Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Coverage
- All Subjects: Optometry
- Creators: Foskit, Nevada Anaid
- Creators: Mackrell, Marguerite
- Creators: Mullen, Tyler
- Member of: Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection
- Resource Type: Text
Description
News outlets frequently portray people with disabilities as either helpless victims or objects of motivation. Portrayal of people with disabilities has improved over the years, but there is still room to grow. News outlets tend to make disability the center of the story. A story about a disabled person is primarily about their disability, with their other accomplishments framed by it.
As one example of the victimhood narrative, ABC News used to run a special called My Extreme Affliction as part of 20/20 until 2012. As the name implies, the specials covered people with disabilities, specifically extreme versions. One 2008 episode on Tourette’s syndrome described Tourette’s like it was some sort of demonic possession. The narrator talked about children who were “prisoners in their own bodies” and a family that was at risk of being “torn apart by Tourette’s.” I have Tourette’s syndrome myself, which made ABC’s special especially uncomfortable to watch. When not wringing their metaphorical hands over the “victims” of disability, many news outlets fall into the “supercrip” narrative. They refer to people as “heroes” who “overcome” their disabilities to achieve something that ranges from impressive to utterly mundane. The main emphasis is on the disability rather than the person who has it. These articles then exploit that disability to make readers feel good. As a person with a disability, I am aware that it impacts my life, but it is not the center of my life. The tics from my Tourette’s syndrome made it difficult to speak to people when I was younger, but even then they did not rule me.
Disability coverage, however, is still incredibly important for promoting acceptance and giving people with disabilities a voice. A little over a fifth of adults in the United States have a disability (CDC: 53 million adults in the US live with a disability), so poor coverage means marginalizing or even excluding a large amount of people. Journalists should try to reach their entire audience. The news helps shape public opinion with the stories it features. Therefore, it should provide visibility for people with disabilities in order to increase acceptance. This is a matter of civil rights. People with disabilities deserve fair and accurate representation.
My personal experience with ABC’s Tourette’s special leads me to believe that the media, especially the news, needs to be more responsible in their reporting. Even the name “My Extreme Affliction” paints a poor picture of what to expect. A show that focuses on sensationalist portrayals in pursuit of views further ostracizes people with disabilities. The emphasis should be on a person and not their condition. The National Center for Disability Journalism tells reporters to “Focus on the person you are interviewing, not the disability” (Tips for interviewing people with disabilities). This people-first approach is the way to improve disability coverage: Treat people with disabilities with the same respect as any other minority group.
As one example of the victimhood narrative, ABC News used to run a special called My Extreme Affliction as part of 20/20 until 2012. As the name implies, the specials covered people with disabilities, specifically extreme versions. One 2008 episode on Tourette’s syndrome described Tourette’s like it was some sort of demonic possession. The narrator talked about children who were “prisoners in their own bodies” and a family that was at risk of being “torn apart by Tourette’s.” I have Tourette’s syndrome myself, which made ABC’s special especially uncomfortable to watch. When not wringing their metaphorical hands over the “victims” of disability, many news outlets fall into the “supercrip” narrative. They refer to people as “heroes” who “overcome” their disabilities to achieve something that ranges from impressive to utterly mundane. The main emphasis is on the disability rather than the person who has it. These articles then exploit that disability to make readers feel good. As a person with a disability, I am aware that it impacts my life, but it is not the center of my life. The tics from my Tourette’s syndrome made it difficult to speak to people when I was younger, but even then they did not rule me.
Disability coverage, however, is still incredibly important for promoting acceptance and giving people with disabilities a voice. A little over a fifth of adults in the United States have a disability (CDC: 53 million adults in the US live with a disability), so poor coverage means marginalizing or even excluding a large amount of people. Journalists should try to reach their entire audience. The news helps shape public opinion with the stories it features. Therefore, it should provide visibility for people with disabilities in order to increase acceptance. This is a matter of civil rights. People with disabilities deserve fair and accurate representation.
My personal experience with ABC’s Tourette’s special leads me to believe that the media, especially the news, needs to be more responsible in their reporting. Even the name “My Extreme Affliction” paints a poor picture of what to expect. A show that focuses on sensationalist portrayals in pursuit of views further ostracizes people with disabilities. The emphasis should be on a person and not their condition. The National Center for Disability Journalism tells reporters to “Focus on the person you are interviewing, not the disability” (Tips for interviewing people with disabilities). This people-first approach is the way to improve disability coverage: Treat people with disabilities with the same respect as any other minority group.
ContributorsMackrell, Marguerite (Author) / Gilger, Kristin (Thesis director) / Doig, Steve (Committee member) / Walter Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass Comm (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05
Description
Optometry is a field in the United States dedicated to analyzing the health of eyes and offering corrective lenses and/or treatments to improve a patient’s ocular health and vision. Since its origin in the U.S. in the late 19th century, the field of optometry has been met with strong opposition from the medical community, ophthalmologists in particular. This ongoing feud between optometrists and ophthalmologists, medical doctors who also specialize in eye health and perform eye surgeries, continues today as ophthalmologists push back against optometrists’ attempts to expand their scope of practice. With this expansion to include certain eye surgeries, it would save patients both time and money. This is just one factor impacting patients, with another being the widely varied state laws surrounding eye health. Procedures optometrists are able to perform is decided by state laws, which leads to vast discrepancies. Optometrists in one state can perform laser eye surgeries, while optometrists in a nearby state cannot even provide simple treatments for ocular diseases they diagnosis. In this study, three states were analyzed to showcase these variations in possible treatment and demonstrate both the positive and negative impacts they are having on patients. First was Massachusetts which has one of the best medical care systems in the U.S., but one of the worst vision care. As the only state to not allow optometrists to treat glaucoma and one of two states to not allow optometrists to prescribe medications for patients, these limitations have caused patients the inconvenience of having to then visit an ophthalmologist for treatment which adds additional costs and delay in treatment which can cause the conditions to possibly worsen. Second was Oklahoma which was the first U.S. state to allow optometrists to perform laser eye surgeries in 1998. This legislation expanded Oklahoma residents access to treatment as before patients would have to travel to other cities or counties to visit one of the few ophthalmologists in the state. Lastly was Maine which in 2015 passed legislation to allow optometrists to regain control of their field from vision insurance companies who can no longer dictate fees patients are charged if the insurance companies will not cover it. This study concluded that there needs to be a universal vision care system across the U.S. that includes expansion of practice for optometrists and allow them to be in control of their own field, not the state government or vision insurance companies.
ContributorsFoskit, Nevada Anaid (Author) / Gaughan, Monica (Thesis director) / Chung, Sonia (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05
Description
Optometry is an important field in medicine as it allows people a chance to have their vision corrected and it serves as a health screening opportunity for those who receive a dilated eye examination. One of the largest barriers to receiving a dilated eye exam is insurance coverage. Most health insurance policies have limited optometric coverage. By expanding health insurance plans to be more inclusive of optometric care, people who use these health insurance plans will have a better access of care.
ContributorsFurey, Colleen (Author) / Ruth, Alissa (Thesis director) / Mullen, Tyler (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Department of Physics (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05