IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v48y1999i10p1395-1405.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disability terminology in the media: a comparison of newspaper reports in Canada and Israel

Author

Listed:
  • Auslander, Gail K
  • Gold, Nora

Abstract

The terminology used to refer to persons with disability may both reflect and influence attitudes towards them. Negative references may perpetuate negative attitudes and stereotypes. This is of particular importance in the mass media which reaches a broad spectrum of the population. This study looked at disability terminology used in major newspapers in Canada and Israel. It focused on the nature of that terminology and whether its use was related to other factors, such as the disability model reflected in the article, the content of the article (e.g. attributes of the disabled person) and its context (e.g. type of newspaper, feature versus news items). Overall, the use of inappropriate terminology of varying types was quite prevalent in both countries. In addition, in Canada there were a considerable number of articles which had no direct reference to the disability. In general, the terminology used was considerably more positive in articles dealing with individual persons with disabilities (as opposed to groups), with disabled children and with problems of mobility and rights. The results of the study indicate that the choice of terminology cannot be explained by journalistic expedience and conciseness alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Auslander, Gail K & Gold, Nora, 1999. "Disability terminology in the media: a comparison of newspaper reports in Canada and Israel," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(10), pages 1395-1405, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:48:y:1999:i:10:p:1395-1405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(98)00442-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:48:y:1999:i:10:p:1395-1405. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.