SF Media Ignore the Disabled ...
by , 2008-08-12
To the Editor:
Previous columns in this media outlet have focused on San Francisco city agencies and programs. The consistent theme has been how SF shows a Nixonian "benign neglect" of fully responding to and including people with disabilities in all aspects of planning and providing city services.
Now, it's time to look at how the local San Francisco media -- whether a daily, weekly, or neighborhood paper -- co-operate in this isolation of approximately 1/6th of the city's population. There is a media blackout on considering the disability perspective on almost every issue.
When there are stories about transit and transportation, who gets interviewed for [allegedly] informed commentary? NOT the people who are most often transit-dependent, the disabled.
When there are issues about jobs-training and addressing unemployment, who gets interviewed for [allegedly] informed commentary? NOT the most UNDER- and UN-employed constituency, the disabled.
When there are stories about the housing shortage and the high cost of housing, who gets interviewed for [allegedly] informed commentary? NOT the constituency least able to afford and least able to function in mostly non-accessible housing.
People in need -- whether for housing or jobs or transportation -- are not part of the standard cadre of commentators called upon by local media.
Worse, we see consistent interviews of spokespeople for some allegedly visionary groups hailed as "progressive"; yet these same groups DON'T solicit to have on their boards of directors disability advocates. How can SF be livable or walkable or diverse if there is a consistent shunning of 1/6th of the city's population?
The Sunday, 10 August edition of the Sacramento Bee has an editorial about possible media political bias; in it, we see mention of using "the usual suspects" for commentary. It's worth excerpting that relevant portion:
"...critics fault us for talking only to 'the usual suspects'. We fall short when we dismiss or overlook people and stories that don't seem to jibe with what we already know. This bias ... often keeps mainstream news organizations from recognizing change and reporting accurately."
This also raises the question whether reporters really want a balanced story or want to get a quick response and do so by favoring "the usual suspects", who too often are people like themselves [too often white, childless, male].
Again, using simple logic, how and why would it be legitimate--whether legally, politically, socially, or pragmatically--to ignore any other constituency that is so large AND federally-protected?
Maybe reporters ought to think of trying to meet and interview people from groups unlike themselves.
Bob Planthold
San Francisco
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link:
feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)