A Disabled Press
Media in America
March 28, 2000
Anonymous
A Disabled Press
My interest in the disabled in America is a result of over thirty years experience of either working for the Social Security Administration or, more currently, assisting disabled individuals in the pursuit of disability benefits. I have had the opportunity to observe the plight of the disabled from the viewpoint of the granter of financial relief and as an advocate in pursuit of financial benefits for the disabled. This experience has created strong views in my assessment of how the disabled in this country are portrayed. I believe the disabled are viewed as second-class citizens. Their problems are largely ignored and they are ostracized from the mainstream of society.
The current population of the United States exceeds 272 million. According to the Social Security Administration, approximately 44 million or 16.2% of the United States population, is considered disabled. Twenty five percent of the disabled (11 million) receive a monthly Social Security or Supplemental Security Income benefit because they are unable to work. The disabled in America constitute a significant minority that is composed of all racial, gender and age groups. Disabilities may have occurred at birth or resulted from disease or accidents. Each day a new group of individuals enter into the disabled category. My research will evaluate whether the local newspaper advances and propagates an image that differs from my experience. This paper will review whether a local newspaper, Detroit Free Press, accurately describes the life of the disabled and if the newspaper provides meaningful service to this segment of its reading public.
Between January 9, 1997 and March 1, 2000 the Detroit Free Press ran twenty-five articles involving the disabled. The articles appeared in various sections of the paper, i.e., business, editorials, sports, Metro, health and obituaries. Eight of the articles were either from the Associated Press or the Knight Ridder News Service. The articles could be grouped into four general categories, (1) disability law and legislation (twelve); (2) individual success stories (seven); (3) financial impact (four) and finally, (4) children’s benefits (two).
The legislative and law category included articles with the following type of headers. "Justices debate widening scope of disabilities law" (4/29/99). "Disability bill passes, Workers may be able to keep their benefits" (6/17/99). "Correctable disabilities not covered, Justices limit the laws reach, set state role on mentally ill." (6/23/99) "Ted Kennedy Jr. says cuts in care threaten disabled" (3/10/99). "Supreme Court turns down plea to increase Webster’s pension" (3/24/98). "Protesters rip obstacles. Disability services are poor, they say" (7/27/99). "Disabled are handicapped by lack of jobs" (11/3/99).
The general theme of these articles is government’s responsibility for addressing the disabled problem. In a November 3, 1999 article by Marta Russell, the responsibility theme is clearly stated, "Federal employers have been required to hire the disabled since 1973. However, the government has not complied for more than 25 years. To attain a handicapped workforce proportion of 6 percent, for example, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner would have to hire more than 900 people with disabilities. If the federal government successfully overcomes its stagnation, it will have done what government has needed to do for a long time – expand employment for a disadvantaged population." Each of the articles in this category advances the position that providing economic, social and political equality is solely the role of government. Not a single article of the twelve discusses private industry’s responsibility toward the disabled. Since private industry plays a significant role in contributing to the number of disabled; work related injuries, unhealthy and dangerous products, stressful work environments and malpractice (medicine is very big business); shouldn’t they also play a major role in creating opportunities "for a disadvantaged population"? Russell comes the closest of any reporter to addressing this issue when she states "Clinton orders the federal government to hire these potential workers, explaining that by taking such action government would provide a model for private industry to follow." The position of private industry regarding this issue is left unanswered and in any event, government is expected to lead the way. Government failure to lead or pass legislation appears to relieve business of any responsibility for the disabled.
The individual success category included the following type of headers. "A chronic medical condition can bring financial havoc, but for many disabled, lives are rewarding" (7/12/99). "A broken neck and paralysis turned an Inkster mother into an activist for people with disabilities" (7/25/99). "Grocery store trip from hell, and other trials of the disabled" (9/12/99). "Outside court, disabled urge: ‘keep me alive’" (1/9/97). "Disabled activist helped others overcome obstacles" (4/10/97). The message of these articles is that individual character and perseverance can overcome the obstacles faced by the disabled. The implied message is, "what is wrong with the rest of you?"
Based on a July 12,1999 article the reader is left with the impression that the disabled should just be glad to be alive and that their life is more rewarding than they have a right to expect. "With advances in medicine, more people face managing a chronic disease that years ago would have killed them. More than 49 million Americans live with disabilities, and for many, their lives are far more rewarding than they imagined when diagnosed."
The main theme of the individual success story is the ability to overcome the barriers encountered by the disabled. These barriers include the perception of society as illustrated in an article from January 6, 2000 in which a Free Press columnist is quoted as saying, "I’d like to educate the non-disabled world about what we are doing and are capable of doing …and I’d like to spotlight some interesting folks other than Helen Keller and Stephen Hawking. You’d think they’re the only folks who accomplished anything." The columnist was disabled. The barriers also include the fear the disabled have about their place in society. An extreme illustration of this fear is found in an article from January 9, 1997 about a victim of Lou Gehrig’s disease. He believes a legal right to die would soon become a duty to die for people like him and states, "I do think disabled people are going to be the target for the same reason as in Nazi Germany – cost savings…" He goes on to say, "If we’re going to balance the budget, we have to cut medical costs, and we’re the ones that are going to be killed".
The individual success stories portray the disabled as victim. Victim not of what created their disability, but rather victim of a government and society that is not responsive to their current hardships. As with the previous group of articles, business’ role in this process is not mentioned.
The financial impact articles included the following headers, "More workers buy disability coverage" (6/1/98). "Disability study gives mixed outlook" (9/14/99). "Student loan audit finds bogus deaths, phony disabilities" (6/17/99). "Dropouts, disabled: least wanted workers embraced in tight labor market" (7/5/99). Not surprisingly, these articles were located in the business section of the newspaper. The theme is the cost of disability to business and the disability "fraud " philosophy.
A June 1, 1998 article clearly indicates the main interest that employers and their insurers have regarding their sick or injured employees. "Insurers also are beginning to help employees get back to work quickly. One reason, they readily acknowledge, is that a 35 year-old earning $30,000 a year who becomes disabled could receive more than $500,000 in benefits if that person does not return to work." My experience is that the only reason employers and insurers are interested in assisting employees to return to work is the ongoing financial loss to the company. The article does not go on to reveal that this long-term disability cost shifts from the employer/insurer to the government when the employee becomes entitled to Social Security Disability. Employers spend substantial dollars to assist employees in becoming entitled to Social Security Disability benefits. Company disability benefits are offset by Social Security and Social Security entitlement leads to Medicare medical coverage. Medicare is the primary medical payer for the disabled, which results in substantial savings for the company’s group health plan. The medical cost is therefore also shifted to the government. The cost to an employer as a result of disability is dramatically overstated in this article. The article provides an incomplete picture of the motivation for a company’s interest in the welfare of a disabled employee.
The disabled as malingerers and dishonest is captured in an article from June 17, 1999, "Another borrower who had almost $11,000 in loans forgiven in September 1994 for the supposed permanent disability of "chronic low back pain" went on to earn more than $57,000 just three years later." "Eighty-one of them earned more than $50,000 in 1997 after receiving a disability discharge." "… loans totaling nearly $11.5 million discharged due to total and permanent disability". Implied in this article is the high cost to government and business of individuals who fake disability for the financial reward.
The two articles on children’s disability benefits had the following headers. "Why my child? Government efforts to rein in welfare abuses baffle parents of some kids with disabilities" (10/16/97). "Social Security to revisit child benefit reductions" (12/23/97). In the article of October 16, 1997 the following information is provided. "…Congress thought it wasn’t fair to taxpayers that families with children who weren’t severely disabled were jumping on the bandwagon to collect the checks for up to $484 a month." "…there were widely publicized reports of parents coaching children to act like they have a problem. Federal agencies investigated these reports and did not find much of that abuse." This article could be construed to impart the following messages, (1) the federal government is responsible for the disabled, (2) the disabled (and their parents) are fakes, and (3) the disabled are willing to trade their integrity for $484 a month. In reality, the actions of one family in Mississippi precipitated this investigation. Their actions lead to a generalization that this was a common practice among the disabled. All children receiving disability immediately became suspect of wrongdoing, which resulted in a review of all disabled children’s benefits. The article does not reveal these facts to the reader.
Over a thirty-eight month period, the Detroit Free Press chose to publish twenty-five articles about the disabled. The disabled represent approximately 16 percent of the Free Press’ readership. I believe that this lack of coverage is indicative of the paper’s viewpoint toward the disabled. Since the disabled do not represent a segment of the population with significant disposal income, the Free Press does not perceive them as a valuable customer. Neither does the newspaper believe that articles about the disabled would appeal to the more affluent targets of the paper or advertisers. Advertisers do not target the disabled for their products, unless pharmaceuticals are involved. The disabled population does not represent an audience that has desirable marketing characteristics. Coverage of this population is therefore minimal in comparison to the number of disabled readers.
Articles that the Free Press does publish about the disabled consist primarily of superficial discussions of governmental policies or trite stories of how an individual has overcome their disability. There is a total absence of any articles that could be categorized as assistance to the disabled. How to seek out financial aid or reduce medical costs were never a topic of a Free Press article. The Free Press did not provide any valuable information to the disabled in any of the articles. Neither did the paper provide an in-depth view of the daily obstacles that confront the disabled both physically and financially. How our society contributes to the creation of a disabled population as a result of unsafe working conditions, stress and unsafe or harmful products was never a subject addressed by the Free Press. The Free Press provided minimal information of value regarding the disabled in the twenty-five articles reviewed for this paper.
The conclusions drawn from my research are not surprising. As I have progressed through this course and the research for this paper, it has become painfully apparent that the media in general, and the Free Press more specifically, do not provide the public with a meaningful analysis of any topic. Mass media is no longer the source of information the public needs to appropriately identify the problems facing their city, state or country. Unfortunately, the primary goal of the modern media is profit. We are confronted with a disabled media that does not provide meaningful journalistic reporting on any subject, including the disabled. Regrettably, the results of this research match my personal experience.