen only limited improvement since I and a few others originally wrote most of it. I'd really appreciate it if you (ChrisMoreno24 and Prof.bgreg) would introduce yourselves to WP:WikiProject Disability (please post on the project's talk page). The Disability Wikiproject has several members who would probably be interested in your plans for improving this article and might have some useful ideas to share. Welcome to Wikipedia! (BTW I'm currently working on my final assignments for a Bachelors in Communication Science.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critique an Article

[edit]

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? 

The "Publications and broadcasts by disability related organisations" section, includes just a sentence of evidence to support the claim. There is similar evidence at the end of the article that can be supportive in the conclusion of the "Responses" section. One sentence of information doesn't seem to be enough for it, especially because the article enforces the idea that disability in the media has been growing and earning more recognition over time through multiple media outlets.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? 

The content and information that is provided in the article is valid and important. However, placement of the sections could be more appealing. I view the "Documentary Photography" section to be too far down the article. This is more of a visual placement however, because the visual in the early stages of the article can be considered as more appealing since there is not a main photo at the top of the page. I do think that the documentary section is placed in a good spot, which should allow the documentary photography section to follow right ahead. A solution to my argument is to include more visuals to improve the appealing nature of the subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisMoreno24 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisMoreno24 There's nothing here about depiction of disability in advertising, I think that's a huge hole in the article. Another thing that perhaps needs to be re-evaluated; is the way the dividing line between this article and Disability in the arts has been defined, correct? I'm largely responsible for for the division when I decided that, for example, documentary film belongs here with news, while fiction movies belong in the arts article together with topics such as dance and drama. Does a sharp clear boundary between media and arts make sense, is it even really possible? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisMoreno24 : Thank you for your article critique and thank you Roger (Dodger67) for your help on how this article might be improved. Collaboration is one thing that makes doing this type of work for a course so valuable. Disabilities in advertising is a very important section that seems to be lacking here and may be a direction that you, Chris, would like to focus on in your reearch for and contribution. As Roger says, you may also want to consider the content in the Disability in the arts article as well. Chris, you may want to begin by asking how should "media" be defined? Take a look at our class textbook and the types of media that are discussed. This may also help you to come up with news sections for specific media, such as radio, television, recording, social media, etc that you might want to exlore. Also, are there current theories that address disabilities in media? So many great directions that you can explore here. Roger (Dodger67) : What do you think? Best, Prof.bgreg (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisMoreno24 Thanks Prof.bgreg I quite like your ideas. Another aspect of the topic I've just thought of is disabled media workers. The now notorious incident of Trump mocking a disabled reporter comes to mind, but also more mundane issues such as the lack of tv news presenters with visible disabilities. Social media is another whole topic, which imho probably belongs in a separate article. This article really covers the "formal" media (i.e. Edmund Burke's Fourth Estate). I think a well researched section concentrating on advertising is the biggest gap in this article specifically. Concentrating on that is imho the optimum use of your time during this project. Perhaps starting with early freakshow handbills and posters and working up to currect issues. Here in South Africa over the last week or so there was an issue in the news and social media about a billboard for a chain of gyms in which a models' cochlear implant was photoshopped out. Public reaction on social media forced them to replace the billboards to restore the unedited photo. (A fairly good summary of the issue) Keep in mind that you're writing for a global audience, so research globally too. BTW, what textbook are you using? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dodger67 : Great ideas here. I particularly like your suggestions about delving into some visual media artifacts, like posters and handbills, and focusing on the topic for a global audience. Thanks for the article on hearinglikeme.com - very interesting. We're using Converging Media, published by Oxford Univ. Press. Prof.bgreg (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

==Wiki Education assignment: Disability, Policy, and the Law== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2022 and 11 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Housnerisabel (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kcleary217.

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Communication Studies - 1

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 9 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fishst1xsx, Lilyparks (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sarang04.

— Assignment last updated by CommDocBDS (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Policy Advocacy and Disability

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stephany Rojas Hidalgo, KatM17 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Stephany Rojas Hidalgo (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

adding contemporary examples of disability in media

[edit]

Hello, KatM17 and I were planning on adding an additional sub-section to this page titled contemporary examples of disability in media. This would be a short list of some media examples with context statements about the disability represented in the media examples.

Stephany Rojas Hidalgo (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disability_in_the_media&oldid=1206981249"