Disability isn’t a niche topic. It impacts the lives of millions of Americans each day and appears across all beats.
But many newsrooms still don’t have reliable resources for covering these stories, which can result in avoidable mistakes like outdated language, visual cliches, and sourcing that quotes everyone around disabled people except disabled people themselves.
“The words you choose create a baseline for how audiences understand disability,” said Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc, a non-profit organization that promotes disabilities rights. “Stigmatizing language invites bullying, exclusion, and disrespect. It also makes it easier to cast people with disabilities as stereotypes instead of full humans with talents, dreams, and agency.”
To help journalists elevate their coverage of this underrepresented community, we’ve teamed up again with The Arc to share a series of actionable tips and resources, starting with a closer look at language and framing.
How should journalists approach identifying someone living with a disability?
Neas: Always ask the person how they want to be described, or ask a trusted support person if they are unable to answer. Two key approaches are person-first and identity-first language. Person-first is “person with a disability.” Identity-first is “disabled person.” Some communities prefer identity-first, including many autistic people.
But don’t reduce someone to a diagnosis, especially in headlines and leads. Mention disability only when it is relevant to the story.
Word choices can have unintended consequences, especially when describing disability. What are some terms that journalists should avoid in their coverage?
Neas: Start with the biggest one: “special needs.” You likely hear this term often, but it can signal discomfort, blur disability into something vague, and frame access as a favor instead of a right. If you write “special needs,” ask yourself, what “needs” are you referring to specifically?
Other language and framing considerations to keep in mind:
- The term “differently-abled” can downplay disability and the barriers people face.
- “Wheelchair bound” and “confined” frame mobility equipment as a limitation, when it’s often a tool for independence. “Wheelchair user” is more accurate.
- “Suffers from” and “afflicted with” cast disability as tragedy by default. Good alternatives are “lives with” or “has [specific disability].”
- “High functioning” and “low functioning” are imprecise and often offensive. “High support needs” or “low support needs” is more indicative of their daily life.
- “Normal,” “healthy,” or “able-bodied” imply people with disabilities are the opposite when you’re using this language to contrast. Use “non-disabled” instead.
The R-word — a term widely considered a slur — has started making a comeback in some online communities. What advice do you have for journalists when this comes up in their reporting to avoid amplifying harmful language?
Neas: The resurgence of the R-word is happening at the same time that rights and respect are slipping away. Treat it like other slurs: Report the fact of its use without repeating it in full, even in quotes. If you or your editor believes it must be used, use it once, then refer to “the R-word” after that.
We capitalize the R to recognize the serious harm the word represents. Naming it this way centers its weight and impact, without unnecessarily repeating a word that has caused so much pain.
Also, always include people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in stories about the R-word because their perspective is essential for accuracy and context. Here are quick reactions from the disability community you can use.
For more on language, check out the National Center on Disability and Journalism Disability Language Style Guide, as well as the Developmental Disabilities Act.
Go deeper: See our previous tips from The Arc on finding sources for disability stories, telling under-reported disabilities stories, and covering disabled voters.
As a journalist with a disability, I sometimes face challenges simply getting my work done. But writing about people living with diseases I cover, like Parkinson’s, allows me to relate to their experiences in a way that someone without that perspective might find harder to understand.ctive might find harder to understand.