Between Beggar and Batman
The image of people with disabilities in the media
by Peter Radtke
First of all I want to thank the organizers of this congress for having
given me the opportunity to speak to this distinguished audience. My
name is Peter Radtke and I am General Manager and Chief Editor of a
small TV-station and film-producing company in Germany dealing exclusively
with disability topics. From this professional background and
the experience of 19 years of work in this field I want to talk about the
image of people with disabilities in the media, at least in our country. I
have given this personal introduction because very often I hear disabled
people complaining about the media that they convey a wrong image of
people with disabilities. As I will show later on it is perhaps not a wrong
image but a one-sided one. We have to see both parties, the media and
those that are disabled, with their expectations and exigencies in order to
understand the complex situation that we have to deal with.
There are two different questions in this respect: "What is the image of
people with disabilities reflected in the media" and "In what way does
this image influence social consciousness"? This seems to be the old philosophical
problem: "What did exist first – hen or egg". Whatever you
say, you will be wrong. There are strong arguments for each one of the
alternatives. But in our case it is not as difficult. Media are a product of
society. That does not mean that they reflect exclusively and under all
circumstances existing attitudes. They may also open new horizons or try
to educate their audience. But nevertheless they will stay rather close to
ideas cherished by their consumers. Therefore an analysis must first of
all list the stereotypes and prejudices on people with disabilities only to
raise afterwards the question how media pick up those ideas and use
them for their own purposes. Finally we have to look, what effect this
mixture of elements of reality and fiction has upon society.
For centuries already disability and people with disabilities have been
looked upon as an accident of nature. Homer in his "Ilias" describes how
the Olympic Gods make a mock of Hephaistos, because he is limping,
and throw him out of heaven. For all we know in Sparta disabled children
were exposed to death. In the Old Testament people with a physical
deformation were excluded from priesthood. Even the German reformer
Martin Luther writes in his diary about a disabled child: "If I were sovereign,
I would throw the cripple into the river to be drowned". The climax
of such social hostility to people with disabilities was reached during the
Third Reich when the Nazi regime murdered about 100 000 physically or
mentally disabled persons. Though times have changed, the new discussion
on prenatal diagnosis and abortion show, that even in our days general
opinion is not so much in favour of any disabled existence. It is on
this background that we have to evaluate the role of media and the way
they take responsibility in this matter.
When I use the term of "responsibility" I do this quite deliberately. Media
play an eminent role in the mediation between disabled and so-called
non-disabled citizens, due to the fact that direct contact between these
two population groups is rather the exception than the rule. In many
European countries, despite great efforts for "integration", or as it is
called today "inclusion", people with disabilities still live in segregated
institutions. Parents drag their children away, when they meet a disabled
person in the street. Architectural barriers and legislative stupidities
hamper participation in social life. Ignorance and fear dominate the contact
between each other. Thus often the media remain the only means by
which those that are non-disabled learn of those that after all make up ten
percent of the population. The image non-disabled people have of their
disabled fellow citizens basically results from information given through
newspapers, radio and television.
Let's go back to our observation that people with disabilities in general
are socially not too well approved. In the beginning, media reflected this
situation in portraying disabled persons in a very negative way. For a
long time evil character was closely related to physical deformation.
When in theatre plays disabled persons made their appearance they were
always characters to laugh at or to be dispised. The stuttering man, who
becomes the fool of the whole community, is such a welknown stereotype.
You will certainly remember the Czech opera "The Bartered Bride
", by Bedrich Smetana. Murderers often are marked by some physical
handicap, only to mention the film "The dead eyes of London" (1939)
after a novel of Edgar Wallace. A very interesting example is the film
"Freaks" shot in 1932. On the one hand the film tried to refute the idea of
disabled persons being evil characters by portraying them as individuals
with higher moral standards than their non-disabled environment. On the
other hand at the end of the film the disabled take revenge on their tormentors
just in the way spectators were used to see them, that is, as horrible
little creatures with brutal character.
Considering these unfavourable preconditions, after World War II by and
by media began to build up a new vision of people with disabilities. They
knew that they were not allowed to go on the way they had done before.
According to their new self-conception, there were two promising starting
points. Either they showed such individuals as a group of persons
that needed utmost care or they put emphasis on those qualities that
made them less disabled, sometimes even glorifying them as "supercrips".
In the first case journalists could rely on their audience's pity.
Animals, children and helpless disabled always guarantee a certain rating.
In the second case it was the approach of sensation that would attract
attention. One thing we have to keep in mind: it is never for the sake of
people with disabilities that such films or reports come into existence.
There is one iron rule: those portrayals must never decrease the ratings of
a tv- or radio program or diminish the circulation of a newspaper. Only
when they find the acceptance of the audience, media allow themselves
the luxury of responsible reporting.
So the common practice of portraying people with disabilities during the
last couple of decades was that of Beggar or Batman, as I use to call it.
Beggar in the sense of a person, that can't do anything without the help
of others, a passive object of charitable actions. Batman in the sense of a
disabled hero, who is performing top-efficencies that even non-disabled
persons rarely achieve. I remember for instance blind climbers conquering
Mount Everest or amputated bikers cycling around the globe. These
images are as distorted as those that we had been discussing before. The
reason for this is, that they don't leave any space for aspects besides the
extraordinary performance or the need of assistance. I do not say, that
such films or articles are false; they do reflect reality, but only one section
of reality. Persons that depend on assistance may be quite creative in
another sense; they may have hobbies or skills which compensate for
their need for help. On the other hand, those heroes that seem to cope
with their fate without any problem may perhaps need helping in daily
life or suffer mentally or physically from their impairment. Such images
are one-sided and dangerous. They are one-sided because they only highlight
one aspect of the various facets of a disabled person's life. They are
dangerous because they suggest to an uninformed audience that this is,
what is to be understood by being disabled.
But is this situation so different from the portrayal of non-disabled persons?
Aren't they also very often one-sided? They are, but there is a
striking difference. As I pointed out beforehand, there is very little contact
between disabled and non-disabled people. Therefore there is no
way of correcting a wrong or one-sided image on the part of the illinformed
audience. Moreover a person with an impairment is seldom
seen as an individual by the public. For most people he or she is representing
the whole community of disabled people. So if Mr. A needs help,
all disabled people need help, or if Mrs. B. is able to participate in the
Paralympics all disabled people are able to do so. A non-disabled person
never is judged as representative of a group; a disabled person is. So the
portrayal of one disabled man or woman has an impact on the image society
has of disabled people as a whole.
Now, some of my friends will argue that this doesn't matter, as long as
we draw positive pictures of people with disabilities in the media. I am in
doubt whether this is the right way to do good public relation. Disability
is a product not easy to sell. But if we try to sell it under a sugarcoated
label soon people will smell a rat and won't believe us. Everyone knows
that living the life of a disabled person means being confronted with
many problems. So if we paint a life in pink, reality contradicts us. On
the other hand life isn't as gloomy as it is often depicted in the media.
What we need are objective, impartial, unvarnished portrayals that reflect
our daily life with all its shadows and brightnesses. Otherwise we
would repeat the failures of the past, only with opposite signs. Personally
I am very skeptical concerning so-called political correctness. In former
times, disability and bad character were one unit. But today, when in a
detective film a disabled person is the suspected murderer, you may be
sure that he will not be the criminal.
Begar or Batman, is there nothing between? Fortunately in the last couple
of years, progress has been made in the portrayal of people with disabilities,
and this under different point of views. Let's go back to our example
of "Freaks", that ambivalent film of 1932. For a short moment it
seems, as if the disabled hero would marry the beautiful, non-disabled
star model. But this impression is wrong, of course. The disabled have to
stay in their world and the non-disabled lady will return to her sphere. A
similar situation is given in "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame" film by
William Dieterle in 1939. In contrast to these examples we may take
"Children of a lesser God" of 1986. At the end of the film, the hearing
teacher will marry his deaf student, and there is nothing shocking or irritating
in this situation. The film reflects in some way the changed social
attitude towards disabled people
Another remarkable aspect is the fact, that more and more authentical
disabled actors appear on the screen. Though films like "My left foot"
(1989) or "Gaby" (1987) are excellent examples of a more realistic approach
to the topic, they are still shot by starring non-disabled actors. In
contrast to these productions "Kenny" (1987), "The 8th Day" (1996) or
"Children of a lesser God" (1986), already mentioned above, add to their
message the authenticity of their actors. On German television we now
have soap operas with genuine disabled actors, which I think is a very
positive trend. The inclusion of disabled performers in entertainment is
one of the most effective means to influence public. Public doesn't want
to be educated. "Docere et delectare – To teach and to entertain", that
was already the principle of ancient schoolbooks on poetic arts during
the epoch of Baroque and Enlightenment. When people learn by simply
seeing, they will be more influenced than by any well-meant documentary.
From my experience I have to say: What we lack most are films on daily
life of disabled people. Often I hear the objection that daily life isn't interesting.
People want to read or to watch new, sensational things. My
reply is: Daily life of disabled citizens is new and sensational for the majority
of our population. They don't know anything on how I manage my
life, they look rather surprised when I enter a car, they cannot imagine
my fulfilling a full-time job. We have to reduce the gap that exists between
our lives and that of our non-disabled fellow-citizens. But how can
we achieve this goal?
The proof of the validity of my thesis that daily life of disabled persons
does fascinate the public is given by the tv-program of my own organization.
ABM, association for disability and media, is an umbrella organization
of about 16 self-help groups. It was founded in 1983 on the initiative
of the Bavarian government. Its task was to produce tv-programs concerning
topics on disability for private and public tv-stations. In the beginning
we were seen only by a couple of persons, as private tv was still
in children's shoes. Colleagues of well-established tv stations sneered at
us, as they could not believe that disabled people were able to manage a
competitive program. Perhaps they were right, but disabled people are
professionals in the field of disability. If they work together with profes-
sionals in the field of television they may reach a quality that others
would long for. Indeed soon critics had to change their minds. Our
transmissions got ratings quite unusual for this kind of program. People
stopped mocking us. They even began to copy things we had introduced
into German television. For instance our small tv-station was the first
one to have disabled presenters before the camera. In 1984 / 1985 this
was rather revolutionary. At that time the general opinion was that disabled
telecasters will never be accepted by the audience. The course of
events showed that this wasn't true. Viewers are much more openminded
than the responsible persons in the broadcasting stations believe.
We produced documentaries on daily life of people with disabilities that
got awards and prizes, though this kind of program is said to be boring.
Today we have regular tv-broadcastings on two private and one public
national channels. These programs that are transmitted by satellite are to
be seen all over Europe. I don't know how much our programs influence
society. But I do know, that there is no better way to lobby for our cause.
We must go into offensive. We must change from invisible citizens to
visible citizens. And when our fellow citizens don't come into our living
rooms we must go into theirs.
But there are some prerequisites to be observed. To begin with, we have
to professionalize in the field of media. We must get to know their rules
and exigencies. We must learn how to handle them and to use them for
our own end. Some broadcasting stations haven given people with disabilities
the chance to become real, good journalists. We have to multi-
ply these examples of good practice. Secondly: We have to build up a
European network of journalists disabled or non-disabled working in the
field of disability items. This network will be able to exchange experiences
and perhaps even find ways of direct cooperation between radio
and television stations or newspapers in order to finance and conceive
common projects. And last but not least from such network could derive
a European Press Agency similar to the national Spanish agency "Servimedia"
but on an international scale with correspondents in the most
important regions of the world. I am well aware of the fact that this is a
long way to go, but with the help of supporters and perhaps the starting
point on June 13th, 2003 in Athens, it is a realistic vision of a more adequate
coverage of people with disabilities.