Writing About Disabilities: What to Include and What to Avoid

How to Write Authentically About Disability

Remember the phrase “Nothing about us without us.” Authenticity is key to accurate, supportive disability representation in media. If you have the opportunity, always consult with members of the disability community, particularly if your content discusses a specific disability.

In this article, Ability Central shares best practices for creating content about the disabled community. We cover common media pitfalls that cause harm to the disabled community, as well as positive changes to make disability-related media more authentic.

See below for our industry best practices for writing about disability. This is by no means an exhaustive list, and we encourage you to continue educating yourself as disability-related media evolves.

Harmful Practices in Disability-Related Media

Journalists and media professionals may harm, rather than help, the disability community by:

Using stereotypes.

Stereotypes and harmful language, such as assuming all people with mental health disabilities are “violent” or “unpredictable,” perpetuate misconceptions in the public eye.

Another harmful stereotype is that someone with a disability automatically cannot care for themselves. While some people with disabilities do rely on caregivers, there is a trend in media to focus stories on the “heroism” or “sacrifice” of those caregivers rather than on people with disabilities.

In the same way, some media outlets make the mistake of prioritizing caregiver circumstances over the lives of people with disabilities. In crime stories involving the disability community, for example, news coverage often focuses on the “desperate” or “miserable” circumstances of families “destroyed” by disability.

This kind of coverage perpetuates a harmful stereotype that all disabled people—and their caregivers—are inherently suffering, when the truth is that people with disabilities live full and authentic lives. It also sets a precedent that caregiver stories are more important than stories about people with disabilities.

Caregiver circumstances do not override disabled people’s existence. Disability is a natural part of life and should be treated as such.

Creating “inspiration porn.”

“Inspiration porn” is a trend in popular media that focuses on disability as a way for nondisabled audiences to feel good about something, while ignoring or presenting the person with disabilities as an object, problem, or puzzle.

Examples of inspiration porn include stories about:

A “good Samaritan” buying food or raising money for a person or persons with disability, often including photos or videos taken without the person’s permission.
A popular student inviting a student who is disabled to prom.
A disabled person presented as a “superhero” for doing something a nondisabled person does, like climbing a mountain, winning an election, or volunteering at their child’s school.

Stories like this perpetuate harmful stereotypes and imply that someone with a disability cannot live a “normal” or fulfilling life. Ask yourself: Would this story still be newsworthy if the person did not have a disability? If the answer is no, consider a new angle.

Placing unnecessary focus on disability.

Another trend is mentioning disability simply because a person is disabled, not because it has anything to do with the story.

For example, say we were writing a piece about a local music festival and interviewed a man who uses a wheelchair. If the story is about the headlining artist’s performance, there is no need to mention that the man uses a wheelchair when including his quote. On the other hand, if the man was interviewed for an article about accessibility options at the venue, then it is relevant to include his disability.

Prioritizing secondary sources.

Many news stories about disabilities or people with a specific disability include interviews from doctors, healthcare industry experts, and caregivers, while excluding the people actually living with those disabilities. This sets a precedent that disabled people are unable to speak for themselves.

According to The Center for Disability Rights, “Parents, caregivers, doctors, and even strangers have more say in telling our stories than those of us living disabled lives. It is problematic when non-disabled individuals are given the authority to communicate as the authentic voice of the Disability Community.”

Promoting homogeneity.

The disability community includes people of any race, gender identity, nationality, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic background. However, the overwhelming “voice” in media of people with disabilities is white, cisgender, straight, and male. Women included in media are often white.

BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ people with disabilities are often excluded from a narrative that’s meant to be about them. Diversifying your sources to include people from marginalized communities helps ensure that the media does not simply convey one type of disability experience, but realistically diverse and varied experiences.

Feeding into the “Hierarchy of Disability.”

The media has a history of prioritizing certain people with disabilities over others. Specifically, people without disabilities tend to favor and give greater acceptance to people with minor, less visible, or minimal disabilities.

An example of this is the Muscular Dystrophy Association’s telethon fundraiser. From 1966 to 2010, the telethon featured “Jerry’s Kids,” an ever-changing group of children with muscular dystrophy and other neuromuscular diseases, but limited screen time for adults with the same disabilities—or did not feature them at all.

The implication here, suggested by many disability activists and former “poster children” for the telethon, was that the only socially “acceptable” disabled person was a child with disabilities, and that adults with disabilities were “less than” or meant to be avoided. This harmful implication is called the Hierarchy of Disability.

Positive Practices in Disability-Related Media

The best ways to cover disability in media include:

Asking how someone self-identifies.

When interviewing a source, ask how they would like to be identified. Do they refer to themselves as “a person who does not speak” or “a mute person”? Have they reclaimed historically offensive language, like “cripple” or “spaz”?

Some people self-identify based on the communities they consider themselves part of, while these communities may also have unique ways of self-identifying. You may be able to use umbrella terms in your content that cover multiple options for identity.

For example, some people in the Deaf or deaf community consider themselves “Deaf” with a capital “D,” while others might prefer “deaf” with a lowercase “d.” The preference depends on how connected individuals feel to their D/deaf community and whether or not they consider their deafness to be a disability.

Many writers therefore refer to this identity as the “d/Deaf” or “D/deaf” community, which allows readers to use the identity they most align with. Another common choice is to use uppercase “Deaf” to refer to members of the community (i.e. “a person who is Deaf”) and lowercase “deaf” to refer to the concept of deafness itself (i.e. “a doctor who treats deafness”).

Always defer to someone’s personal preferences rather than social standards. If their preferred identifiers do not align with current industry guidelines, mention in your content that this is how your source self-identifies.

Practicing disability inclusion and intersectionality.

Bring in sources from multiple backgrounds, not just professionals or family members who are “adjacent” to the disability community. Choosing sources and subjects from a wide variety of marginalities helps maintain inclusivity and intersectionality in your content.

Researching reputable organizations.

Just because an organization claims to support people with disabilities doesn’t mean they are perfect. Some organizations have been linked to behavior that harms the communities they claim to support.

For example, Autism Speaks, the largest autism advocacy and research organization in the United States, has faced criticism from some disability advocates. One critique involves the organization’s framing of autism as a disease that needs a cure. This perpetuates a stereotype that people with autism have something inherently wrong with them that needs to be “fixed.” While some people with autism or their caregivers identify with this perspective, many people with autism simply want acceptance.

When conducting research, make sure to look into the organization’s reputation before you cite it as a source. The Center for Disability Rights maintains a list of organizations found to be "respected or problematic" by disability advocates.

Using people-first language, when appropriate.

There is a recent push to use “people-first” language (rather than “identity-first”) when discussing people with disabilities. For example, “someone with autism” would be people-first language, while “autistic person” would be identity-first.

People-first language is a general rule of thumb for writing about people with disabilities in the United States, Canada, and Australia. In Europe, many people prefer identity-first language, like “Deaf person” instead of “person who is deaf.”

One exception to this guideline is the term “disabled person” or “person with disabilities,” which many organizations—Ability Central included—use interchangeably in their communications.

Learning disability language and vocabulary.

Historically, media and individuals have used a variety of appropriate and derogatory words to describe people with disabilities. Some words that were once socially acceptable are now considered offensive. At the same time, some people with disabilities have reclaimed words or labels that were previously stigmatized.

Educate yourself on current trends in disability-related language and vocabulary. A term that may have been acceptable two or three years ago could be considered offensive today, and vice versa. When in doubt, ask someone with lived experience about the best language to use.

The concept of “people-first” vs “identity-first” language also grows and changes. Today, there is a general preference for “people-first” language in writing, although many disability activists prefer “identify-first” language. While there is no conclusive or official preference, always err on the side of asking how your subject would like to be identified.

Using authentic images and visual content.

An unfortunate trend in online media is reliance on low-quality stock images. These photos often include tokenized models portraying disabilities in inauthentic ways. (For example, a person without a disability sitting in a wheelchair and smiling, or a person appearing to use sign language, although their gestures are not really signing.)

Authentic images and visual content lend believability and trust to online media. When possible, always choose real-life, relevant imagery over stock photos. In unavoidable instances where stock photos are necessary, take the time to search for disabled people living their authentic lives, not models pretending to be disabled or disabled people used as “poster children” or “inspiration porn.”

Continuing to educate yourself.

A common trap for media professionals is to think that once you’ve educated yourself about disability language and culture, there’s nothing more to learn.

Disability culture, language, and vocabulary is constantly changing. Staying abreast of current nomenclature, activism, and identity discussions will help your content stay authentic and relevant to the changing needs of the disability community.

Above all, ask.

When in doubt, turn directly to people with disabilities. Whether you’re looking for sources, statistics, research, or simple questions about language, allow people in the disability community to speak for themselves.

To learn more, or for advice or interviews, reach out to the team at Ability Central at [hello@abilitycentral.org](mailto:hello@abilitycentral.org). We’ll work to connect you with members of our board and extended community who are available to speak about their experience or disability.

This article is part of our series The Journalist’s Guide to Disability in Media: An Overview of Disability Inclusion, Accessibility, and Representation.

Read the full series:

Additional Information