bad news for disabled people · glasgow media group and who tirelessly, carefully and painstakingly...
TRANSCRIPT
Bad News for Disabled People: How the newspapers are reporting disability
In association with:
Strathclyde Centre for Disability Researchand Glasgow Media Unit
1
Contents PAGE
1. Acknowledgements 22. Authordetails 33. Mainfindings 44. Summary 6
Part2
5. Introduction 166. MethodologyandDesign 18
6.1 Contentanalysis 186.2 Audiencereceptionanalysis 20
7. Contentanalysis:Results 227.1 Politicaldiscussionandcritiquesofpolicy 227.2 Changesintheprofileofdisabilitycoverageand
‘sympathetic’portrayals 327.3 Changesintheprofileofrepresentationsofthe
‘undeserving’disabilityclaimant 388. Audiencereceptionanalysis 59
8.1 Howisdisabilityreportedinthemedia 598.2 Viewsondisabledpeople 628.3 Viewsonbenefitsandbenefitclaimants648.4 Viewsongovernmentpolicy67
9. Conclusion 6910. References 73Appendix1.Codingschedule 80Appendix2.Detaileddescriptorsforcodingandanalysis 85
2
AcknowledgementsThisresearchwascommissionedbyInclusionLondonandtheirfinancialsponsorshipandadministrativebackingisgratefullyrecognised.InparticularwewouldliketoacknowledgethehelpandcollaborativesupportofAnneKanewhoprovideduswithveryvaluableandhelpfuladvicethroughouttheresearchandhadasignificantinputinthedraftingofthefinalreport.WewouldalsoliketothankthefollowingresearcherswhoworkedintheGlasgowMediaGroupandwhotirelessly,carefullyandpainstakinglyundertookthecontentanalysisofthemedia:
StevieDocherty,LouiseGaw,DanielaLatina,ColinMacpherson,HannahMillarandSarahWatson.
WearegratefultoAllanSutherlandandJoFerriefortheircontributionstothedatacollection.Wewouldalsoliketothankallthefocusgroupmembersandinterviewrespondentswhotookpartinthestudy.Withouttheirtimeandcommitmentwewouldnothavebeenabletoproducethisreport.
3
AuthordetailsEmmaBriantisaresearchfellowintheGlasgowMediaGroup.ShehasrecentlycompletedherPhD,whichlookedatAngloAmericanrelationsincontemporarywartimepropagandaandinformationoperationsNickWatsonisProfessorofDisabilityResearchandDirectoroftheStrathclydeCentreforDisabilityResearchattheUniversityofGlasgow.Hispreviousresearchhasincludedworkondisabledchildrenanddisabledchildhoods,disabilityandtechnology,disabilitytheoryanddisabilityhistory.GregPhiloisProfessorofCommunicationsandSocialChangeandDirectoroftheGlasgowMediaGroup,UniversityofGlasgow.HispreviousresearchhascentredonmediacoverageofIsrael‐Palestineanditseffectonaudienceunderstandingoftheconflict,mediapresentationsindustrialdisputesandtradeunionism,theFalklandsWarandNorthernIreland.InclusionLondonprovidespolicy,campaigningandstrategiccapacitybuildingsupporttoDeafanddisabledpeople'sorganisations(DDPOs).InclusionLondonaimstoensureastrongcollectivevoicethatreflectsdiversityofDeafanddisabledLondonersandtheirorganisationsandaddressesthestrategicissuesthatimpactonDDPO'sabilitytosurviveandthrive.www.inclusionlondon.co.ukContactdetails:InclusionLondonCANMezzanine49‐51EastRoadLondonN16AHLondonDeafandDisabilityOrganisationsCICCompanyregistrationno:6729420
ProfessorNickWatsonStrathclydeCentreforDisabilityResearchUniversityofGlasgowGlasgowG128RTEmail:[email protected]
4
MainFindings InclusionLondoncommissionedtheGlasgowMediaGroupandtheStrathclydeCentreforDisabilityResearchtocarryoutastudytoanalysechangesinthewaythemediaarereportingdisabilityandhowithasimpactedonpublicattitudestowardsdisabledpeople.Incarryingoutthestudytheycomparedandcontrastedmediacoverageofdisabilityinfivepapersin2010‐11withasimilarperiodin2004‐5andranaseriesoffocusgroups.Thestudyfound:
• Therehasbeenasignificantincreaseinthereportingofdisabilityintheprintmediawith713disabilityrelatedarticlesin2004‐5comparedto1015inacomparableperiodin2010‐11.Thisincreasehasbeenaccompaniedbyashiftinthewaythatdisabilityisbeingreportedandthereisnowincreasedpoliticisationofmediacoverageofdisabilityin2010‐11comparedto2004‐5;
• Therehasbeenareductionintheproportionofarticleswhich
describedisabledpeopleinsympatheticanddeservingterms,andstoriesthatdocumentthe‘reallife’experiencesoflivingasadisabledpersonhavealsodecreased.Someimpairmentgroupsareparticularlylesslikelytoreceivesympathetictreatment:peoplewithmentalhealthconditionsandother‘hidden’impairmentsweremorelikelytobepresentedas‘undeserving’.
• Articlesfocusingondisabilitybenefitandfraudincreasedfrom
2.8%in2005/5to6.1%in2010/11.Whenthefocusgroupswereaskedtodescribeatypicalstoryinthenewspapersondisabilitybenefitfraudwasthemostpopularthemementioned.
• Thesearticlesareimpactingonpeople’sviewsandperceptionsof
disabilityrelatedbenefits.Thefocusgroupsallclaimedthatlevelsoffraudweremuchhigherthantheyareinreality,withsomesuggestingthatupto70%ofclaimantswerefraudulent.Participantsjustifiedtheseclaimsbyreferencetoarticlestheyhadreadinnewspapers.
5
• ThisstrengthoffraudasatabloidthemeconflictswiththerealityoflevelsofincapacitybenefitfraudandfocusespublicperceptionsofresponsibilityforIncapacityBenefitlevelsonclaimantsratherthanproblemsinlackoflabourmarketdemand,economicpoliciesordiscrimination.
• Therehasbeenanincreaseinthenumberofarticlesdocumentingtheclaimed‘burden’thatdisabledpeopleareallegedtoplaceontheeconomy–withsomearticlesevenblamingtherecessionitselfonincapacitybenefitclaimants;
• Articlesthatexplorethepoliticalandsocioeconomiccontextof
disabilityarerareasarearticlesthatexploretheimpactthattheproposedcutswillhaveondisabledpeople.Therewasadecreaseinreferencestodiscriminationagainstdisabledpeopleorothercontextualisingissues;
• Therehasbeenasignificantlyincreaseduseofpejorativelanguagetodescribedisabledpeople,includingsuggestionsthatlifeonincapacitybenefithadbecomea‘LifestyleChoice’.Theuseoftermssuchas‘scrounger’,‘cheat’and‘skiver’wasfoundin18%oftabloidarticlesin2010/11comparedto12%in2004/5.Therewere54occurrencesofthesewordsin2004/5comparedto142in2010/11.Thesechangesreinforcedtheideaofdisabledclaimantsas‘undeserving’.
• Disabledpeoplearefeelingthreatenedbythechangesinthewaydisabilityisbeingreportedandbytheproposedchangestothetheirbenefitsandtheirbenefitentitlements.Thesetwoarecombiningandreinforcingeachother.
6
SummaryInclusionLondoncommissionedtheGlasgowMediaGroupandtheStrathclydeCentreforDisabilityResearchtocarryoutastudytoanalysechangesinthewaythenewsmediaarereportingdisabilityandhowithasimpactedonpublicattitudestowardsdisabledpeople.Thisresearchhadthreemainaims:
• Toexaminehowthemediaarecoveringdisabilityandtodocumentchangesinthiscoverage.
• Toexaminehowthisisimpactingonpublicattitudestodisabledpeople.
• Toconsidertheimpactthatanytrendsidentifiedintheresearchmayhaveonthelivesofdisabledpeople:forexample,inaffectingattitudestodisabledpeopleorsupportfororoppositiontocutsinbenefitsaccessedbydisabledpeople.
Inordertotrackchangesinstyleorcontentinmediacoverageofpolicychangerelatingtodisabilitybenefits,andthushighlightmediaresponsesparticulartotherecentcuts,asamplecoveragewasdrawnforcomparisonfromtwoperiods:
• ThesecondtermofTonyBlair’s‘NewLabour’Government• ThecontemporaryConservative/LiberalDemocratCoalition
GovernmentAlargescaledetailedcontentanalysiswasconductedfocussingonfivepopularnewspapers:TheSun,TheMirror,TheExpress,TheMailandTheGuardian.Thiswoulddetermineifgovernmentattemptsatreconstructingdisabilityasaburdenimpactedonnewspapercoverageofdisabilityissues.Articlesmentioning‘disabled’,‘disability’,‘disabilities’and‘incapacity’wereobtainedfromLexisNexis,forthefollowingtimeperiods:
• October2004toJanuary2005–713documents• October2010toJanuary2011–1015documents• MarchtoApril2011–548documents
7
Thiscontentanalysiswassupplementedbyadetailedaudiencereceptionanalysis.Weheldfocusgroupsofbetween6and8peopleinEnglandandinScotlandandthesewererecordedforsubsequentanalysis.FindingsIncreasedcoverageofdisabilityOuranalysishasshownthatmediacoverageondisabilityincreaseddramaticallybetween2004‐5and2010‐11withover30%morearticlescoveringdisabilityandthatthisincreasewasaccompaniedbyachangeinthewaythatdisabilitywascovered.Whilstdisablisttermssuchas‘cripple’andthepresentationofdisabledpeopleassufferersorvictimsdecreasedbetweenthetwoperiodstheywerestillpresent,albeitonlyTheSunusedtheword‘cripple’inthe2010‐11period.Thedatafromboththecontentanalysisandtheaudiencereceptionstudiesareattimesconfusingandcontradictory.Thereisevidencetosupporttheclaimthattherehasbeenanincreaseincoverageofdisabilityasabenefitproblemandofdisabledpeopleasaburdenonthestateandtherehasbeenanincreaseinthetotalnumberofarticlesinthiscategory.Thisshiftisonethatwasrecognizedbymanyofourfocusgrouprespondents.Whenaskedtodescribeatypicalstoryondisabilityinthenewspaperstodaybenefitsandbenefitfraudwerebyfarthemostpopulartopicsmentioned.Peoplealsohavewildlymistakenperceptionsaboutlevelsoffraud.Howeverwhilstgeneraldisapprovalofbenefitcheatswasastrongthemeinthefocusgroupspeoplewerequicktoseparateoutwhattheyfeltwere‘deserving’disabledpeopleandfrauds.Disabledpeoplewereseenbyallourrespondentsasdeservingofstatesupport.ThepoliticizationofdisabilitybenefitsOurfindingssuggestthattherehasbeenanincreaseinthepoliticisationofthemediacoverageofdisability,ashiftwhichreflectstheCoalitionGovernment’sagenda.MuchofthemediaissupportiveofthechangesthecurrentGovernmentistryingtointroduceandarticlescriticaloftheGovernment’sagendaweremuchlessprevalentin2010‐11comparedto2004‐5,whenthethenLabourGovernmentattemptedtointroducesomesimilarcutsinservicesandbenefits.Therewereofcourse
8
differencesinthewaythatvariousnewspapersreportedthesechanges,withTheGuardianandTheMirrorbeingmuchmorelikelytobecriticalofCoalitionGovernmentpoliciesthanTheSun,ExpressorMail.Againtherewasageneralfeelingofsupportforthispolicyshiftinthefocusgroups,althoughthesupportwasnotoverwhelmingandsomeconcernwasexpressedabouthowthesechangeswerebeingimplementedandfearsaboutthosewhodeservedsupportbeingdeniedsuchsupport.DisabledPeopleandTriumphoverAdversitySympathetic,‘reallife’experiencesofdisabilitywerestronglyrepresentedinboththeperiodsthatweexploredalthoughtherewasasignificantdropin2010/11comparedto2004/5.Thiswasalsothesecondmostcommonthemementionedinthefocusgroups.Triumphoveradversityandtherepresentationofdisabledpeopleasinspiring,as‘SuperCripples’werealsofoundinbothperiods.Againtherewasalargedropinthissortofcoverage.In2004‐5,forexample,lifeexperiencestoriesmadeupover15%oftheDailyMail’scoverageofdisabilitycomparedtoonly7.7%ofcoveragein2010‐11.Inthetabloidpressingeneralsuchstoriesfellfrom29%to22%.Theseshifts,whilstwelcomeontheonehand,mightalsobeareflectiononthedesireofthesenewspaperstoreconstructdisabledpeopleasbenefitfrauds.Itishardtopresentdisabledpeopleasbothinspiringandatthesametimeascheatsandscroungers.Thisthemewasalsopresentinmanyofthefocusgroups.Thereductioninstoriesrepresentingdisabledpeopleasvictimsandassuffererswasalsoaccompaniedbyareductioninthenumberofarticlesdescribingdisabledpeopleasbeingingenuineneedofservicesorexperiencinginadequateserviceprovision(afallfrom13%to9%).
TheDeservingandNon‐deservingLinkedtothishasbeenamovebacktotherecreationandre‐entrenchmentoftheideaofthedeservingandnon‐deservingpoor.Whilsttherewasonlyamarginaldifferenceintheproportionofarticlesthatdescribedincapacitybenefitrecipientsas‘undeserving’–15.5%in2004‐5comparedto15.9%in2010‐11therewasalargeincreaseintheactualnumberofsucharticles(127in2010‐11comparedto81in2004‐5).ForexamplewhiletheproportionofExpressarticlesdiscussingclaimantsinthiswayfellfromapeakin2004‐5of21.4%ofitsarticles(morethananyothertabloid),to15.7%ofitsarticlesinthesameperiod
9
of2010‐11;theactualnumberofthesearticlesitproducedincreasedby26%(from31to42articles).Evidencefromthefocusgroupsinthisareaiscomplex.WhilstpeoplewerequicktoacceptthatfraudulentclaimantswereundeservingtherespondentsallfeltthattheStatehadadutytosupportdisabledpeople.Almostallthosewespoketoalsohaddirectexperienceofdisabilityeitherthroughaclosefamilymembersorclosefriends,manyofwhomhadtriedtogetbenefitsandhadfailed.Oneparticipantforexampletalkedabouthowhardithadbeenforhermother‘togetanybenefits.’Theywereallawareofhowdifficultitistoactuallyqualifyforabenefitandwereawareofthelowlevelsofsupportdisabledpeoplereceived.DisabledPeopleasa‘Burden’Theperiodin2010‐11alsosawmorediscussionofdisabilitybenefitsintermsofbeingaclaimeddrainontheeconomyandaburdenonthestate(anincreaseinthetabloidsfrom22articlesin2004‐5to37in2010‐11),withsomearticlesevenblamingtherecessionitselfonincapacitybenefitclaimants.TheSunheavilyincreasedtheproportionofitsarticlesthatdefinedclaimantsas‘undeserving’–from18.8%during2004‐5,to26.9%inthesamethreemonthsin2010‐11–producingmorearticlesonthisthemethananyothertabloid.ThesocialandpoliticalconsequencesofthecutsDebateofthepoliticalorsocialcontextinwhichdisabledpeoplefindthemselvesbecamealmostentirelyabsentfromthetabloidmediaandexplanationwasreducedtoindividualresponsibilityandweakenedsocialvalues.Thefactthatthecutsarenotjustaffectingthosemakingfraudulentclaims,butarenegativelyimpactingondisabledpeople’sliveswaslargelyignoredasweretheveryrealaffectsthattheproposedchangesinbenefitswillhaveondisabledpeople.Forexample,therewasanabsenceofcoverageoftheeffectsthatthereductionsinentitlement,benefitpaymentlevelsandtimelimitswillhavethatarebeingimposedevenonthosedefinedas‘genuine’claimants.Inarticlesthatattemptedtojustifytheproposedchangestothebenefitssystemtherewassomeattempttoreassurethepublicthat‘genuinely’disabledpeoplewouldbeunaffected.Therewasalargereductioninthenumberofarticlesinwhichadominantthemewastheideathatdisabledpeopleare‘deserving’claimants.Whilein2004‐5TheSunhadusedadominant‘deserving’claimantthemein7.9%ofitsarticles,thisfellin2010‐11to
10
0%.Similarly,TheExpressshowedafallfrom6.2%ofarticles,to1.1%inthecomparableperiodof2010‐11.TheDailyMaildropinthiscategorywasslight(1.4%‐0.8%)astheyrarelyincludedthisthemeasdominantinanyperiodanyway.ThesefindingscontrastgreatlywithbothTheGuardianandTheMirrorbothofwhichcarriedarticlesthatexpressedconcernovertheimpacttheproposedchangestodisabilitybenefitswillhaveondisabledpeople.DisabledPeopleasCheatsThecontentanalysisalsonotedanincreaseinreferencestoincapacitybenefitfraudinallpapers,reinforcingtheideathatdisabledpeopleare‘undeserving’claimants.Fraudarticlesincreasedfrom2.8%oftabloidcoverageinOctober–January2004‐5to6.1%inthesameperiodin2010‐11.WhiletheproportionoffraudcoverageinTheExpressdoubledfrom2.1%to4.2%,thetotalnumberofarticleshadshotupfromsixinOctober–January2004‐5,to22articlesinthesameperiodof2010‐11,morethananyotherpaperproduced.TheproportionofsucharticlesinTheMailincreasedfrom0.7%in2004‐5,to3.8%inthesameperiodin2010‐11,andthenrosesteeplyto9.2%inMarch‐April.InTheSunfraudstoriesalsoincreasedmarkedlyfromjust2%in2004‐5to7.1%in2010‐11.Thiswasunderscoredbythelanguage.Outofthe180tabloidarticlesacrossbothperiodsin2010‐11(October‐JanuaryandMarch‐Aprilcombined)theword‘cheats’wasusedin48articles,‘fraudster’wasusedin10articles,‘con’in8articles,‘fiddle’(thesystem)in8articles1,aswellasmanyotherinventivesynonyms.Thisstrengthoffraudasatabloidthemeconflictswiththerealityoflevelsofincapacitybenefitfraud,whichtheDepartmentforWorkandPensionestimatesat2.4%forIncapacitybenefitandlessthan1%forDisabilitylivingAllowance.DisabilityasanequalityissueArticlesondiscriminationagainstdisabledpeopleandtheirmarginalisationalsoshowedsignificantchangesbetweenthetwoperiods.InTheGuardiantherewasadropof31.2%inOctober‐January2004‐5,to29.6%inthesameperiodin2010‐11.Acrossthissameperiodtheproportionoftabloidarticleswhichmentioneddiscriminationormarginalisationofdisabledpeoplefellfrom19.5%to14.4%,thegreatestfalloccurringinTheExpress(from22.1%to11.6%).
1Includingvariationsontheseie.‘conning’/’conned’,‘fiddling’/’fiddled’etc…
11
Differenceswerealsonotedinthewaythatdifferentimpairmentgroupswererepresentedandthosewithaphysicalorsensoryimpairmentweremorelikelytoreceivesympathetictreatmentfromthepressthanothergroups.Mentalhealthwasmentionedinonly8ofthe25‘deserving’articleswhichmentionedadisabilityinOctober‐January2004‐5,afigurethatdroppedto2/30inOctober‐January2010‐11.MentalIllnessesandconditionswhichareotherwise‘hidden’(suchaschronicpain),orsocially‘unsympathetic’(suchasSTD’s,addictionorobesity),weremorelikelytobepresentedas‘undeserving’andpeoplewith‘depression’and‘stress’wereoftenportrayedasunworthyofbenefit.InarticlesthatexploredmentalhealthoftentabloidssuchastheDailyMail,TheMirror,andTheSunskirtedoverdetailsaboutaclaimant’sbackgroundwhichmightprovidecontextandunderstandingofaparticularcase.Referencestolearningdisabilitieswerenotableintheirabsencefromthisdebate.Disabledpeopleas‘Undeserving’ClaimantsTwotoolswereidentifiedasfrequentlyusedinframingthenewsstorieswhichdefinedindividualcasesasthe‘undeserving’claimantandreinforcingstatementsofoutrightcritiqueofthebenefitssystem.
• UseofPejorativeLanguage
Theuseofpejorativetermstodescribedisabledpeople,increasedinallpapersbetweenOctober‐January2004‐5andthesameperiodin2010‐11.Itincreasedfrom12%oftabloidarticlesinOctober‐January2004‐5to18%oftabloidarticlesfromthesameperiodin2010‐11.Therewere54occurrencesofsuchwordsin2004/5comparedto142in2010/11.InTheGuardianthecomparablefigurerosefrom2.6%ofarticles,to3.2%.TheMirroralsoincreaseditsuseofpejorativelanguagefrom4.3%to8.8%betweenthesetwoperiodsbutthegreatestincreasewasfoundinTheExpress,SunandMail.Termsusedincluded;scrounger,handout,workshyandcheats
• CharacterAttacksonClaimantsAttacksonthecharacteroftheclaimantduringboth2004‐5and2010‐11October‐Januaryperiodssoughttoportraythemaswastefulorindulgent;with‘badhabits’suchassmoking,drinking,sleepingaroundorhavingafamilyconsidered‘toolarge’(allactivitiesordinarilyconsideredamatterofprivateconscience).
12
ConclusionThisreportpresentsastrongbodyofevidencetosuggestthattherehasbeenasignificantchangeinthewaythatdisabilityisbeingreportedinmuchofthepressintheUnitedKingdomtoday.Thecontentanalysisclearlydemonstratesthattherebeenalargeincreaseinthenumberofarticlesinwhichdisabilityisthekeythemeandthatthishasbeenaccompaniedbyasignificantshiftintheemphasisandinthewaythatthearticlesarebeingreported.Thesefindingsarealsosupportedbytheaudiencereceptionanalysis.Thischangeinthefrequency,contentandtoneofthearticlesin2010/11whencomparedtoasimilarperiodin2004/5marksanewapproachtodisability.Thedetaileddriversforthesechangesarehardtoidentifyandcomplex.ThreeofthenewspaperswesurveyedarestrongsupportersoftheCoalitionGovernmentandthesepapershaveallexpressedsupportforthespendingcutsintroducedaspartoftheComprehensiveSpendingReviewtotackletheBudgetdeficit.Thefactthattheyaremuchmorereluctanttocriticisethecurrentgovernment’spoliciesondisabilitycomparedtosimilarattemptsintroducedbythelastLabourgovernmentwouldsuggestthattheirapparentsupportfordisabledpeoplewasatthattimecontingent.Theywere,itcouldbeargued,moreinterestedinusingdisabledpeopleasameanstoattacktheLabourgovernmentthantheywereinactuallysupportingdisabledpeople.ThevitriolicapproachadoptedbyarticlesinsomeofthepaperstodayandthewaytheyhavereporteddisabilityanddisabledpeopleintheperiodfollowingtheComprehensiveSpendingReviewaddsfurtherweighttotheseclaims.Muchofthecoverageinthetabloidpressisatbestquestionableandsomeofitisdeeplyoffensive.Theincreasedfocusonbenefitfraudwithoutlandishclaimsthatover70%ofpeopleondisabilitybenefitsarefraudsisanexampleofthistypeofreporting.Theseclaimsaremadeoverwhelminglywithoutevidenceandatnopointarethemediareportingtheverylowlevelsoffraudthatoccursoverallinrelationtothesebenefits.Wewouldfurthercitetheuseofpejorativelanguage,thefailuretoexploretheimpactoftheproposedcutsondisabledpeople’squalityoflife,thereluctancetocriticisegovernmentpolicyontheseissuesandthefrequentrepresentationofsomedisabledpeopleasundeservingofbenefitsaspotentiallycontributingtowhatcouldbecomeahighlyinflammatorysituation.
13
Whilethereisasyetnodirectevidencetosupporttheclaimthatthesereportsareleadingtothereportedincreasesinhatecrimes,newspapersshouldtakemuchgreatercareinthisarea.Theincreasedpejorativecoverageofdisabilitymayhavealongtermeffectandfurtherworkwillbeneededtomonitorthis.Theimpactsthesechangeshavehadonthewaythatdisabilityisperceivedbythepopulationisdifficulttodetermineprecisely.Manyoftheparticipantshadverycomplexandoftenconflictingviews.Many,forexample,believedthattherewasahighleveloffraudbutallparticipantsalsohadpersonalknowledgeoffriendsorfamilymemberswhowereinreceiptofadisabilitybenefitandalltalkedabouthowhardithadbeenforthemtoobtainthatbenefit.Ontheotherhandtheyalsoknew,orclaimedtoknow,peoplewhowerecommittingbenefitfraud.Alloftheresearchparticipantsmadeacleardistinctionbetweenthosewhodeservedtoreceivebenefitsandthosewhodidnotandwhiletheywereveryquicktovilifyfraudulentclaimantstheywerealso,inthemain,verysupportiveofdisabledpeople.Thiscouldbeexpressedas:disabledpeoplearenotfraudstersandfraudstersarenotdisabledpeople.Disabledpeoplethemselvesarefeelingtheeffectsofthiscoverageanditisimpactingontheirownfeelingsofsecurityandsafety.Therewasagreatdealofconcernamongthedisabledparticipantsabouttheeffectsthatupcomingbenefitchangeswillhaveontheirqualityoflife,ontheirabilitytoparticipateandalsoontheiracceptancebynon‐disabledpeople.Thelast20yearshaveseenmajorchangesinthewaythatsocietytreatsdisabledpeople.NotonlyisdisabilitynowrecognizedasanequalityissuebutitispartofthenewSingleEqualityAct(2010)andassuchhasequalfootingwithothergroupsfacingdiscriminationongroundssuchasgender,ethnicityandsexualorientation.Recentchanges,representingmanyyearsofcampaigningbydisabledpeople,haveculminatedinarguablysomeofthemostadvancedequalitylegislationintheworldandkeyelementssuchastheEqualityDutyplaceveryhighexpectationsonpublicsectorbodies.TheUNConventionontheRightsofPeoplewithDisabilitieshasbeensignedandratified.Nolongeraredisabledpeopleexpectedtolivetheirlivesininstitutionsasamatterofcourse.Thereis(forthemoment)apresumptionthatdisabledchildrenwillbeeducatedinamainstreamschool,whiledirectpaymentsandother
14
formsofself‐directedsupportarenowawellestablishedpartofcommunitycarepackages.Putsimply,disabledpeoplecanexpecttobeincludedinthemainstreaminmostaspectsoftheirlivestoahithertounknowndegree.Thisprogressisnotsetinstone,however.Inparticular,itmustbestressedthatprogressonlegislationandrightsstandsincontrasttoarelativefailuretotransforminstitutionsandinstitutionalpractices.Ontheonehand,equalityfordisabledpeople,anideathatwasoncesocontentiousandsodubious,isnowpartoftheequalitymainstream;ontheotherhand,thedemandsforequalityhaveyettoberealisedinpractice.Thus,critiquesof,forexample,segregatededucation,exclusionfromwork,housing,denialoffamilylife,oftherighttosexualexpression,toformrelationshipsandtobeparents,whichappearedsoincendiarynotsolongago,arenowwidelyendorsed.Howeverthischangeinattitudeshasbynomeansdoneawaywiththesepractices;whilsttherehasbeenachangeinthewaythatwetalkaboutdisability,disabledpeoplethemselvesstillfacewidespreaddiscriminationintheirdaytodaylives.Intheirrecentlypublishedtriennialreview,HowFairisBritain?,theEqualityandHumanRightsCommissionprovideasubstantialbodyofevidencetosupportthisclaimandshowhow,despiteover15yearsofanti‐discriminationlegislationdisabledpeoplearestillconsiderablydisadvantagedwhencomparedtotheirnondisabledpeers.Thetenuousandcontingentnatureoftheprogressexperiencedbydisabledpeoplesuggeststhatthesegainscanbeeasilylostorwithdrawn.Thereisadangerthatmuchofthereportingthatwediscussinthisreportcouldlaythegroundworkfortheremovalofsomeofthesupportstructuresandprocessesthatarecurrentlyinplace.Thisfearwasexpressedopenlyinoneofthefocusgroupsofdisabledpeopleandisonethatthepressshouldtakeseriously.Bysimplyreplicatingthegovernment'spositionondisabilityanddisabilitybenefitwithoutcheckingeithertheirstatisticsorthebasisonwhichtheclaimismadethepartisanapproachtheyadopthasthedangeroffurtheraddingtotheoppressiondisabledpeopleareexperiencing.
15
Part2
Introduction
Thegeneralelectionin2010andsubsequentformationoftheConservative/LiberalDemocraticCoalitionGovernmentisprovingtohaveaconsiderableimpactondisabledpeople.Therehasbeenmuchcommentontheunprecedentedscaleofpublicspendingcutstowhichthegovernmentiscommitted(e.g.http://www.inclusionlondon.co.uk/all-in-this-together). Inparticular,thechangesinwelfarepoliciesthegovernmentisintroducingorpreparingtointroducewillhitdisabledpeopleharderthananyothergroup.Testsonpeoplewhoreceiveemploymentsupportallowance(ESA)carriedoutbyATOS(introducedbythepreviousadministrationandcontinuedbythecurrentone)areseekingtoreducethenumbereligibleforthebenefit.TheintroductionofanewUniversalCreditbenefit,thechangeinindexationofupratingbenefitsfromthehigherRetailPriceIndex(RPI)tothelowerConsumerPriceIndex(CPI)togetherwithchangestoentitlementtoDisabilityLivingAllowance(DLA)andarangeofotherbenefitsandservicecutswillallimpactadverselyondisabledpeople.Demosestimatethatdisabledpeoplewilllose£9billioninwelfaresupportinthenextfiveyears(WoodandGrant2010).Notsurprisinglydisabledpeopleandtheirorganisationshaveexpressedconsiderableconcernabouthowthesechangeswillimpactondisabledpeople.TherecentlypublishedTriennialReviewofEqualityinBritain,HowFairisBritain,publishedbytheEqualityandHumanRightsCommissionhighlightsthedisadvantageandinequalityexperiencedbydisabledpeopleinallaspectsoflife.Itisdifficulttoseehowthesecutsinentitlementtobenefitandsupportcandoanythingotherthanfurtherdisadvantageanalreadydisadvantagedgroup.Theseconcernshavebeenwelldocumented,forexampleintworeportspublishedbyDemos(WoodandGrant2010,2011).Angerhasalsobeendirectedatthewaythatthemediaitselfhasreportedthesecutsandhaschangedthewaythatdisabilityanddisabledpeoplearerepresentedanddiscussed.Scopeandacoalitionof
16
50otherthirdsectororganisationshavesuggestedthatthischangehasplayedaroleinincreasinghostilitytowardsdisabledpeople2.Upuntilnowtherehasonlybeenanecdotalevidencetosupporttheclaimthatthemediahavechangedthewaythattheyarereportingdisability.Theresearchthatthisreportpresentsaimstofillthatvoid.Bycarryingoutacontentanalysisofnewspapercoveragein2004/5withacomparableperiodin2010/11itshowshownewspaperreportinghaschangedoverthetwoperiods.
2http://www.disabilityhatecrime.org.uk/index.php/component/content/article/1-latest-news/165-hate-crimes-against-britains-disabled-on-the-rise
17
Methodology&DesignInmeetingtheaboveresearchobjectives,astructuredandpragmaticresearchdesignwasdevelopedemployingbothqualitativeandquantitativemethodsandworkingwithinoursettimetableandresources.Thisdesignwasflexibleenoughtorespondtoemergenttrendsinthedataasneededandincorporatedarangeofmethodsincludinginterviews,focusgroups,contentanalysisandthecomparativecasestudyapproach.ContentAnalysisScopeoftheResearch&SampleInordertotrackchangesinstyleorcontentinmediacoverageofpolicychangerelatingtodisabilitybenefits,andthushighlightmediaresponsesparticulartotherecentcuts,asamplecoveragewasdrawnforcomparisonfromtwoperiods:
• ThesecondtermofTonyBlair’s‘NewLabour’Government• ThecontemporaryConservative/LiberalDemocratCoalition
GovernmentAlargescaledetailedcontentanalysiswasconductedfocussingonfivepopularnewspapers:TheSun,TheMirror,TheExpress,TheMailandTheGuardian.Thiswoulddetermineifgovernmentattemptsatreconstructingdisabilityasaburdenimpactedonnewspapercoverageofdisabilityissues.Articlesmentioning‘disabled’,‘disability’,‘disabilities’and‘incapacity’wereobtainedfromLexisNexis,forthefollowingtimeperiods:
• October2004toJanuary2005–713documents(oncefiltered)• October2010toJanuary2011–1015documents(oncefiltered)
Duplicates,storiesrelatingtoRepublicofIrelandandweekendeditionswerefilteredfromthesample.Pictureswerenotincludedintheanalysisbutregionandeditionofthepaperwerenoted.
18
Twocontemporarychangesinpolicywerehighlightedintheearlyplanningstagesassignificantforafocusedanalysisofrecentmediacoverage:
• ThereplacementofDisabilityLivingAllowancewithPersonalIndependencePayment
• ThereplacementofIncapacityBenefitwithEmploymentSupportAllowance.
Thereforetheperiodofstudywaslaterextendedtoincludetheperiodwhenthesechangesweregoingthrough:
• MarchtoApril2011–548documents(oncefiltered)Therangeofdocumentaryevidenceincludednewsitems,features,opinion,reviews,sport,andletters.CodingAnexperiencedcodingteamofeightindividualswereemployedduringthecontentanalysisstage,supervisedbyProfessorGregPhilointheMediaGroup.Theresearchdesigndrewonexperiencegainedthroughanothersuccessful(DepartmentofHealth‐funded)study,intomentalhealthandthemedia.Thepresentresearchbeganwithaproject‐specificbriefingintheMediaGroupbriefedmembersofthecodingteamonthespecificaimsoftheprojectandtheirroleandresponsibilitieswithinit.Areliableandpurpose‐specificcodingschedulewasdevelopedforandbythecoders(SeeAppendix1),alongwithdetaileddescriptors(SeeAppendix2).ThiswasoverseenbybothProfessorPhiloandProfessorWatson,toensurecategoriesweregeneratedinaccordancewiththespecificaimsoftheresearch.Thecodingteamworkedmethodicallyaccordingtoagreedprocedure,anddrewpracticalinsightsfromearlydatagathered.Thesehighlightedemergentthemes,whichwereusedtofurtherinformthedesign,andultimatelytoenrichlateranalysis.Codersworkedcollaboratively,discussingexamplesandcheckingeachothersanalysistoensureaconsistentapproach.Inadditiontothis,themostexperiencedcodersactedasfinalcheckertomonitorforconsistentoutput.Thecodingschedulecategories(SeeAppendices1&2)weredevisedtoidentifyreferencesbothto:
19
• Representationswhichreferenceddisabilityanditsuniquesocial
context,andhowthisdiscoursechangedovertime.• Politicalissuesraisedinthecoverage.
Inordertoassesspotentialdifferencesinthecoverage,whenadisabilitywasmentionedthiswasnotedin3broadcategories:
• PhysicalandSensoryImpairments• MentalHealth• Learningdisabilities
Amongotherthings,thiswashopedtorecordanypotentialdifferencesinnewspaperassessmentsof‘need’,ordifferingportrayalsofthelegitimacyofclaimants(as‘deserving’or‘undeserving’),thatmightbeattributedtotypesofconditions.Allarticleswerecodedaccordingtohowprominentathemewasinthearticle,andthesevariablesweremeasuredona5pointscale(rangingfroma‘baremention’,toa‘dominanttheme’inthearticle).Bothimplicitandexplicitreferenceswerenoted,whentheseappearedintheheadline.Specificexamplesofpejorativelanguagereferencingdisabilitybenefitclaimantsdirectlyorindirectlywerealsonotedtoenrichlateranalysis.Inordertoidentifythemostfrequentlycited‘voices’acrossthebodyofarticles,referencesattributedtopoliticians(bypoliticalparty),charities,carersanddisabledpeople,amongotherkeycommentators,wereallrecorded.ThecodingperiodoccurredbetweenMarchandJune2011and,asmentionedabove,theinitialscopeoftheprojectwasextendedtoincludecrucialcoveragebetweenMarchandApril2011.AnalysisAnalysisbeganinJulyandaresearcherexperiencedindataanalysiswasengagedduringthisstage.SPSSsoftwarewasusedtoidentifystatisticaltrendsinthedata.AudienceReceptionAnalysisWealsocarriedoutanaudiencereceptionstudytodeterminehowthereportingofdisabilityanddisabledpeoplewaswerebeinginterpretedbythegeneralpublicandhowitwasimpactingontheirperceptionsof
20
thetopic.ThisqualitativeelementbeganinJune2011andcarriedonuntilAugust.Thekeyaimsofthissectionwereto:
• Assesshowthiscoverageisimpactingongeneralpublicattitudestodisabilityanddisabledpeople.
• Identifydisabledpeople’sviewsonhowpublicattitudeshavechangedandhowmessagesarebeingreceived.
WeusedthefocusgroupstofurtherexaminekeytrendshighlightedduringthequantitativeContentAnalysis.Thewereorganisedaccordingtothestandardaudiencereceptiontechniques(ESRC2004)andtheagendaforthefocusgroupsandthetopicguideweresetbythefindingsfromthecontentanalysis.Inthissectionoftheresearchwecarriedoutfivefocusgroupswithnon‐disabledpeopleandtwowithpeoplewhoweredisabled.Somedisabledpeoplealsotookpartinindividual,onetooneinterviews.Eachfocusgroupconsistedofbetweenfiveandeightparticipantsand42peopleintotaltookpartinthiselementoftheresearch.TheparticipantswereallvolunteersandwererecruitedfromarangeofdifferentorganisationsandwerecarriedoutinbothEnglandandScotland.Theparticipantswererecruitedfromarangeoforganisationsandwereselectedtoensurevariety.Thesefocusgroupsweresupplementedbyinterviewswithsixjournalistsandmediacommentatorswhospecialiseinthefieldofdisability.Theseinterviewsallowedustocontextualiseboththenewspaperreportingandthecommentsmadinthefocusgroups.Alltheinterviewsandfocusgroupsweretapedforsubsequentanalysisandanalysiswasbasedonstandardqualitativemethodologies.Thecontentofeachfocusgroupandtheinterviewswereexaminedandkeythemesacrossthegroupsandtheinterviewswereidentified.
21
ContentAnalysis:ResultsandAnalysisInthesamplethetotalamountofcoveragewhichmentioneddisabledpeoplewasfoundtohaveincreasedbetweenOctober‐January2004‐5andOctober‐January2010‐11(from713articlesinthefirstperiodto1015inthesecond),representingachangeinthemediaprofileofdisabledpeoplewhobecameafocusofenhancedmediadebate.Ouranalysisrevealedhowcoveragerelatingtodisabilityissueschangedintherun‐uptothe2010‐11Coalitionwelfarebenefitcuts,whichDemosanticipatedcouldcostdisabledpeopleover£9billionbytheendofthisparliament(WoodandGrant,8October2010).Inthelightoftheseestimatesthatdisabledpeoplewouldbedisproportionatelyaffected,weexploredwhethertheinterestsofdisabledpeoplewerebeingrepresentedinthisenhancedpublicdebatesurroundingthecuts.Thecontentanalysisofmediacoverageidentifiedthreekeythemesandemergenttrendscentralinillustratingchangeinthediscourserelatingtodisabilitybetween2004‐5and2010‐11andwewilldiscusstheminthecontextofrelevantsocial,politicalandeconomicdevelopments.Thesewere:
• Politicaldiscussionandcritiquesofpolicy• Changesintheprofileofdisabilitycoverageand‘sympathetic’
portrayals• Changesintheprofileofrepresentationsofthe‘undeserving’
disabledclaimantPoliticalDiscussionandCritiquesofPolicyOn1September2004thenPrimeMinisterTonyBlairannouncedthatheaimedtocutthe2.7millionpeopleinreceiptofincapacitybenefitbyonemillionlistingthiswithin"sevenkeychallengesfacingBritainin2004"(Hennessey,12thSep2004).ThisfollowedtheresignationofWorkandPensionsSecretaryAndrewSmith,whoitwasclaimedsoughttoincrease“help,adviceandtraining”ratherthanbringincuts,andhisreplacementbythemoreamenableAlanJohnson(Hennessey,12Sep2004).DuringthisperiodNewLabour’s‘PathwaystoWork’pilotschemeswereinoperationwithcompulsorywork‐focussedinterviewsfornewclaimants,an‘advice’serviceand£40grantasincentivetoenterwork(Bowers,3December2004).Eventually,inthenewCabinet,
22
JohnsonwasmovedtothenewpositionofSecretaryofStatefor‘Productivity,EnergyandIndustry’inMay2005,andDavidBlunketttookoverhisroleattheDWP.BlunkettpresidedoverwhattheTelegraphdescribedasaCabinet“split”followingtheharderlinetakenbyDowningStreetraisingconcernbysomeMPsandcharitygroups(Jones,31Oct2005).AreportbySheffield‐HallamUniversity’s‘CentreforRegionalEconomicandSocialResearch’in2007arguedthatgovernmentunemploymentstatisticshadconcealedaroundonemillion‘hiddenunemployed’peoplewhohavebeendivertedonto“incapacitybenefits”as“anyoneout‐of‐workonincapacitybenefitswillautomaticallybeexcludedfromtheclaimantunemploymentfigures”(Beatty,et.al,May2007:10).Theyargueinalaterreportthatthedramaticriseinnumbersreceivingincapacitybenefitfrom400,000inthe1970’supto2.4millionby2004(seeFigure1,below)is,inpart,areflectionofproblemsintheBritishlabourmarket.Itmayalsobeduetocampaigningbydisabledpeoplewhichsucceededinincreasingthefocusondisablingbarriersandsubsequentredefinitionofcertain‘illnesses’,suchascancer,HIVandinjuriescausedbyindustrialaccidentsincludingbackproblems,asdisabilities.ClaimantsinBeatty&Fothergill’sresearchwerefoundtohavebeenconcentratedinformerindustrialareas.Theseweretheareasmostseverelyhitbyjoblossesinthe1980’s‐90’s,whichhadahigherconcentrationofpoorhealthandinjuriesandwherethelabourmarketneverfullyrecovered(Beatty&Fothergill,2010).Beatty&Fothergillnotethatpeoplewho“couldprobablybeexpectedtohavebeeninworkinagenuinelyfullyemployedeconomy”hadafinancialincentivetotakeincapacitybenefitsoverJobseekersAllowance,and“Thegovernmentlikedincapacitybenefitsbecausetheyhidthetruescaleofjoblessness”(2010:5&23).BeattyandFothergillfoundwhileintheir2007sample70‐74%ofclaimantshadmedicalreasonsforleavingtheirjob(andnearlyallfeltsuchfactorspreventedthemworking),importantly60%oftheirsampleofincapacitybenefitclaimantswerefoundtohavenoformalqualificationsatall(Beatty&Fothergill,2010:10).Impairment,povertyanddiscriminationleadingtopooreducationalattainmentarewell‐knowntobemutuallyassociated.BeattyandFothergillstatedthat“Inaweakerlabourmarket,evenamodestdegreeofill‐healthordisabilityislikelytoprejudiceanindividuals’chancesofgainingandholdingdownemployment”particularlyiftheymustseek
23
low‐skill,manualwork(Beatty&Fothergill,2010:22).Theyconcludethat:
“Wherethereareplentyofjobsavailable–asituationthatcharacterisedmuchofSouthernEnglandupuntilthe2008recession–largenumbersofmenandwomenwithhealthproblemsordisabilitiesdonothangaroundonincapacitybenefits[…]Wherelaboursupplycontinuestoexceedlabourdemand,asinsomuchofolderindustrialBritain,illhealthordisabilityactsasoneofthegreatdiscriminatorsindeterminingwhoworksandwhodoesn’t”(Beatty&Fothergill,2010:22).
Suchresearchreflectstherealityofdiscriminationandtheimportanceofthedisabilitymovement’scaseforreasonableadjustmentsandotherequalisingmeasures.Italsoimpliesalong‐termproblemwithagovernmentalfocusondivertingpeoplefromunemploymentfigures,thushidingaweakeconomy,anddoinglittletoaddresstherealsocialconditionsofdisabledpeopleandworkingclasscommunities.Thatcher/Major‐eraConservativepolicieswerecriticisedorreferencedascontexttocurrentpolicychangesinonlythreearticlesin2004‐5,allinTheGuardian.OneGuardianarticledidthisindirectlyforinstance;arguingthatLabourhad“failedtomakeadentinthe2.7millionpeopleonincapacitybenefitorseveredisabilityallowance,manyofthemmenintheir50’sthrownonthescrapheapduringthe1980’sand90’s”[OurEmphasis](Elliott,18October2004).CriticismoftheformerConservativepolicieswassimilarlylowin2010‐11(totalofsixarticlesacrossboth2010‐11samples),whenitmighthaveprovidedcounterpointfordiscussionofcurrentConservativepolicies.
24
Figure1:Incapacityclaimants(6mths+)ofworkingage*,GB,1963‐2009(from:Beatty&Fothergill,2010:4).Duringthe2004‐5periodnewspapercoveragerevealedstrongattacksonthecontemporaryLabourGovernmentfromallnewspapers(in9.5%oftabloidarticles)whichwillbediscussedindetailbelow.Coverage,asmentionedintheprevioussection,oftenemphasisedanindividualclaimant’slackofmoralcharacter,orlaziness,asanexplanationfortheincreaseinclaimantsratherthanstructural/policyreasons,disablingbarriersorlegislativereform.Thisfollowedagovernmenttrendto‘personalise’theproblem.AlanJohnson,on18October2004,saidpeopleshouldreturntoworkquicklylikeTonyBlairdid;hewarneddoctorstobemorecarefulwithwhotheysignedoffsick,urgingthemtoenda‘sicknoteculture’andputtingresponsibilityonthemas‘gatekeepers’tothebenefits(TheTimes,19Oct2004).Hiscommentswereofcourserepeatedinthepress,onesucharticleinTheExpressblamesdoctorsoutrightintheheadline,“I’msickofSick‐noteBritainsaysMinister;DoctorsaccusedofcausingbenefitscrisisbysigningoffMillionswithlittlereason”andusedpejorativelanguage,describingBritainasa“soft‐touch”for“work‐shy”peoplewho“languish”onbenefits(Walker,19October2004).WeobservedthatinTheExpressarticlesmakingtheclaimthatpeoplehadbeenencouragedontobenefitsasadirectresultofgovernmentpolicyincreasedfrom2.1%ofarticlesinOctober‐January2004‐5to5.6%oftheirarticlesinthesameperiodof2010‐11.Interestinglyinahealthcolumnaweeklaterthesamepaperranafeatureby‘DrRosemary’whoemphasisedthat
25
“patientinterest”shouldunderpindoctorsjudgments,notgovernmentcuts,and“justbecauseTonyBlairisbackathisdeskacoupleofdaysafterheartsurgerydoesn’tmeanthateveryonecandothesame”(26October2004).Neverthelesssomecoveragedidhighlighttheabsenceofjobsasanissue,aletterinTheSunpointedtothis,butblameditonLabourbringingin“cheaperforeignlabour”(Letter,19October2004).SomeothercoverageblamedLabour,forexample,TheDailyMailarguedthat“thecostofsicknessandincapacitybenefitshassoaredsincelabourcametopower”(Taggart,29October2004).YetwhileanincreasecanbeshowninthisperiodofNewLabouritisclearlyalonger‐termtrend(seefigure1above).Anotherarticle,thistimeinTheGuardian,notesthislong‐termdevelopmentciting,“athree‐foldincreaseonthenumberofclaimants25yearsago”(Bower,3December2004).TherewasnexttonocoverageindefenceofLabourduringthe2004‐5period:justtwoarticles,oneinTheGuardianandanotherintheformofalettertoTheSun,fromastrokevictim’swifeandcarerwhobrieflystatedthatshedidn’t“feelthreatenedbyTonyBlair’snewstanceonbenefits”asshedidn’tthink“genuineclaimantshaveanythingtoworryabout”(Douse,22October2004).InTheGuardian,attackonNewLabouroccurredin6.3%ofitsarticlesbutitwasalow‐prominencetheme(dominantinonlyonearticle).Onesuchexampleofcritiquewastheinvestigationmentionedaboveintochildmentalhealthprovisioninprisons,whereTheGuardiancriticisedpoliciesofNewLabourandits“immediatepredecessors”(Davies,8December2004).Thepaperstatesthat:
“between1992and2001,thenumberofchildrenbeingjailedeveryyearsoaredby90%[…]Thenumberofchildrenunder15senttocustodyincreasedby800%”andarguesthat“around80%ofchildrenincustodysufferfromatleasttwomentaldisorders”(Davies,8December2004).3
Only1.9%ofalltabloidsshowedanydefenceatalloftheLabourGovernmentortheirpoliciesinrelationtodisabilityduring2004‐5.Interestingly,nodefenceofNewLabourpolicieswasfoundinthetraditionallyLabour‐supporting‘DailyMirror’during2004‐5.
3TheDailyMailhasfeaturedaseriesofarticleshighlightingcriminalityinyoungchildrenconverselyarguingthat“Asmanyas3,000criminals,includingrapists,robbersandburglars,escapedpunishmentlastyearbecausetheyweretooyoungtobeprosecuted”(SeeGreenwood,27thJune2011&Derbyshire,28thFebruary2011).
26
Indeed,themostvirulentcriticismduringthisperiodcamefromTheExpress(12.4%ofExpressarticles),theDailyMail(10.7%ofitsarticles)andTheMirror(7.2%ofitsarticles).Withthiscriticismadominantthemeinthepaper(dominantin5.8%ofitsarticles),TheMirrortargetedstrongcritiqueatNewLabour’sclaimsatthetime,that“twothirdsofthoseclaimingincapacitybenefitarefitenoughtowork”;thepaperdefendedclaimantswhoitsaidhave“nooption”becausethey“cannotgetajob”(Routledge,17December2004).OnthisissueTheMailalsogavealengthyright‐wingcritiqueofNewLabour,citingtheConservativeswhowereattacking“Labour’sfailuretotacklethespirallingsicknoteculture”.Itarguedthatjoblessfiguresdisguised“nearlyeightmillionpeople”whowerenotlookingforwork,includingthoseonincapacitybenefit(Chapman,16December2004).CriticismoftheNewLabourGovernmentduring2004‐5wasnotedmostoften,however,inTheExpress(6.9%ofitsarticlescontainingcriticismofNewLabourgovernmentasa‘dominant’theme).OneexamplehighlightedthereportthattheGovernment’sownDWPstaffhadtaken“12.6daysoffsick”andcost“taxpayers£100million”,asironic,havingbeenreleased“justdaysaftertheGovernmentdeclaredwarontheworkshy”(TheExpress,8December2004).IncontrasttoTheMirror,TheExpress’criticismofNewLabourcentredlargelyaroundhowitspolicieshadencouraged‘welfarecheats’totake‘tax‐payers’moneyandunsurprisinglytheyhadahigherreportingof‘undeserving’claimants(discussedfullybelow).TheattackonthebenefitssystemwasalsostrongestinTheExpress(13.1%ofitsarticlesin2004‐5)andtheDailyMail(10%ofitsarticlesinthatperiod).ThisExpressattackonthebenefitssystemincreasedinthecomparable2010‐11periodto17.2%,whiletheDailyMailattacksreducedslightlyto7.7%ofitsarticles.InTheSuncoverageofthiskindsimilarlyshotupfrom8.9%in2004‐5to14.2%in2010‐11.Thiscoveragecanbecontrastedwiththataccompanyingtherecentcuts.InOctober‐January2010‐theCoalitionGovernmentwasbothattackedlessfrequentlyanddefendedmoreoverallbythetabloidsthanNewLabourhadbeenduringthesameperiodof2004‐5(4.1%oftabloidarticleswerefoundtocontaincriticismoftheCoalitionand4.8%containedargumentsindefenceoftheCoalition).ThemostdefencesoccurredinTheExpress(15articles,5.6%ofitsarticles)andTheGuardian(13articlesor6%ofitsarticles).However,defencesoftheCoalitionusuallymadeuponlyasmallproportionofthearticle(asa
27
dominantthemethiswasmostcommoninTheExpressbutstillcomprisedonly1.5%ofitsarticlesinOctober‐January2010‐11and1.4%inMarch‐April2011).WhereadefenceoftheCoalitionoccurredasadominantthemeofthearticle,thissometimesoccurredintheformofaletteroropinionpiececontributedbyanactivistorrepresentativeofthatparty.Forexample,aletterwassenttoTheGuardianbyChildren’sMinisterSarahTeatherwhichrespondedtowhatitcalleda“misrepresentation”oftheGreenPaperonEducationand“SpecialEducationalNeedsandDisabilities”anddefendedthepolicychangeasmotivatedby“parentchoice”(14October2011).In28/62articlesinOctober‐January2010‐11,and27/46articlesinMarchApril2011inwhichstatementsdefendingtheCoalitionwereprovidedtheseweretakenfrompoliticians/civilservants.ThiswasstrongestinTheExpress,whichquotedtheCoalitionninetimesduringeachperiod.Journalistsvoiceswererecordedastheothermaincategorytowhichsupportwasattributed,23/62timesinOctober‐January2010‐11,and12/46articlesinMarch‐April2011.Whentherewasanopposingvoice,inTheGuardiandisabledpeople,theirfamiliesandcarersoftenprovidedit,whilecharitieswerecitedin14ofthepaper’sarticlesinrelationtoathemeofCoalitionGovernmentcriticismintheOctober‐January2010‐11sample.Itisimportanttonotethat,inadditiontotheovertcommentssupportingordefendingtheGovernmentdescribedhere,supportofthecutsinincapacitybenefitandthereforesupportofGovernmentpolicy,isimplicitin:
- Theincreaseintabloidarticlespresentingtheincapacityclaimantas‘undeserving’,boththroughcontentandstyle(iepejorativelanguagesuchas‘scroungers’,characterattacks)inallbuttheDailyMailandTheGuardian;
- Theincreasedtabloidcoveragefocussingonincapacitybenefit‘fraud’andusingpejorativelanguagesuchas‘cheats’especiallyinTheSun,TheExpressandDailyMail;
- Thereductioninarticlesclaimingclaimantsare‘deserving’inallbutTheMirrorandTheGuardian.
Thesetrends,whichmaynotalwaysbelinkeddirectlytopolicy,stilltacitlysupportandlegitimateit.Findingsrelatingtothiscoveragewillbeexploredindetailbelow.DefenceoftheCoalitionroseto7.8%oftabloidarticlesintheMarch‐April2011sample,despiteadropinthiscategory
28
byTheGuardian,whodefendedthegovernmentinonlysixarticles;therewasstrongsupportbyTheExpress(11.6%oftheirarticles)andTheSun(7.4%oftheirarticles).ThepolarisationofthepartisanpressismostclearfromthosearticlesincludingcritiqueoftheCoalition.AttacksontheCoalitiondominatedGuardiancoveragecomprising34.7%ofGuardianarticlesfromOctober‐January2010‐11(aprominentthemein10.6%ofthepaper’sarticles).ThisfellslightlyinMarch‐Aprilto30.3%ofarticlesbutinthiskeypolicyperiodthereweremorearticlesinwhichthisthemewasdominant(17.2%ofallGuardianarticles).ThisisalsotrueofTheMirror,whichcriticisedtheCoalitionGovernmentin25%ofitsarticlesduringthisperiod,afigurethatroseto33%inApril‐March2011(Seebelow).OneexampleofsuchcriticismisthestrongarticleinTheGuardianwrittenbyRhydianJames,adisabledeconomistandpoliticalactivistforPlaidCymruwhosecriticism,whiledetailingspecificpoliciesandtheirlikelyimpacts,alsoemphasisedthepotentialstrengthofdisabledpeopleasanoppositionalgroup.Hestates,
“Theoverallimpactofthesemeasuresistopenalisepeopleforbeingillordisabled,asifthatwereacrimeorsomeformofcheating.However,thecoalitionhasmadeamistakeiftheythinktheyhavepickedonagrouptooweakandvulnerabletoresist.”(James,22ndOctober2010).
Besidesreal‐lifecasessuchasthis,TheGuardianalsopresenteditsargumentthroughfactualarticlesdetailingthewidercontextofthecuts,andthecontractioninsupportservices.Forexample,onearticledetailsinformationabout“redundancies”incharities(includingTheShawTrust,andSolentMind)andreductionsinDayCentresandotherservices,alongsidecriticismofCoalitioncutspolicy:
“Thegovernmentexpectstosave£2Bnoverfiveyearsbyencouragingpeopleintowork,orpushingthemontoalower‐paidbenefit”(Gentleman,30March2011).
29
Oct2010‐Jan2011
March‐April2011
Sun
2.0%(4/197)
2.5%(3/122)
Mirror
25%(51/204)
33.0%(38/115)
Express
5.6%(15/268)
3.4%(5/147)
9.2%(12/130)
18.5%(12/65)
Guardian
34.7%(75/216)
30.3%(30/99)
AllTabloids
4.1%(33/799)
12.9%(58/449)
Figure2:ProportionofArticlesContainingCriticismofCoalitionGovernment
Whileall‐outattacksontheCoalition’splanswererareinTheSun,andinTheExpress,TheDailyMailwasfoundtocriticisethecoalitionin9.2%ofitsarticlesinOctober‐January2010‐11,and18.5%inMarch‐April(thoughduetoitstotalsmallnumberofarticlesmentioningdisabledpeople,thiswasonly12articlesineachcase).Insomeofthesearticlesthereappeartohavebeenmeasuredattemptsnottostraytoofarfrompossiblesympathiesofthepaper’sreadership.Amorecriticallinewasthustakenwhen,wheelchairuserandwomanwithMS,MargaretLynchconfrontedPrimeMinisterCameronandDeputyPMNickCleggata‘Q&A’stagedinNottingham.Inacasewhichwouldperhapsinevitablydrawpublicsympathy,4Lynchaccusedthemof“pickingontheweakestpeopleinsociety”anddescribedtheimpactofthecutsonherownlife(Thornton,22October2010).Lynch’svoicewasrepresentedasthedominantoneinashortarticleintheleft‐leaningDailyMirror(Thornton,22October2010).Butinanother,longer,pieceintheDailyMailherargumentswerealsorecounted.Thisstory’slanguagedivergedfromthemajorityofthepaper’scoverageaboutthecuts(whichregularlyutilisedpejorativelanguagetodriveastrongmessage).TheMargaretLynch
4Thisrelatestotheissueof‘visibility’whichwillbeelaboratedfurtherbelowinrelationtothe‘undeserving’claimant.
30
storywasapproachedmorecarefullythroughframing,voicingthegovernment’sresponsesandexplanationsforthecutsatlengthasacounterpoint;itavoidedovert‘attack’ofherargumentsagainsttheCoalition.ForexampleTheMailhighlightedClegg’sclaimthat“intherealworlditistherichestthatarepayingthemost‐aboutthatthereisnotdoubtatall”andthattheytoowereconcernedwith‘fairness’(DailyMail,22October2010).CriticismofthepastNewLabourGovernmentwasalsoobservedinOctober‐January2010‐11(4.1%oftabloidarticles),andwenotedexampleswherethisappearedtobebackinguppraiseofCoalitionpolicies.Forinstance,inoneSunarticle,‘HackingofftheHeadoftheWelfareMonster’,inwhichthe‘undeserving’incapacityclaimantwasthedominanttheme,therewasasupportingdefenceoftheCoalitionGovernment,evidencedinstatementssuchas“NowatlonglasttheGovernmentisdoingsomethingaboutit”,andthiswasaccompaniedbyanattackonNewLabourpolicy(Kavanagh,4April2011).Thearticleforinstancestateshowthereformswere“pickedupbyLabourwelfaresupremoJamesPurnellbutvetoedbyGordonBrownforfearofupsettinghand‐wringinglefties”(Kavanagh,4April2011).Italsocriticises“Labourjobcreationscamswhichsquanderedbillionswhilefailingtofindworkforanyonewhowasn’talreadylooking”(Kavanagh,4April2011).5MuchofthepastNewLabourcriticismcamefromTheExpress(7.1%oftheirarticlesinOctober‐January2010‐11,risingto10.2%inMarch‐April2011),onearticleforexamplecriticiseda“something‐for‐nothingculturethatwasallowedtospiraloutofcontrolunderlabour”(28December2010).Therewereveryfewarticlesinthepresswhichmentioned‘BigSociety’,especiallyconsideringthiswasCameron’s2010flagshippolicyprogramme.WhilethiswouldinevitablyhavebeenmoretopicalfollowingitsannouncementinJuly‐August2010(priortotheperiodofstudy),itsnear‐absenceisstillsurprising;sincethiswaspresentedastheCoalitionreinvigoratingcivilsociety,whoserolewouldthenbetoprovidesupportasthecutsrolledoutincomingmonths.Thereweresevenintotal,allinJanuary‐October2010‐11,fiveofwhichwerefromTheGuardian.InoneexamplePollyToynbeeinTheGuardianattackedtheCoalition’s‘BigSociety’revealingthat“outof40contractsworth
5Italsoattackedwhatitcalled"eye‐watering"EnglishprescriptionchargesintheEnglishandNIeditions;“oneofthebarmyconsequencesofregionalgovernment,inventedsothatirresponsiblepoliticiansliketheScotsNatsnextmonthcanbuyvotesatelectiontime",yetthiswasomittedfromtheScottishEdition(Kavanagh,4thApril2011).
31
between£3Bnand£5Bn,onlytwowenttonot‐for‐profitprogrammes”withpreferencegoingtoprivatecontractorswhoundercutmoresuccessfulandexperiencedproviderssuchasWiseGroup(5April2011).Theyincludeacompany(Action4Employment)foundedbyEmmaHarrison,DavidCameron’s‘WorklessFamilies’Tsar,andIgneusDeloittewhowonsevenlargecontracts(Toynbee,5April2011).
Itwouldhavealsobeenusefultoexaminetheroleofprivatecompaniesinthedebatearounddisabilityissues,particularlytheextenttowhichsocialandlegalreformssuchastheEqualityAct2010arepresentedasaburdenonemployers,andtheopennessofthejobmarkettodisabledworkers.AmandaPlatell’scolumninTheMailforinstancedescribesthisas“acrude,monstrouslypoliticallycorrectpieceofanti‐businesslegislation”which“makesitmoredifficultandmorecostlyforcompaniestocreatejobs”(2October2010).IncontrasttherewasonearticleinTheExpressentitled‘OurSocialConscienceMattersMorethanCash’introducingexamplesof‘SocialEnterprises’,includinganot‐for‐profitCardiffPackagingandMailingcompanystaffedbyanumberofpeoplewithlearningdisabilities,thoughexamplesofsucharticleswererare(26October2004).
ChangesintheProfileofDisabilityCoverageand‘Sympathetic’Portrayals
ThecontentanalysisidentifiedahighproportionofsympatheticportrayalsintheOctober‐January2004‐5sample,acrossthepapers.Forexample,13.5%ofalltabloidarticlesintroducedthereadertoinformationaboutparticularconditionsasadominantthemeinthearticle,andthiswasmostcommonintheDailyMailcomprising18.6%ofitscoveragefromthisperiod(ForexampleseeFigure1,below).OneexamplethiswastheDailyMailpiece,‘IsthisthefirstdrugtohelpDown’sChildren?’inwhichitdescribesresultsofatrialofanAlzheimer’sdiseasedrug‘Aricept’foundtoboost“languageandlearningskills”inchildrenwithDown’sSyndrome(Hagan,26thOctober2004).Itsecondarilyprovidessomecontextualinformationaboutthecondition,statingthat:
“TwobabieswithDown’ssyndromeareborneverydayintheUKandabout60,000peoplehavethecondition.Itiscausedby
32
thepresenceofanextrachromosomeinababy’scellsandoccursbychance”(Hagan,26thOctober2004).
Thestoryquotesmedicalexpertsinvolvedinthetrialand,morebriefly,TheDown’sSyndromeAssociation.Celebrityprofileswereonewayinwhichdisabilityissuesweremadeaccessible,particularlyinthetabloids.Forexample,TheDailyMaildescribessingerDanielBeddingfield’sexperiencesofADHDindepth,andhistreatment(Lower,9October2004).BothTheDailyMailin‘SuperhumantotheVeryEnd’andTheSunin‘AManofSteel’rancelebrityfeaturesfollowingthedeathofChristopherReeve.Theygavedescriptiveinformation,andpraisedhiscourageandcampaigning(Roberts,12October2004&Hunter,12October2004).ButinthecomparablefiguresforOctober‐January2010‐11therewasasubstantialdropinthepresenceofthis‘Descriptive’categoryfortheDailyMail,downto10.8%.OneexampleofsuchanarticlefromTheGuardianprofilesthecareerofGuyWilkinsanaward‐winningteacherwhoworkedinThe“MarjoryMcClureSpecialSchool”,Chislehurst(Crace,26October2004).Itdeliversfirst‐personaccountsofhislifewithinitsnarrative,suchas:
“Atleastonceeverytwoyearswehaveafuneral–youtrynottoletitgettoyoutoomuch,andcelebratewhatthechildhasdonebutitshardnottogetemotionalasyou’veoftenformedatremendouslycloserelationshipwiththechildandtheirparents”(quotedinCrace,26October2004).
SuchdescriptivearticleswithdisabilityasacentralthemealsooccurredfrequentlyinTheGuardian,in14.8%oftheirtotalarticlesin2004‐5;butin2010‐11thishaddroppedto5.6%.TheMirror’suseofthisthemealsofellfrom13.8%to6.9%acrosstheseperiods.Examplesofsympathetic‘reallifeexperience’accountsofdisabilityordepictionsof‘triumphoveradversity’byadisabledindividual,werealsocommon‘sympathetic’themesappearingstronglyamongthepapers.‘Triumph’featuredin11%ofalltabloidcoverageinOctober‐January2004‐5,and10.4%forthecomparableperiodin2010‐11.InTheGuardianitfellslightlyfrom10%to9.7%.However,these‘triumph’accountswereadefiningcharacteristicof2004‐5coverageintheDailyMail(15.7%oftheircoverage)in2004‐5(Seefigure3belowforexample).
33
Figure3:‘Ican’tmoveorspeak.ButamIhappy?Youbet!’inTheDailyMail(Hardy,3March2011).Inonesucharticle,TheMailpresentsfirst‐personaccountsoftwowomen,withchildrendisabledfrombirth,bothpositivelyrejectingterminationorwithdrawalofcare.Oneaccount,byBarbaraBradleystates:
“atonepointwewithdrewtreatment,askingourselveswhywewereallowedit.Wasitthatwecouldn’tfacehisdeath?Afterthreedays,Colmamazedeveryonebycomingoutofhiscomaandindicatinghewashungry”(Logan&Brandley,13October2004).
Thetoneofthese‘inspiring’storiesaboutdisabledpeopleovercomingchallengesoftenconveyedsympathyortragedy,butcouldalsobeupliftingforthereader–celebratingstrengthofthedisabledperson.Another‘triumph’articlefromthesample,thistimeinTheExpress,
34
celebrated‘TheGirlsWhoGiveTeenagersaGoodName’attheCosmoGirlAwards(26October2004).Their‘GirloftheYear’wasSophieMorgan,paralysedbyacaraccidentonlytogoonandraiseover£40,000forotherwheelchairusers.Shewasdescribedas“brimmingwithenthusiasmandenergy”withan“inspirationalattitude”(TheExpress,26October2004).Lynch&Thomashavepointedtothismediatrend,saying“mediaportrayalshaveemphasisedheart‐warmingportrayalsofpeoplewhoovercametheirdisabilitieswhilebeingconstantlygood‐humoured,patientandcourageous”(1994:p9).
Thecontentanalysisrevealedthataphysicalorsensorydisabilitywasalsomentionedin68/77referencestospecificdisabilitiesin‘triumph’articles,in2004‐5,atrendthatstayedstrongin2010‐11(comparablefigurefor2010‐11is82/100).Thisdemonstratesaclearfocusonphysicaldisabilityinthiscategoryofsympatheticportrayal,whichpresentsahighlyconstructedimageofthe‘strength’ofdisabledindividuals.IndeedRileydescribesitasa“steadfasthabit”forjournaliststostructureadisabilitynarrativeinthefollowingway;theybeginby“replayingtheaccidentandcapitalisingontheooh‐ahfactorofthemedicalmiraclebywhichthesubjectofthestoryisstillaroundtotellthetale”(2005:p54).Inanother‘triumph’article,forexample,theDailyMailtellsthestoryofBarryMcDermottwho,“wasplanningacareerinthearmyorasaprofessionalboxer,untilanairgunpelletblindedhiminoneeyewhenhewas15yearsold”(Bott,12October2004).YetMcDermott“overcamehisdisability”andnowplaysprofessionalrugby;he’squotedsaying,“Idon’tthinklosinganeyehaseverheldmeback[…]Icertainlydon’tthinkofmyselfasdisabled”(Bott,12October2004).Asimilarexamplecanbeseenbelow,drawnfromTheMirrorduring2011(Figure4).Rossinherstudyofdepictionsofdisabilityinradio,statesthat‘tragicbutbrave’and‘dependentandhelpless’aretwocommonrepresentationsfrequentlyidentifiedbydisabledcontributorstomediaaudienceresearch(2003:134).Lynch&Thomascriticisethismedia‐imposeddichotomy,whichmakesit“difficulttobringpublicattentiontotherealissuesfacingpeoplewithdisabilities”(1994:p9).Theysaythese“traditionalmediaportrayalsdonotcoverissuessuchasdiscrimination;societalattitudes;andphysical,socialandeconomicbarriers.”(Lynch&Thomas,1994:9).Ratherthanservingtheneedsofdisabledpeople,thepurposeofthissortofcoverageissummedupneatlyinTheMailarticleabove,Figure3;itclaimsan“amazing”strokevictimshowsan“optimisminthefaceofunimaginableadversity”,which
35
“shouldcastintosharpreliefourowngripesandgrumbles”(Hardy,3March2011).
Figure4:‘BlindCourage’inTheMirror(Smith,24thMarch2011).
Thecontentanalysisrevealedthisdichotomyinthelanguageofthetabloids.Therewereevenoccasionalmentionsofpeopleas‘crippled’–toemphasisethehelplessnessofthe‘victim’andpathosofthestory:eightarticlesin2004‐5.ThisoccurredthreetimesinTheExpress,threetimesinTheSun,onceinTheMirrorandonceinTheMail.Forexample,inanarticlecondemningthetreatmentofamanwithosteoporosisbyatraincompany(whoputhimintheirbaggagecar),TheExpressusethewordtoemphasisehimashelplessvictim(Marsh,16December2004).Likewise,TheSun’sarticle“CrippledBobTold:FindJob”emphasisesthephysicalhelplessnessofdisabledpersonBobGascoigneinordertohighlighttheinjusticeofhisbenefitsbeingrevoked(TheSun,17December2004).Interestingly,TheGuardianissuedacorrectiontooneofitsarticles,whichsaidsomeone“sufferswith”Asperger’sSyndrome,statingthatitsstylebookinstructsjournalistsatthepapertoavoidtermssuchas“victimof,crippledby,sufferingfrom,afflictedby”(Wainwright,29October2004).Acrossbothperiodsin2010‐11(October‐JanuaryandMarch‐Aprilcombined)therewerefiveusesof‘cripple’,allinTheSun.AstudybyRosshasfounddisabledpeoplewereportrayed,inonedisabledindividual’swords,eitheras“victims”or“superhumans”(StevequotedinRoss,2003:134),andrespondentsfeltthesestereotypeswere“patronising”(MarilynquotedinRoss,2003:134).Shaban,hasarguedthatthismediastrategyforcesdisabledpeopleintooneconstructortheother,which“restsblameoraccoladeatthedooroftheindividual:itispersonal,notpolitical”(Shaban,1996).Thesesimplisticmediaconstructionsultimatelyprovideabasisfromwhichdistinctionsbetweena‘deserving’and‘undeserving’disabilitybenefitclaimantcan
36
laterbebuilt(thesethemeswillbedevelopedfurtherinthenextsection).Interestingly,somearticleswhichusedtheword‘cripple’describedallegedfraud;“crippled”herewasusedtoaddweighttoeachpaper’sdisapproval,throughemphasisingtheshamelessnessofthe“welfarecheat”topretendtobeoneoftheseinnocent‘victims’(Mulchrone,4December2004&TheExpress,8November2004).
Asobservedabovewithdescriptivearticles,thosecharacterisedbysympathetic‘reallifeexperience’accountsfellacrossallpapers:inthetabloidpressforinstanceitwentfrom29.2%oftheirarticlesinOctober‐January2004‐5,to22.0%incomparable2010‐11figures.ThefigureforTheGuardiandroppedfrom26.5%ofarticlesto21.8%.InthesameperiodstheproportionofExpressarticlesusing‘triumph’fellslightlyfrom7.6%to6%.‘Triumph’droppeddramaticallyasaDailyMailthemefromastrongstartat15.7%in2004‐5toonly7.7%ofcoverageinOctober‐January2010‐11,andagainto6.1%inMarch‐April2011.Referencesto‘triumph’bycontrastincreasedinTheMirrorbetweenthesecomparableperiodsfrom10.1%to15.7%.Sympatheticcoveragewasoveralllessprominentinthe2010‐11sampleparticularlywhenthisiswitnessedalongsidetheswingawayfromcoveragedisplayingdisabilitybenefitclaimantsas‘deserving’andincreasedattacksbysomepapersinsupportoftheCoalitioncuts(seebelow).Throughoutbothperiods,overwhelmingly,TheGuardianwasmorelikelytomakereferencestodiscriminationormarginalisationofdisabledpeople,andmorethantwiceasoftenasthetabloidpapersinOctober‐January2010‐11(29.6%)duetoafallintheirsympatheticcoverage(from19.5%inOctober‐January2004‐5)to14.4%.FacilitiesandresourcesneededbydisabledpeoplewerebyfarmostdiscussedbyTheGuardianin2004‐5(26.5%ofarticles,comparedto13.9%acrossthetabloids).ThesefindingssupporttheclaimsofLynch&Thomas,mentionedabove,thatthemainstreamcoverageofthisisoftenlacking(1994:9).Oneexampleofsuch2004‐5Guardiancoveragewasa‘SpecialInvestigation’intothedramaticincreaseof“childreninprisonswhichcannotdealwiththeirmentalhealthproblems”(Davies,8December2004).Usingstatistics,medicalandlegalexpertopinionandareal‐lifecasestudy,thearticledescribesindetailtheinadequateprovisionandlackof“accesstospecialistchildandadolescentpsychiatrists”forchildrenincustody(Davies,8December2004).Another2004articlefromTheGuardiancontainedastrongthemeofsocialandeconomic
37
marginalisationindiscussinghowdisabledfamiliesfallinto“heavydebt”intryingtomeetthecostsofessentialcare(Carvel,5November2004).BetweenOctober‐January2004‐5andOctober‐January2010‐11,therewasareductioninstatementsofgenuine‘need’bydisabledpeople(generalorindividual)inarticlesfromthetabloidpress.Thiswasevidencedbyfewerreferencesto‘FacilitiesandResources(includingfinancial)’recordedinthedata(thisfellfrom13.9%to9.0%),andfiguresforTheGuardianalsofellfrom26.5%in2004‐5to19%inOctober‐January2010‐11.
ChangeintheProfileofRepresentationsofthe‘Undeserving’DisabilityClaimant
WithaclimateofdebateoverNewLabour’sbenefitschangesatthetime,theanalysisrevealedthatin2004‐5discussionofincapacitybenefitclaimantsas‘undeserving’oftheirbenefitsoccurredin15.5%oftabloidarticles(seeFigure5below);athemeoccurringinonly2.6%ofGuardianarticles.Whilethepercentageoftabloidarticlesthatmentionedthisthemeduringthe2010‐11coveragevariedlittlefromthese2004‐5figures,thisreflectsanoverallriseinthetotalnumberofarticlesmentioningdisability.WecanseefromtherawdatainFigure4thattherewasalargeincreaseinthenumbersoftabloidarticlesproducedattackingthe‘undeserving’disabilitybenefitclaimantin2010‐11.Thisfigurerosefrom81articlesin2004‐5(adominant‘undeserving’themeoccurringin47ofthese)to127(dominant‘undeserving’themein60ofthese)forthesamethreemonthperiodin2010‐11.
38
Figure5:Prevalenceof‘Undeserving’CategoryinArticlesTherefore,whiletheproportionofExpressarticlesdiscussingclaimantsinthiswayfellfromapeakin2004‐5of21.4%ofitsarticles(morethananyothertabloid),to15.7%ofitsarticlesinthesameperiodof2010‐11;theactualnumberofthesearticlesitproducedincreasedby26%(from31to42articles).AnexampleofsuchanExpressarticlefromJanuary2011canbeseeninFigure6,where75%ofincapacitybenefitclaimantsaredescribedas“skiving”(Hall26January2011).
Oct2004‐Jan2005
Oct2010‐Jan2011
March‐April2011
All2010‐2011
Sun
18.8%(19/101)
26.9%(53/197)
13.1%(16/122)
21.6%(69/319)
Mirror
5.1%(7/138)
5.9%(12/204)
5.2%(6/115)
5.6%(18/319)
Express
21.4%(31/145)
15.7%(42/268)
21.1%(31/147)
17.6%(73/415)
17.1%(24/140)
15.4%(20/130)
12.3%(8/65)
14.4%(28/195)
Guardian
2.6%(5/189)
2.3%(5/216)
3.0%(3/99)
2.5%(8/315)
AllTabloids
15.5%(81/524)
15.9%(127/799)
13.6%(61/449)
15.1%(188/1248)
39
Figure6:‘75%onSickareSkiving’inDailyExpress(Hall,26January2011)Although,asapercentageofalltabloiddisabilityarticles,the‘undeserving’claimantasaprominentthemedecreasedslightlyfrom9%in2004‐5to7.5%inthesameperiodin2010‐11(seeFigure7below),thiswasagainduetothelargetotalincreaseinarticles.Figure7showsarealincreaseinthe‘undeservingclaimant’asaprominenttabloidtheme.Outofall524tabloidsinOctober2004–January2005thiswasprominentin47articles(content)/36headlines.Andoutofall799tabloidsinOctober2010–January2011itwasfoundtobeprominentin60articles(content)/50headlines.
2004‐5 Oct2010‐Jan2011
March‐April2011
All2010‐2011
Sun
11.9%(12/101)
14.7%(29/197)
10.7%(13/122)
13.2%(42/319)
Mirror
2.3%(3/138)
2.0%(4/204)
3.5%(4/115)
2.5%(8/319)
Express
14.5%(21/145)
7.1%(19/268)
17.7%(26/147)
10.9%(45/415)
7.9%(11/140)
6.2%(8/130)
6.2%(4/65)
6.2%(12/195)
Guardian
1.6%(3/189)
0%(0/216)
1.0%(1/99)
0.3%(1/315)
AllTabloids
9.0%(47/524)
7.5%(60/799)
10.5%(47/449)
8.6%(107/1248)
40
Figure7:‘Undeserving’CategoryasHighProminenceinArticlesWiththechangedgovernmentapproachtotheeconomyandpublicspending,therewasmorediscussionofincapacity/disabilitybenefitsasadrainontheeconomy(anincreaseinthetabloidsfrom22articlesin2004‐5to37in2010‐11),withsomearticlesevenblamingtherecessionitselfonincapacitybenefitclaimants.Forinstance,TheSun’sarticleentitled,“Shirker’sParadise;Exclusive:IDSonBenefitsBritain,Wagner’soneofMillionwhoClaimIncapacity,Work‐shyareLargelytoBlameforDeficitCrisis”(NewtonDunn,1December2010).TheSunheavilyincreasedtheproportionofitsarticlesthatdefinedclaimantsas‘undeserving’from18.8%during2004‐5,to26.9%inthesamethreemonthsin2010‐11;producingmorethananyothertabloid.Thedebatehadintensifieddramaticallywiththeincreasedscrutinyonthebenefitssystemandpoliticisednewspaperportrayalsofdisabledpeople.TheproportionofExpressarticlescontainingreferencestoan‘undeserving’claimantshotupfromitsOctober‐Januaryfigureof15.7%,to21.1%inMarch/April2010‐11(31articlesjustinthistwomonthperiod).The‘undeserving’claimantalsoappearedin8%oftabloidheadlinesfromthesampleduringtheMarch‐Aprilperiod.Coverageintensifiedin2010‐11betweenOctober‐January,andMarch‐Aprilwhen10.5%ofalltabloidarticlesmentioningdisabilityused‘undeserving’claimantasadominantthemeinthearticle,thisrosefrom7.5%intheearlierperiod(seeFigure7above).Itbecameastrong2010‐11themeoverall.Ultimately,outofatotalof188‘undeserving’tabloidarticlesfrombothsetsofdata(October‐JanuaryandMarch‐April2010‐11),in56.9%(or107)ofthesearticlesthisformedadominantthemeinthearticle.Wefoundthatthe‘voice’makingsuchclaimsaboutthe‘undeserving’claimantwithintabloidarticlesmostfrequentlywasthatofthejournalist,thiswasnoted64timesoutoftotal104voiceswithinthetabloidpressinOctober‐January2004‐5.Thenextmostfrequentlyfoundwasthevoiceofpoliticiansandgovernmentofficials,whichaccountedfor28tabloidoccurrencesofwhich20wereNewLabour.ByOctober‐January2010‐11,inthetabloids98/155‘undeserving’claimswereattributedtothejournalist(particularlyinTheSun–41times,andTheExpress–33times),and25/155werelinkedtopoliticians.InTheSun,duringthisperiodmembersofthepublicbecameastrongvoicemaking
41
referencestothe‘undeserving’claimant:thismightbeareflectionofthe‘DearSun’readerslettersincludedinthesample.DuringtheMarch‐April2011period,thistrendcontinuedwithTheSunandTheExpress’journalistvoicestogethercontributing37/87totaloccurrencesinthetabloidpressof‘undeserving’claimantstheme.TheExpressquotedpoliticalvoicesinrelationtothe‘undeserving’14times,morethanalltheotherpapersputtogetherforthistwomonthperiod,allofwhichwere‘coalition’.Wenotedthatduringthe2010‐11period,atthesametimeasthisswingtowards‘undeserving’portrayalswasoccurring,therewasagrowingtendencyfornewspaperstomakesmallconcessionsfora‘deserving’claimantinarticles(oftenfrompoliticiansandjournalists),withoutthiscomprisingacentraltheme.‘Deserving’claimantsappearedasaminorthemein8.5%ofalltabloidarticlesinOctober‐January2010‐11,risingfrom3.6%in2004‐5.ForexampleaDailyMailarticleentitled,“75%ofIncapacityClaimantsareFittoWork”includedastatementfromthe‘TaxPayersAlliance’6that“It’sreallynotfairontaxpayersorthosewhoaregenuinelyill”[OurEmphasis](Peev,27October2010).Similararticleswerefoundoutsideoursample,ascanbeseenbelowinFigure8,fromtheStar,whichcontainsthesame‘TaxpayersAlliance’quote.InTheExpress,the‘deserving’claimant,asabriefasideinitsarticles,shotupfrom4.1%in2004‐5to10.9%inOctober‐January2010‐11;atimewhenonly1.1%ofarticlesinthepaperhadadominant‘deserving’theme.AnExpressarticle,entitled“IncapacityBenefitTestswillPosenoThreattoDisabled”presentsaheavyattackthroughoutontheundeservingclaimantandbenefitsystem,yetbrieflyconcedes,“Thereare,ofcourse,peoplewhoaregenuinelyincapableofworkinganditisrightthatthestateshouldsupportthem”(Clark,12October2010).InavitriolicarticleinTheSun,theauthorstates:
“Howwouldyoulikea£91.40inflation‐linked‘grant’everyweekfortherestofyourlife,justforsittingonyourbackside?You’dneeda£200,000Lotterywinforthatsortofincome.Yet,morethan1.6MillionpeopleinBritaintodayhavewonthejackpotby‘goingonthesick’.Somearegenuinelyunabletowork.Butcountlessthousandsarehavingalaughatthe
6WenotedariseintheOctober‐January2010‐11sampleinthenumberof‘undeserving’claimsattributedto‘OtherExpert’(10intotal)–manyofwhichwouldhavebeenquotesbypartisanThinkTanks.
Farfromrepresentingthe‘ordinary’workingtaxpayer,TheTaxpayersAllianceisaconservativepressuregroupwhichaimstolowertaxesandspending,andwhichissupportedbylargeConservativeParty
donorssuchasTheMidlandsIndustrialCouncil.Ithasbecomeamajormediavoice,and,accordingtoTheGuardian,asof9thOctober2009,inthelastyearithadappearedin517DailyMailarticles,and
307articlesinTheSun,comparedto29timesinGuardianarticles(Booth,9thOctober2009).
42
expenseofSunreadersandotherswhodogetoutofbed,turnupforworkandpaytaxestofundthe£12.5Bnbillfortheirfecklesslifestyles”[OurEmphasis](Kavanagh,4April2011).
Thereisnodebateofthesocialrealityofdisabledpeople’slivesorthepoliticalcontextinwhichpeoplehavecometobedrawingthisbenefit,orindeedwhetheritisobjectivelyhighgiventheeconomiccontextandprevalenceofdiscrimination.Explanationisreducedtoindividualresponsibilityandweakenedsocialvalues(Kavanagh,4April2011).
Figure8:‘75%ontheSickareFittoWork’inTheDailyStar(Nicks,28April2010).
Suchconcessionswerelesscommon(3.6%)inarticlesfrom2004‐5,andappeartobeasaresultofhigh‐prominence‘deserving’claimantarticlesbeing‘squeezedout’(thesefellfrom3.8%oftabloidcoveragein2004‐5to1.6%inthesamethreemonthsof2010‐11).The‘concessions’tothe‘deserving’inthe2010‐11sampleprovidereassuranceswhilstdisregardingtherealeffectsofthechangesondisabledpeople,oftennotmentioningthereductioninentitlementandtimelimitsthatarebeingimposedevenonthosedefinedas‘genuine’claimants.Injustifyingmajorchangestothebenefitssystemitwasnecessarytoreassurethepublicthat‘genuinely’disabledpeoplewouldbeunaffected,whilebuildingpublicangeragainstthosebeingredefinedas
43
‘cheats’.Thelargereductioninthenumberofarticlesinwhichadominantthemewasthe‘deserving’claimant,forparticularpaperswasastrongtheme.Whilein2004‐5TheSunhadusedadominant‘deserving’claimantthemein7.9%ofitsarticles,thisfellin2010‐11to0%.Similarly,TheExpressshowedafallfrom6.2%ofarticles,to1.1%inthecomparableperiodof2010‐11.TheDailyMaildropinthiscategorywasslight(1.4%‐0.8%)astheyrarelyincludedthisthemeasdominantinanyperiodanyway.AsTheSunandExpressabandonedthe‘deserving’claimanttheme,inTheGuardianandTheMirrorthisthemewasfoundtohaveincreased.Dominant‘deserving’claimantarticlesinTheGuardianrosefrom0.5%in2004‐5to3.7%inOctober‐January2010‐11,andcomparabledataforTheMirror’scoveragealsoshowedanincreasefrom0.7%to7.3%.Thougheventhesefiguresarelowwhenweconsiderboththeotherpapers’declinein‘deserving’coverageandtheirincreasedattacksof‘undeserving’claimants.Thecutshaveeffectivelypolarisedcoverageofdisabilitypolitically.
2004‐5
Oct2010‐Jan2011
March‐April2011
All2010‐2011
Sun
7.9%(8/101)
0%(0/197)
2.4%(3/122)
0.9%(3/319)
Mirror
0.7%(1/138)
7.3%(9/204)
2.6%(3/115)
3.8%(12/319)
Express
6.2%(9/145)
1.1%(3/268)
1.4%(2/147)
1.2%(5/415)
1.4%(2/140)
0.8%(1/130)
0%(0/65)
0.5%(1/195)
Guardian
0.5%(1/189)
3.7%(8/216)
3.0%(3/99)
3.5%(11/315)
AllTabloids
3.8%(20/524)
1.6%(13/799)
1.78%(8/449)
1.7%(21/1248)
Figure9:‘Deserving’CategoryasHighProminenceinArticles
44
Lesspejorativevoicesinsomearticlesalsoaddressedthosesectionsofthepubliclesssympathetictodescriptionsofthe“scroungers”(Clark,12October2010)bytalkingof“welfaredependency”(Little,21tApril2011)(seedetailedanalysisbelow).SucharticlesechoedEmploymentMinisterChrisGrayling’sargumentthatthetwomillionclaimantsnowdeemed‘fittowork’,hadthroughalackof“help”,been“trappedonincapacitybenefits”bythefailingsystem(Peev,27October2010).Forexample,adisabledsingleparentfeaturedinTheExpresswhoexperiencesdailydislocationofherjointsduetoEhlersDanlosSyndromeand“hasnothadaproperjobforadecade”,wasquotedassayingherbenefitswerea‘trap’(21October2010).Inthebulkofthenewspapersthereisanabsenceofrecognitionthatthecutsarenotjustaffectingthosemakingfraudulentclaims,butarenegativelyimpactingondisabledpeople’slives,themesputforwardbytheHerald(discussedbelow,Figure11‐Alan,15May2011)andTheGuardian.TheGuardianreportedthatCoalitionpolicywillseeDisabilityLivingAllowance(DLA),whichisusedbydisabledpeopleinovercomingthebarrierstoeverydaylife,reducedby20%whenitisreplacedbyPersonalIndependencePaymentin2013(Williams,22June2010).QuestionshaveevenbeenraisedoverwhetherthechangestoDLAbreachhumanrightslaw(BBCNews,8January2011).Incontrasttothetabloids’claims,aseriesofarticlesinTheGuardianexpressedconcernthatpeoplemighthavetheirbenefitsstoppediftheygainsomelimitedimprovementintheirabilityandhavetomovefromDLA(anon‐meanstestedbenefitwhichisnotrelatedtoemploymentstatusandwasoriginallyintroducedtocompensatefortheadditionalcostsofbeingdisabled,suchashigherheatingbillsorbuyingpre‐preparedfoods)andinsteadapplyforEmploymentSupportAllowance(anemploymentrelatedbenefit).TheydescribethenewESAtestas“fundamentallyflawed”asitdoesnottakeaholisticapproachnoraccountfor“motivations,socialandpractical–aswellasphysicalbarriers”disabledpeoplefaceinreturningtowork(WoodandGrant,20October2010).TheCoalitionplansareaccusedoffailingtotakeaccountofthehighercostsfacedbydisabledpeople;bothinendingDLAmobilitypaymentsforpeopleincarehomes,whichassumesdisabledpeople“nolongerneedasociallifeormentalstimulation”,andinintroducinga‘cap’onallbenefits(James,22October2010).This‘cap’isChancellorOsborne’splanthat“Nofamilyonoutofworkbenefitswillgetmorethanthe
45
averagefamilygetsbygoingouttowork”andwillapplytothosereceivingESA(quotedinDailyMail,5October2010).Thetabloiddebatewhichdefineddisabilityclaimantseitheras(thefew)‘deserving’or(themajority)‘undeserving’ofbenefitwasaccompaniedbyanincreaseinreferencestoincapacitybenefitfraudinallpapers,functioningtoconfirmclaimsthatwerebeingmadeelsewhereabout‘undeserving’claimants.Fraudarticlesincreasedfrom2.8%oftabloidcoverageinOctober–January2004‐5to6.1%inthesameperiodin2010‐11(seeFigure10,below).WhiletheproportionoffraudcoverageinTheExpressdoubledfrom2.1%to4.2%,thetotalnumberofarticleshadshotupfromsixinOctober–January2004‐5,to22articlesinthesameperiodof2010‐11,morethananyotherpaperproduced.TheproportionofsucharticlesinTheMailincreasedfrom0.7%in2004‐5,to3.8%inthesameperiodin2010‐11,andthenrosesteeplyto9.2%inMarch‐April.InTheSunfraudstoriesalsoincreasedmarkedlyfromjust2%in2004‐5to7.1%in2010‐11.Thiswasunderscoredbythelanguage.Outofthe180tabloidarticlesacrossbothperiodsin2010‐11(October‐JanuaryandMarch‐Aprilcombined)theword‘cheats’wasusedin48articles,‘fraudster’wasusedin10articles,‘con’ineightarticles,‘fiddle’(thesystem)ineightarticles7,aswellasmanyotherinventivesynonyms.
7Includingvariationsontheseie.‘conning’/’conned’,‘fiddling’/’fiddled’etc…
46
2004‐5 Oct2010‐Jan2011
March‐April2011
All2010‐2011
Sun
2.0%(2/101)
7.1%(14/197)
5.7%(7/122)
6.6%(21/319)
Mirror
4.3%(6/138)
3.9%(8/204)
3.5%(4/115)
3.8%(12/319)
Express
4.1%(6/145)
8.2%(22/268)
7.5%(11/147)
8.0%(33/415)
0.7%(1/140)
3.8%(5/130)
9.2%(6/65)
5.6%(11/195)
Guardian
0%(0/189)
0.5%(1/216)
0%(0/99)
0.3%(1/315)
AllTabloids
2.8%(15/524)
6.1%(49/799)
6.2%(28/449)
6.2%(77/1248)
Figure10:Prevalenceof‘Fraud’CategoryinArticles
ThisstrengthoffraudasatabloidthemeconflictswiththerealityoflevelsofincapacitybenefitfraudandfocusespublicperceptionsofresponsibilityforIncapacityBenefitlevelsonclaimantsratherthanproblemsinlackoflabourmarketdemand,economicpoliciesordiscrimination.Thegovernment’sownreviewin2001revealedthatcasesoffraudinIncapacityBenefitareverylow,statingthatincidencesoccurredsoinfrequentlyamongtheirsampletheexactfigurescouldnotbedetermined,but,
“itisestimatedthattheamountofoverpaymentislessthan£19m,i.e.lessthan0.3%ofallexpenditureoncasesinreceiptoftheseratesofIB.Similarly,itisestimatedthatthepercentageofallIBST(H)andIBLTcasesthatarefraudulentislessthan0.5%.”(ONS,2001:8.33).
Tenyearslaterarecentgovernmentreportfrom2010‐11hasrevealedonly£20minIncapacityBenefitswaslosttofraud,ie.Only£1millionmorethanthe2001figure.Itrecordedapercentagedecreaseintheamountsonbenefitoverpaid(includingbyofficialandcustomererror)from2.8%in2009/10(£170m)to2.4%in2010/11(£130m)(DWP
47
InformationDirectorate,2011).Onlyonenewspaper,TheGuardianreportedonthisduringtheperiodunderexamination.Incontrasttotabloidcoverage,TheGuardiandevotedmorespacetothecriticismsvoicedbydisabilitygroupsandgavereallifeaccountsofpeopleaffectedbythesecuts,demonstratingtheirlivingcostsandimpactofthecuts(Ramesh,14February2011).ThiscanbeseeninFigure11(right),andmorerecentcoveragedetailingtheaffectsofcutsonthosewithmentalhealthconditions.Onesucharticlegavevoicetoreal‐lifeaccounts,followingastudybythecharityMIND,whichrevealedthat“three‐quartersofpeopleitsurveyedsaidtheprospectofaworkcapabilityassessmenthadmadetheirmentalhealthworseand51%saidithadleftthemwithsuicidalthoughts”(Taylor&Domokos,31May2011).Anotherarticlepointsoutthattheassessmentprocess“failstoappropriatelytakeaccountofthosewithmentalhealthissuesandfluctuatingconditions”andpointstoadiscriminatorylabourmarketthatisalreadystruggling
toprovideadequateworkfornondisabledpeople(Patrick,13October2010).Thesereal‐worldneedsofdisabledpeoplearementionedfarlessinthetabloidpress,asnotedabove.
Figure11:“ThisMan’sDoctor
toldhimnottoWorkbecauseofHeartDisease.Butbenefit
officialsmadehimtaketwoteststoseeifhewasfitenough.Hisfamilythinksthestresskilled
him”inTheGuardian(Gentleman,23rdFebruary2011).
48
2004‐5 Oct2010‐Jan2011
March‐April2011
All2010‐2011
Sun
18.8%(19/101)
12.2%(24/197)
27.0%(33/122)
17.9%(57/319)
Mirror
22.5%(31/138)
18.6%(38/204)
27.8%(32/115)
21.9%(70/319)
Express
22.1%(32/145)
11.6%(31/268)
17.0%(25/147)
13.5%(56/415)
14.3%(20/140)
16.9%(22/130)
16.9%(11/65)
16.9%(33/195)
Guardian
31.2%(59/189)
29.6%(64/216)
24.2%(24/99)
27.9%(88/315)
AllTabloids
19.5%(102/524)
14.4%(115/799)
20.3%(91/449)
16.5%(206/1248)
Figure12:Proportionofarticleswhichreferredtothemesof
Discrimination/Marginalisation
Itisnotablethatthe‘DiscriminationorMarginalisation’categoryremainedstrongasaproportionofGuardianarticlesacrosstheperiodofstudy–from31.2%inOctober‐January2004‐5,to29.6%inthesame2010‐11sample.Incontrast,acrossthissameperiodtheproportionoftabloidarticleswhichmentioneddiscriminationormarginalisationofdisabledpeoplefellfrom19.5%to14.4%,thegreatestfalloccurringinTheExpress(from22.1%to11.6%).InMarch‐April2011,astherevelationsaboutthecutsprogressed,TheGuardianfigurefellslightly.Itwasnowaprominentcategoryin24.2%articles,atatimewhenpaperssuchasTheSun,TheMirror,andTheExpressbegantoincludeahigherproportionofarticlesofthisnature(TheSun:27%,TheMirror:27.8%andTheExpress:17%‐seeFigure12,above).Thesethemeswerealsopickedupbybroadsheetnewspapersnotincludedinthesample,suchastheIndependentandtheGlasgowHerald.InMay2011forinstance,theHeraldarguedthaton‐goingCoalitionpolicychangesconstituteda‘WarAgainsttheDisabled’(SeeFigure13below),andhighlightedfiguresbytheCitizensAdviceBureauthatdisabledpeoplemustwaituptoninemonthstoappealadecision(Alan,15May2011).Disabledpeoplehave
49
beenforcedontothedefensiveandcharitieshavesoughttoincreasethepoweroftheirargumentbyworkingtogethertovoicetheirinterests,forexamplethroughthe‘DisabilityBenefitsConsortium’(http://www.disabilityalliance.org/dbc.htm).
Figure13:‘Waragainstthedisabled’inGlasgowHerald(Alan,15thMay
2011).
DisabilitycharitiesandJusticeSelectCommitteeMP’shavefurtherarguedthatCoalitionplanstocutcivillegalaid–forwelfarebenefits,unemploymenttribunalsanddebtadvice–willmakeithardfordisabledpeopletoappealadecisionabouttheirbenefits(SeeInclusionLondon,19January2011&CommonsSelectCommittee,30March2011).TheGuardianwasmorelikelytomentionsocialandlegalreforms,suchasthesecutbacksinlegalaid,affectingdisabledpeopleduringMarch‐April2011(dominantthemein6.1%ofarticles).ButinOctober‐January2010‐11,TheMirrormentionedsuchdevelopmentsmorethanotherpapers(dominantin4.4%ofitsarticles).Bycomparison,acrossbothperiodsin2010‐11,TheSunmentioned‘socialandlegalreforms’prominentlyinjustonearticle.Interestingly,thedatarevealedvariationbetweenthetabloidarticlesaccordingtodisability,withsomedisabledclaimantsmorelikelytobeportrayedas‘deserving’thanotherswithinthecoverage;predominantlythosewith‘physicalandsensory’impairments.Mentalhealthwasmentionedinonlyeightofthe25‘deserving’articleswhichmentionedadisabilityinOctober‐January2004‐5,afigurethatdroppedto2/30inOctober‐January2010‐11.Mentalillnessesandconditionswhichareotherwise‘hidden’(suchaschronicpain),orsocially‘unsympathetic’
50
(suchasHIV/AIDS,addictionorobesity),areofparticularinterestregardingtheirrepresentationbytabloidnewspaperarticlesinwhichattacksonthe‘undeserving’areprominent.ReferencestoSTD’swerelesscommonin2004‐5anditisimportanttonotethatrightsundertheDisabilityDiscriminationActwereonlyextendedtoincludeHIVfrompointofdiagnosisin2005andtheremayhavebeensomelackofawareness/acceptanceduringthisperiodofHIVasa‘disability’(DisabilityRightsCommission,December2005).Despitethislegislation,articlesfrom2010‐11weremorelikelytociteobesity,addictionandSTD’sinnarrativesabout‘undeserving’claimants.OnearticleinTheExpressarguesthat“£300,000waspaidto90peoplewhoclaimedthatcoughsstoppedthemtakingajob”(Shipman,28December2010).VisualNatureoftheDisabilityAccordingtoDWPdatafromMay2007onthemedicaldiagnosesofincapacityclaimants,40%ofmenand43%ofwomenhad‘mental’or‘behavioural’conditions(includingstress,depressionandaddictionproblems)(quotedinBeatty&Fothergill,2010:9).Physicalinjuries,particularlythoseinflictedthrougheventssuchaswar,oraccidents(SeeFigure14,below‐right),whilemorefrequentlyassociatedwiththe‘undeserving’theme,continuedtobementionedinthesmallnumberofarticlesmentioningthe‘deserving’claimantacross2004‐5and2010‐11(occurringin17/25deservingarticlesthatmentionedadisabilityin2004‐5and28/30sucharticlesinthecomparablethreemonthsin2010‐11).Inonecase,whenthemeanstestingofwarpensionsmeantsomeweredeniedpensionscredit,thecaseofthesedisabled‘warheroes’wastakenupbyTheExpress,asa‘deserving’case,intheirstrongattackofNewLabour(Walker&Dixon,23November2004).Referencestolearningdisabilitieswerenotableintheirabsencefromthisdebate.Yetitwasfoundthat‘depression’and‘stress’‐wheretheseverityoftheconditioncannotbevisuallydemonstrated‐wereoftenportrayedasunworthyofbenefitornotmentionedatall.ByMarchandApril2011theintensityofthedebateoverspecificconditionsappearedtobeheightened,thenumberoftimesconditionswerementionedinrelationto‘undeserving’argumentsincreaseddramaticallyfrom39in2004‐5and58in2010‐11to83timesinatwomonthperiod,largelyduetoasubstantialincreaseinreferencesto‘mentalhealth’as‘undeserving’(40).ThiswasmainlyinTheExpressandTheSun;TheSunarticlebyKavanagh,mentionedaboveforinstancesingledout“theoneswhouse
51
fakebackaches,drugdependencyandfantasydepressionasexcusestositaroundwiththeirhandsout”(4April2011).Specificdisabilitieswerementionedinrelationto‘deserving’arguments40timesinMarch‐April2011,comparedto28timesin2004‐5and30inOctober‐January2010‐11.Peoplewithamentalhealthproblemweredefended12times.LabourForceSurveyDatafrom2001contrastswiththisimage;itfoundthatwhilethe‘wantwork’ratesforalldisabledpeoplewerestrong(52%),thissamefigurewasfarhigherwithjustpeoplewithmentalhealthproblems(78%ofthosewith“depression”or“badnerves”,and86%ofthosewith“mentalillness,phobia,panics”)(DWP,Spring2001:5).Thedatarevealedthatalargerproportionofpeoplewithamentalhealthproblemhadadesiretoworkthanamongdisabledpeopleingeneral,figurestheTUCarguesmayunderestimatetheproblem(October2004:10).
Figure14:‘BombedHeroGetsParkingFineSnub’inTheSun(Pyatt,8thMarch2010).
TheDailyMail,inanarticleattacking“benefitsBritain”andits“somethingfornothingculture”,presentsasitsevidencethe“£1.8Billion”oftheincapacitybudgetthatwenttopeople“withstress,
52
depressionandanxiety”,callingit“thebiggestgrowthareaforclaims”(28December2010).ItisnoteworthythatTheSunreaderquotedabove,whowroteindefenceofBlair’spoliciesin2004,felttheywerenotathreatto“genuineclaimants”as“heistargetingthosewithbackpainandstresswhoarepossiblyabletowork”(Douse,22October2004).YetoftentabloidssuchasTheDailyMail,TheMirror,andTheSunskirtedoverdetailsaboutaclaimant’sbackgroundwhichmightprovidecontextandunderstandingofaparticularcase,inordertomake‘scrounging’seemubiquitousandencompassdisabilitycasesintootherworklessness;asinthefollowingexamples:‘Stress’DisabilityclaimantMikeBlakewasbranded“SpongerDad”byTheSun(17November2004)anddescribedbyTheMirroras“Britain’slaziestDad”(17November2004).Thesepapersdonotevenacknowledgeanyreasonhehadbeenclaimingincapacitybenefitordetailsofhislife.TheMirrorinsteadpointstopaymentshereceivedbeingduetohis“drinkproblem”(17November2004).However,buriedinalongerarticleintheDailyMail,whichpaintsasimilar‘undeserving’pictureisthedetailthatBlakewas“takenintocareatnineandbythetimehewas15hadlivedin30to40differentfosterhomes”,contributingtohissocial/personaldifficultieswhichhehasmanagedtobringundercontrolinordertodedicatepropercaretohisownfamily(Mills,17November2004).Hewasclaimingbenefitsdueto‘stress’,itstates(Mills,17November2004).TheMailarticlehowever,iscarefullyframed,itsopeninglinesdismissinganynotioninthereaderthathemightnotbejustlikeanyothermanofhisage:‘stress’isnotaseriouscondition,butsomethingexperiencedby“anyfatherofsix”(Mills,17November2004).Suchcoveragecanhaveaseriousimpactonhowitstargetsandotherpeoplewithmentalhealthissuesaretreated.TheMirror,inanotherwisesimilararticle,characterisedbyattackmentions“hatemail”Blakehasreceived.Heisquotedassaying“Iwanttowork”and“Ireceivedsomereallyupsettingletterssayingthemosthorriblethingsaboutme.OneletterevensaidIshouldbecastrated”(Smith,17November2004).Philo,in‘MessageReceived’foundthat“mediarepresentationswere[…]averypowerfulinfluenceonbeliefsaboutthenatureofmentalillness”(1999:55).PhilofurtherpointsoutthatthePressComplaintsCommissioncodeof
53
conductdrawnupin1998specifiesthat“…thepressmustavoidprejudicialorpejorativereferenceto[…]anyphysicalormentalillnessordisability”(quotedinPhilo,1999:60).‘Pain’Inafurtherexample,wecancomparethecasesoftwoclaimantsacrossthesampleoftabloidsonthesamenewsdayinDecember2004.Bothhadbeendeemed‘undeserving’oftheirbenefitsbytheDWP.Inbothcasesthearticlesdiscussedincapacitybenefitclaimantswho,despitecontinuedpain,hadhadtheirpaymentsrevokedaftertreatmentshadenabledthemtofunctionwellenoughtoengageincompetitivesports.Allthenewspaperscameoutinsupportofthe“courage”(DailyMail;4December2004)ofa“brave”disabledteenagefootballer(anamputeewithaprostheticlimb).TheExpresssawhimas“battling”hisconditionand“inspiring”toothers(Moriarty,4December2004).Subsequentletterspagesreflectedthis,arguingthateffortstoovercometheconditionandremainactiveshouldbecommended,andbenefitsnotrevokedinsuchcases.However,agolferwitharthritisisdescribedverydifferentlybytheDailyMail;asa“fraudster”whowas“cheating”thesystem(Finney,4December2004).TheMirroroffersupasimilarappraisal,callinghima“greedyfraudster”(Mulchrone,4December2004).Yetattimestheconditionofthis“benefitscheat”(Broster,4December2004)hadbeensosevereastorequirehospitalisationanduseofawheelchair.Thesamepresssupportedhisconviction,broughtonthegroundsthathedidnotinformtheDWPaboutimprovementinhisconditionorthe‘regularity’ofhisgolf.Yet,inneitherthiscasenorthatofthefootballerdidtheclaimantsinformtheDWPaboutimprovedmobility.TheDailyMail(Finney,4December2004)alsofailstoreportthestatement(includedinTheExpress)bytheGolfer’slegalcouncilthathisconditionwas“extreme”,hewas“stillill”andhadonlybeenabletoplaywiththeaidofpainkillers(Broster,4December2004).Thefirstcaseconcernsachild,whichmakesitmoreimmediatelysympathetic,withfirst‐handaccountsdrawnfromtheboyandhisfamily:first‐handaccountswerelackingintheothercase.Yet,anotherissueisthevisibilityofboththeconditionsandtreatments.Theboywasstillusingcrutchestowalk,butthegolfer’sclaimofchronicpain,overcomethroughpainkillers,islessvisually
54
obvious.Itisthereforemuchhardertoproveincourt,letalonebeforethemedia.Framingan‘Undeserving’ClaimantTwotoolswereidentifiedasfrequentlyusedinframingthenewsstorieswhichdefinedindividualcasesasthe‘undeserving’claimantandreinforcingstatementsofoutrightcritiqueofthebenefitssystem.
• UseofPejorativeLanguage• CharacterAttacksonClaimants
Language
Thefirstofthese,pejorativelanguage,increasedinallpapersbetweenOctober‐January2004‐5andthesameperiodin2010‐11.Itincreasedfrom12%oftabloidarticlesinOctober‐January2004‐5to18%oftabloidarticlesfromthesameperiodin2010‐11.InTheGuardianthecomparablefigurerosefrom2.6%ofarticles,to3.2%.TheMirroralsoincreaseditsuseofpejorativelanguagefrom4.3%to8.8%betweenthesetwoperiods.Giventheirheavyuseofthe‘undeserving’themeintheirarticles,itisperhapsunsurprisingthatthepapersfoundtousepejorativelanguageinthehighestproportionofarticleswereTheSunandTheExpressand,again,thisincreasedin2010‐11.TheSun’suseofpejorativelanguageincreasedfrom19%inOctober‐January2004‐5,to21.3%ofitsarticlesinOctober‐January2010‐11.ThecomparablefiguresforTheExpressshowamassiveincreasefrom16%ofitsarticlesin2004‐5to25%ofitsarticlesin2010‐11.Anexamplefromthe2010‐11periodDailyExpresscontainingmultipleexamplesofpejorativelanguagecanbeseeninFigure6abovereferringto“benefitcheats”and“skivers”(Hall,26January2011).ThemostcommonlyrecordedpejorativewordsinOctober‐January2004‐5wereasfollows:
• Handout–18occurrences• Scrounger–15occurrences• SicknoteCulture/Society–13occurrences• Cripple–8occurrences
WhereasthemostcommonlyrecordedpejorativewordsinOctober‐January2010‐11were:
• Scrounger–34occurrences
55
• Handout–58occurrences• Workshy–25occurrences• Cheats–25occurrences
FinallythemostcommonlyrecordedpejorativewordsinApril‐March2011were:
• Scrounger–21occurrences• Cheats–23occurrences• Dependency–17occurrences• Handout–15occurrences• Sponger–15occurrences
Itisimportanttorememberthelastperiodisonlytwomonths,whereastheprevioustwosamplesaretakenfromaperiodofthreemonthseach.Theincreaseduseoftheword‘cheats’inboth2010‐11periodsisparticularlynoteworthygiventheincreasedoccurrenceof‘benefitfraud’asathemeinrelationtodisabilityinthe2010‐11period(notedabove).Inadditiontotabloidtermssuchas‘scrounger’,languageusedbypoliticianswasalsopickedupandfrequentlyrepeatedinthepressformonthsafterduringbothperiods.Forinstancein2004TonyBlairspokeofpeople“languishingonbenefits”(Tempest,14October2004),whichwasthenpickedupandrepeated5timesin2004‐5.Thereferenceto‘sicknoteculture’byAlanJohnson(DWP,15March2005)andthevariation‘sicknotesociety’werepopularasnotedabove.TheChildPovertyActionGroupbackin2005thusurged“theGovernmentnottoutiliselanguagewhichappearstocriticiserecipientsofbenefits”whichitarguesare“inflamingatabloidfeedingfrenzy”overincapacitybenefitrecipients(CPAG,October2005).Thedatademonstratespejorativelanguageofthiskindwasstillcommonlyusedbythegovernmentandpickedupbythemediain2010‐11.TheOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD)descriptionofBritainas‘SickManofEurope’wasrepeated,andbecame“theSickManoftheWorld”inTheSun(NewtonDunn,1December2010).Itwasoftenquoted(11timesinOctober‐January2010‐11)thatlivingonincapacitybenefithadbecomea‘LifestyleChoice’afterGeorgeOsborne’srepetitionofthephraseinakeyinterview(Wintour,9September2010).Morerecentlyanallianceof50charities,the‘DisabilityBenefitsConsortium’(http://www.disabilityalliance.org/dbc.htm)putpressureontheGovernmentregardingtheirportrayalofdisabledpeople,whichthey
56
argueis“apartialpicture[that]feedsthetabloidmedia’snegativenarrativeon‘benefitsscroungers’”.Theyassertthat“thesereleasesinturnhaveanimpactonthepublic–andthereforeemployers’–perceptionofdisabilityanddisabledpeople”(Boffey,24thJuly2011).AnarticleintheObserver(TheGuardian’ssisterpaper,notincludedinoursample)quotedJaspalDhani,ChiefExecutiveoftheUKDisabledPeople’sCouncilwhoclaimstheirlanguage,“hasledtoanincreaseinhatecrimesagainstdisabledpeople,victimisationandreinforcementofveryoldstereotypesandprejudices”(Boffey,24thJuly2011).Dhaniwentontosaythatinrecentmonthshehadfoundstrangers“aresurprisedthatasawheelchairuserIactuallywork”andtheConsortiumarguethatthegovernmentshouldbepromotingimagesofdisabledpeopleinwork(quotedinBoffey,24thJuly2011).
PortrayalsofNeed&CharacterAttacksonClaimantsAttacksonthecharacteroftheclaimantduringboth2004‐5and2010‐11October‐Januaryperiodssoughttoportraythemaswastefulorindulgent;with‘badhabits’suchassmoking,drinking,sleepingaroundorhavingafamilyconsidered‘toolarge’(allactivitiesordinarilyconsideredamatterofprivateconscience).ForexampleMikeBlake(mentionedabove)wasdescribedashaving“anoverflowingashtrayathisside”(Mills;17November2004).TheSundetailsthisrecoveringalcoholic’sformerintakeas“72bottlesofbeeraday”,alikelyexaggeration,andhehisvilifiedforhavinga“sixthkid”(TheSun,17November2004).Inonearticleaphysicallydisabledsinglemumisdescribedasfollows“Withfouryoungsters,aged9monthsto14yearsfromthreedifferentfathers,sheadmitsshewillbeviewedas‘PublicEnemyNumberOne’bymany”[ouremphasis]itgoesontodemonstratethat,despitethis,evensherecognisesthatdisabledpeopleshouldnotbelivingonbenefits(Brooks,21stOctober2010).VikkiLedger,whohasdepression,issimilarlycondemnedbecauseshehaschildrenfrom“fourdifferentfathers”,adetailirrelevanttoherclaim(Moore;8December2004).Herrequesttomovetoahousebigenoughtoeasetheovercrowdinginwhichherchildrenwerelivingwasdescribedastheactionsofoneofthe“fecklesstypes”whoarebringingthecountry“toitsknees”(Moore;8December2004).Aswehavenoted,‘undeserving’portrayalssuchasthisincreasedinarticlesfrom2010‐11,andarelikelyalsotohavehadgreaterimpactintheoverallpicturesincethiswas
57
accompaniedbyadecreaseinsympatheticaccountsofdisabilityandarticlesfocussingonthe‘deserving’claimantduringtheperiod.Recently,bycontrastthecaseofChelseapensionerElaineMcDonald,a“battlingballetstar”withanOBEandtouchofclassandcelebritywastakenupbytheDailyMailasahighlydeserving‘primaballerina’deniedadequateovernightcaresupportbytheRoyalBoroughofKensingtonandChelseat(Doughty&Fagge,7July2011).Thearticleattacks‘cutbacks’andsheisquotedsaying“IhavepaidmyduessinceIwas16–Iamnotascrounger.ButnowIneedcareandthatisbeingdeniedme.”(Doughty&Fagge,7July2011)8.Anotherinterestingcounterpointhereisthecelebritycaseof‘Wagner’fromX‐Factor,whowasinreceiptofincapacitybenefitforanoldsportsinjury.Wagnerbecameaveryvisiblefigurearoundwhichamediacrusadeagainstthe‘undeservingclaimant’couldbefocussedandfought.VerylittlevoicewasgiventoWagnerhimself,andthe‘scrounger’narrativeofthearticleswerefrequentlylinkedtowiderCoalitionandmediaclaimstogeneralisefromhiscasetootherincapacitybenefitclaimants(SeeNewtonDunn,1December2010).
8NeverthelessElaineMcDonaldlostherappealagainstKensingtonandChelseawhenitwentbeforetheSupremeCourtinJuly:http://www.inclusionlondon.co.uk/londons‐richest‐borough‐denies‐human‐rights‐to‐disabled‐woman
58
AudienceReceptionAnalysisThissectionpresentsthekeyfindingsfromthefocusgroupsandindividualinterviewswhichwerecarriedoutinJune,JulyandAugust2011.Thefirstsectionexaminestherespondent’sviewsonhowthemediaiscurrentlycoveringdisability.Itthenmovesontoexplorehowthiscoverageisimpactingontheirviewsaboutdisabilityanddisabledpeopleandfinisheswithasectionlookingattheirviewsonbenefitsandbenefitclaimantsandcurrentgovernmentpolicyinthearea.Howisdisabilityreportedinthemedia?Inthefirstsectionofthefocusgrouptheparticipantswereaskedtoreflectonhowtheythoughtdisabilitywasbeingreportedinthemedia.Wealsoaskediftheparticipantscouldtelluswhattheythoughtwouldbeatypicalstoryondisabilityinthenewspapersatthemoment.Ingeneralthesefindingscoincidedwiththefindingsofthecontentanalysisandthreekeythemesemergedinthissection:benefitfraud,equalityandservicesfordisabledpeople.Inthreeoutofthefivefocusgroupsthefirststoriesthatwerementionedwerearounddisabilityandbenefitsandinparticularonbenefitfraud.Otherthemesmentioned,butlessprominently,includedtheParalympics,disabilityhatecrimesandharassmentofdisabledpeople,articlesthatdiscusstheexperiencesoflivingwithadisabilityandmedicalandscientificinterventions.Typicalcommentsonthethreemostprominentandkeythemesincluded,onbenefitfraud:
I’dsaystorieslike‘FiddlerontheRoof’,youknowthestoryabouttheslaterwhowasclaimingincapacitybenefitThere’salotofnegativestuffthat’sinthemediaaboutbenefitsthenow,that’sthefirstthingthatcomestomymind.Ithinkit’sallbenefits.Therewasonethat’sjustdoneamarathonandhewasclaimingthathecouldbarelyevenwalkandthat’sdishonest.
59
Onequality
Everyonehasafairchance,whetherit’sapplyingforajoborwhetherit’sdisabledaccessinabarorrestaurantThereislotsonaccessandstufflikethat,therehavebeenalotofchangesonthislately.
Andonaccesstoservices:
There’sstuffonbenefitscuts,it’sthepensionersandstuff,notgettingwhattheyneedbecauseofcuts.Storiesaboutdementiaandcaregiversandnotgettingenoughcareandhelp.
Ofallthetopicsdiscussedbenefitfraudwas,however,seenasthemostdominanttopictobefoundinthemediaandthisswitchwasseenbymanyasarelativelyrecentoccurrence:
Thereismorefocusonbenefitsthanthereusedtobe,muchmorenowthaninthelastfewyears.
Onlyonegroup,agroupmadeupofprofessionalswhoreadeithertheGuardianortheIndependent,didnotdescribebenefitfraudorseeitasamajorpartofthemediacoverageondisability.Mostofthearticlesreadbythisgroupwerefelttobeonaccesstoservicesandtheimpactsthatthecutswillhaveondisabledpeople.InthefocusgroupsandindiscussionswithdisabledpeopleTheGuardianreceivedacertainamountofpraise,anditscoveragewasfeltbythemtobe‘good,butnottypical’.Almostallthedisabledpeoplewespoketofeltthattherewasagreatdealofnegativeandunbalancedcoverageofdisabilitybothintheprintedmediaandelsewhere.Theseparticipantsreportedthattheyfelttherehadbeenachangeinthewaythatdisabilitywascoveredfromonewherepatronising‘triumphovertragedy’descriptionspredominatedtoafocusondisabledpeopleasscroungers’.Onedescribedhowforhertheshifthadsimplyamplified
60
‘allthesamethemesofold–disabledpeopleasdolebludgersanddisabledpeopleasvictims’.
Onerespondentdescribedan‘openseason’ondisabledpeopleonbenefitsandotherrespondentslinkedthistootherissuessuchasadescriptionofolderpeople‘beingadrainonresources’.Oneofthedisabledrespondentscommented:
Themediaportraysdisabledpeopleasbenefitcheatstimeandtimeagain.Thestoriesthatseektocreatescapegoatsforsociety’sillsarewhatsellsnewspapers.
Allofthemediacommentatorswespoketowereclearthattherehadbeenachangeinthewaythatdisabilitywasbeingreported.Onedescribedwhathecalled‘achangeintherhythmandthetone’whileanothertalkedabout‘thedemonizingofdisabledpeople’.Oneofthedisabledparticipantscommentedonhow‘certainsectionsofthemediahavetakengreatdelightinfindingonecase–theoneleggedroofersyndrome–andbecausetheyfindonepersonwhoisacheat,thenallpeoplearecheats’.Thisshefeltwaswhatwasdrivingtheagenda.Theideathatthemedia‘like’toreportbenefitfraudforcommercialreasonswasalsomentionedinsomeoftheotherfocusgroups:
Awomaninthemedialastweek,she’ddonethegovernmentoutofthousandsofpoundsandshe’sbeencaughtskydiving.Andthemedialiketheylovethosesortofstories,theylovewritingaboutthatsortofthing,theyareinthepaperallthetime.
Thetabloidslovetorunthesestoriesthatplayagainsttheequalitything.
AndIt’sonlynewswhensomeonedoesdefraudit,deservingclaimantsdon’tgetintothepaperIsuppose.
61
Itwasfelt,particularlybydisabledpeoplethemselvesbutalsobyothers,thatsuchportrayalswererelatedtothecurrentpoliticalagenda:
TherewasquitealotbecauseofwhatishappeninginWestminster,thecutsineducation,inhealthandinwelfare.
Bydemonisingdisabledpeopleitwasargued,particularlybydisabledpeoplethemselves,ithasbecomepossibletolegitimisefuturebenefitcuts,andsuchtacticsweredescribedasameansof‘softeningup’thepublic.Otherreasonsforthechangeincludedthefactthat,asoneparticipantsaid,disabilityequalityanddisabilityrightsarenolongernewsandtheagendahasmovedon.Equalityisoldnews.ViewsonDisabledPeopleInthelightofourfindingsinrelationtothechangesinthewaydisabilityisbeingpresentedandreportedinthemediawewereinterestedintryingtofindoutiforhowthischangehadimpactedonandeffectedpeople’sviewsofdisabilityandbenefits.Thistopicwasamajorelementofthefocusgroupsandoneofthequestionsweaskedthegroupstoconsiderwaswhattheythoughtthepercentageofpeoplewhowerefraudulentlyclaimingdisabilitybenefitswas.Theresponsesvariedfrom‘about10%’rightupto70%.Thefollowingisatypicalexampleoftheresponseswereceivedtothisquestion:
Informant1:I’dsayhalf
Informant2:Yeah,prettyhigh
Informant3:Nearer70%
Informant4:YeahIthinkit’smorethanhalfWhenaskedtojustifywheretheygottheirfiguresfromrespondentstalkedaboutbothnewspaperarticles(forexampletheinformantabovewhoestimatedfraudtobeat70%citedthearticleintheDailyExpress
62
discussedearlierinthereport)butalsoreferredtotheirownexperiences,withalmostallclaimingthattheyknewpeoplewhowerefraudulentlyclaimingoneformofdisabilitybenefitoranother:
Youknowpeoplewhodoit,we’vegotaneighbourwhodoesit.Peopletalkedaboutthosetheyknewwhotheybelievedwerefraudulentlyclaimingbenefitsandmanyfeltthatitwasveryeasytogetbenefitsonthegroundsofdisabilityandfeltthatthiswaspartoftheproblem.Thefollowingexchangeistypical:
ParticipantA:It’sreallyeasytofakesymptoms.OrevenbadbacksParticipantB:That’sthebiggestoneisn’tit,badbackParticipantC:Andifyouwanttodefraudthen...peopleknowdon’tthey,theyknowwhattosayandhowtogetroundthesystem,sothere’sabigincreaseinpeopleknowinghowtodefraudthesystem
However,itwasnotassimpleasthis:peopledidnotjustacceptmediamessages,theyalsochallengedthemandoftenheldtwocompetingideasintheirheadatthesametime.Almostallthosewespoketohaddirectexperienceofdisabilityeitherthroughaclosefamilymemberorclosefriends,manyofwhomhadtriedtogetbenefitsandhadfailed.Oneparticipantforexampletalkedabouthowhardithadbeenforhermothertogetanybenefitsandanotherdescribedthedifficultiesherpartnerhadfacedintryingtogetaccesstotheservicesherequired,Thiswasaviewshared,notsurprisingly,byallthedisabledparticipantsandtheyalltalkedabouthowdifficultitwastogetbenefits.Oneoftheparticipantsdescribedthebenefitssystemas,‘goingthroughaminefield,togetapittancethatsustainsyoujustabovethepovertyline’.ApplyingforDLAwastheyfelt‘incrediblydetailedandincrediblyintrusive’.Someoftheassumptionsbeingmadeare‘quiteworrying’andsomeofthequestionsontheform‘horrific,really’.Disabledpeoplealsoexpressedsignificantangeratsomeofthepressreportingandattheaccusationslinkingdisabledpeoplewithbenefits,scroungingandfraudulentclaims..Anumberofdisabledpeople
63
suggestedthattherewasamajorissueofdisabledpeoplenotreceivingwhattheydoneed.Notonly,theyargued,wasthere‘hugeunmetneed’,agreatdealofpeoplewhowereentitledtobenefitswerenotreceivingthelevelofsupporttheyrequiredandthiswasabiggerscandalthanfraud.Someofthenondisabledpeoplealsomadethispoint,particularlythosewithpersonalexperienceofdisability.Disabledpeoplealsoemphasisedthatfluctuatingconditionscanmaketheprocessofapplyingforbenefitssignificantlymoredifficult,andaccusationsoffraudulencemorelikely.Itisnotuncommonforexampleforpeopletobeabletowalkonedayandthenextbeunabletoleavethehouse.ViewsonBenefitsandBenefitClaimantsWespecificallyaskedparticipantswhytheythoughtthatthenumbersonincapacitybenefitoritsequivalenthadincreasedfromroughly700,000peopleinthe1970’stotoday’s2.6million.Manyreasonsweregivenincluding:the‘jobsituation;shiftingofpeoplefromunemploymentbenefittoincapacitybenefit’;morepeople‘knowingthesystem;knowinghowtodoit’;risesinthecostofliving;therisingpopulation;newconditions;betteradvice,increasesinthenumberofpeoplewithmentalhealthproblems;andanincreaseinthenumberofdisabledpeoplelivinglongerandlivinginthecommunity.OneofthedisabledrespondentspointedoutthatIncapacityBenefitwasmostlyclaimedinareasofhighunemploymentanddeprivation,whichcanaffectphysicalandmentalwell‐being.Manyoftheresponsesfromthefocusgroupsshowahighlevelofunderstandingaboutthecomplexityofdisabledpeoples’livesandmanywereabletoprovidereasonsforthegrowthinthenumbersclaimingbenefit.Thislevelofcomplexityissurprisinggiventhatitisalmostentirelyabsentfromthemainstreampress.Therewashoweveragreatdealofangeratwhatwasfelttobethelargenumbersofpeoplefraudulentlyclaimingbenefit.
Makesyouangryforpeoplewhoworkfulltimeandthereareloadsofpeoplewhoarescammingit…Imeanwhenyou’vebeenscrimpingandscrappingandyerman’snottoowell,youknowwhatImean?
64
Theygetthebestofeverything…Becausethey’regettingtheirrentpaid….They’velearnedthesystem.YouknowtherearepeoplegettingChinesedeliverieseverynightandyoucan’tafforditItdoesgetyourbackup,Imeanifyou’reworkingandstuff,yougetafreecarifyou’vegotDVLA(sic)Ihavethreejobs,twocleaningjobs,oneinthemorningandoneatnight.WhyshouldIworkandothersgetitfornothing?
Allthosewespoketoclaimedtohavefirsthandknowledgeofpeoplewhowerefraudulentlyclaimingbenefit.Howeverthewaythatdisabilitybenefitfraudisbeingrepresentedinthemediaisclearlyhavinganimpactonthewaythatdisabledpeoplearebeingreceivedandrepresented.Soforexamplethefollowingparticipantdescribedherfather’ssituation:
Mostofthetimeitisthisnegativestuff,likemydadhe’sdisabledandliketherearepeoplewhoarescammingit,butheisn’tandheisembarrassedtotellpeoplehe’sonbenefits.Hedoesn’twanttotellpeoplethatheisgoingonholidayorsomethingbecausehefeelspeoplemightthinkheistakingthepiss.He’sgotthatplaceovertherebecausehewasinanaccidentandhegotcompensation.
WeaskedthefocusgroupsfortheirviewsonthereportbyScopeandothercampaignerswhichsuggestedthatBritain'stabloidnewspapersshouldtakesomeoftheblameforstirringuphatredagainstdisabledpeoplebecauseofthewaytheyvilifypeopleonwelfare9.Theinformantsalldistancedthemselvesfromtheseideas,statingthatitwasnotdisabledpeopletheyareangrywith,itwasthosewhoarefraudulentlyclaimingbenefit.Asoneputit:
Idon’tknowanydisabledpeoplewhoare,Ijustknowablebodiedwhoarefrauding.
Thisisasimilarlinetothattakeninthenewspaperarticlesdescribedabove,wherejournalistswouldalwaysincludelinessuchas‘thereare
9 http://www.disabilityhatecrime.org.uk/index.php/component/content/article/1‐latest‐news/165‐hate‐crimes‐against‐britains‐disabled‐on‐the‐rise
65
somedisabledpeoplewhoneedanddeservesupport’.Therewashoweversomeambiguityhereandpeoplewerereluctanttospecifyhowfraudulentclaimantscouldbeseparatedfromthegenuine.Whenweaskedhowyoucouldtelltherewasagenerallackofcomment.Peoplewereveryawareofhiddenimpairments,particularlymentalhealthproblems,
Justbecauseyoucanwalkitdoesnotmeanyouarenotdisabled.Manyofthegroupsdescribeddepressionasthe‘newbadback’buttheywereonthewholereluctanttostigmatiseorsingleoutmentalhealthasanissue.Againtherewasagreatdealofsupportforthose‘whohadarealproblem’andprovidedtheyhadagenuinementalhealthproblemtheywerenotseenas‘scoungers’orfrauds.Despitethemanycriticismsofthebenefitsystemsitwasclearfromallofthegroupswetalkedtothatthereisstillageneralbeliefthatthestateshouldsupportdisabledpeople:
Ifyou’regenuinelydisabledyoushouldbeentitledtoit,wegivethemoneytoGreece,totherestoftheworldweshouldgiveittothosewhocan’twork.
It’sokforus,sittingherefineandfit,butitcouldhappentoustoanyofus.
Therearethethousands,thetensofthousandswhoarenotentitledtoit,they’rerobbingthepeoplewhoaredisabled.
Thekeyissueherewastheseparationoutofthosetheysawas‘genuine’or‘real’cases,whodeservedsupportandhelpfromthosetheyconsideredlessdeserving.Therewasastrongideaofthenotionofdeserving/nondeservingcategoriesinallofthefocusgroups.Somepeopleforexampleseparatedoutpeoplewithaddictions,peoplewithmentalhealthproblemsandobesityas‘lessdeservingcases’:
alargenumberofdrugaddictsgetmoneyunderthesecategoriesandIdon’tthinktheypublicbelievethemtobedisabled
66
Someoftheseideas,whenraisedbymembersofthefocusgroupswerechallengedbyotherparticipantsandtherewasalsosomesupportexpressedforpeoplewithaddictions.Oneofthedisabledparticipantsdescribedtheseissueas‘anirrelevance’whileotherspointedtothefactthattherewasalargenumberofdisabledpeoplewhodidnotclaimthebenefittheywereentitledto:
Theremaybehundredswhoareclaimingfraudulently,buttherearemanythousandswhoshouldbeclaimingandarenotgettingwhattheyneed’.
ViewsonGovernmentPolicyThefinalsectionofthisreportlooksatpeople’sviewsongovernmentpolicy.Therewassomesympathyexpressedforthegovernment’scurrentapproachtoreducingthebenefitbill,whichmanythoughtwastoohigh.Nobodyexpressedanysympathyforfraudulentclaimantsanditwasfeltthatanypolicythataimedtoreducethenumberwasagoodthing.ForexamplesomeoftheparticipantsspokeapprovinglyofthenewtestsforESAandtheworkofATOS:
It’safairlyobviousbutfairwayofcuttingawaythechancers,yougetaprivatecompanythatareprofitdriventhereisonlyonethatitisgoingtogo.
Howevertherewasagainsomeambiguityaspeoplealsofeltthatthesetestsmightbegoingtoofarandthatsomewhodeservebenefitmightnotbegettingit:
Ireadrecentlytheywerediscussingindividualcases,theteststhatyourunthrough,thenewcompanyarelikereally,reallystrictcomparedtopwhatitwasearlier,therearenowmanypeoplewhoarenotgettingwhattheydeserve.
Concernwasalsoexpressedthatthosewhoweretrulydeservingmaynotbegettingthesupportthattheycurrentlyneedandthatmanyofthegovernment’scutswillunfairlyattackdisabledpeopleandthatmanydisabledpeopledonotreceivethebenefitsorsupportthattheydeserveorneed.Thiswasaviewverystronglyexpressedbymanyofthedisabledparticipants,manyofwhomwereverysuspiciousoftheATOS
67
testsandothergovernmentinitiativesintroducedtoreducebenefitclaimants.Manydescribedhowthiswasaffectingthemandtheirownwellbeing,soonetoldus:
‘Iseemtobeaccusedannuallyoffraud,eventhoughtherehasbeennoevidence(orcommitting)offraudinover20yearsofclaims.Oneinvestigationwentonforninemonths,withinterviewstakingplaceunderpolicecautionandontape,etc.Chargesweredropped,thoughIonlyfoundoutbecauseIchasedtheagency...Itturnedoutamemberofstaffhadmisreadsomethingonthefile,sotherehadneverbeenacasetoanswer.Ihadthreemonthsinpaidworkafewyearsagoandcouldn’tbelievehowmuchlighterIfelt,thatIdidn’thavetolookovermyshoulderallthetime.It’snotthatIamfraudulent;it’sthatthelawissocomplicatedthatIhavebeenmisadvisedbybenefitsstaff;thefearofbeingcaughtout(andpresumedguilty)issomethingIhavetolivewitheveryday.’
Concernswerealsoraisedaboutcutstolegalaidandthatthesewouldmakeitmoredifficultfordisabledpeopletodefendthemselveswhentheirbenefitswereunderattack.Onesuggestion,madebymorethanoneofthedisabledparticipants,wasthatmanydisabledpeopleavoidedaskingtohavetheirbenefitsreviewed,forfeartheywouldhavethemremovedaltogether,andwerereceivinglessthantheywereentitledtoasaresult.
68
ConclusionThisreportpresentsastrongbodyofevidencetosuggestthattherehasbeenasignificantchangeinthewaythatdisabilityisbeingreportedinmuchofthepressintheUnitedKingdomtoday.Thecontentanalysisclearlydemonstratesthattherebeenalargeincreaseinthenumberofarticlesinwhichdisabilityisthekeythemeandthatthishasbeenaccompaniedbyasignificantshiftintheemphasisandinthewaythatthearticlesarebeingreported.Thesefindingsarealsosupportedbytheaudiencereceptionanalysis.Thischangeinthefrequency,contentandtoneofthearticlesin2010/11whencomparedtoasimilarperiodin2004/5marksanewapproachtodisability.Therehasbeenashiftfromanapproachwithalargelypatronisingportrayalofdisabledpeople–wheredisabledpeopleweremainlypresentedastragicbutbraveindividuals–toonewherethepredominantfocushasbeenondisabledpeopleasscroungers.Thedetaileddriversforthesechangesarehardtoidentifyandcomplex.ThreeofthenewspaperswesurveyedarestrongsupportersoftheCoalitionGovernmentandthesepapershaveallexpressedsupportforthespendingcutsintroducedaspartoftheComprehensiveSpendingReviewtotackletheBudgetdeficit.Thefactthattheyaremuchmorereluctanttocriticisethecurrentgovernment’spoliciesondisabilitycomparedtosimilarattemptsintroducedbythelastLabourgovernmentwouldsuggestthattheirapparentsupportfordisabledpeoplewasatthattimecontingent.Theywere,itcouldbeargued,moreinterestedinusingdisabledpeopleasameanstoattacktheLabourgovernmentthantheywereinactuallysupportingdisabledpeople.ThevitriolicapproachadoptedbyarticlesinsomeofpaperstodayandthewaytheyhavereporteddisabilityanddisabledpeopleintheperiodfollowingtheComprehensiveSpendingReviewaddsfurtherweighttotheseclaims.Muchofthecoverageinthetabloidpressisatbestquestionableandsomeofitisdeeplyoffensive.Theincreasedfocusonbenefitfraudwithoutlandishclaimsthatover70%ofpeopleondisabilitybenefitsarefraudsisanexampleofthistypeofreporting.Theseclaimsaremadeoverwhelminglywithoutevidenceandatnopointarethemediareportingtheverylowlevelsoffraudthatoccursoverallinrelationtothesebenefits.Wewouldfurthercitetheuseofpejorativelanguage,thefailuretoexploretheimpactoftheproposed
69
cutsondisabledpeople’squalityoflife,thereluctancetocriticisegovernmentpolicyontheseissuesandthefrequentrepresentationofsomedisabledpeopleasundeservingofbenefitsaspotentiallycontributingtowhatcouldbecomeahighlyinflammatorysituation.Whilethereisasyetnodirectevidencetosupporttheclaimthatthesereportsareleadingtothereportedincreasesinhatecrimes,newspapersshouldtakemuchgreatercareinthisarea.Theincreasedpejorativecoverageofdisabilitymayhavealongtermeffectandfurtherworkwillbeneededtomonitorthis.Theimpactsthesechangeshavehadonthewaythatdisabilityisperceivedbythepopulationisdifficulttodetermineprecisely.Manyoftheparticipantshadverycomplexandoftenconflictingviews.Many,forexample,believedthattherewasahighleveloffraudbutallparticipantsalsohadpersonalknowledgeoffriendsorfamilymemberswhowereinreceiptofadisabilitybenefitandalltalkedabouthowhardithadbeenforthemtoobtainthatbenefit.Ontheotherhandtheyalsoknew,orclaimedtoknow,peoplewhowerecommittingbenefitfraud.Alloftheresearchparticipantsmadeacleardistinctionbetweenthosewhodeservedtoreceivebenefitsandthosewhodidnotandwhiletheywereveryquicktovilifyfraudulentclaimantstheywerealso,inthemain,verysupportiveofdisabledpeople.Thiscouldbeexpressedas:disabledpeoplearenotfraudstersandfraudstersarenotdisabledpeople.Disabledpeoplethemselvesarefeelingtheeffectsofthiscoverageanditisimpactingontheirownfeelingsofsecurityandsafety.Therewasagreatdealofconcernamongthedisabledparticipantsabouttheeffectsthatupcomingbenefitchangeswillhaveontheirqualityoflife,ontheirabilitytoparticipateandalsoontheiracceptancebynon‐disabledpeople.Thelast20yearshaveseenmajorchangesinthewaythatsocietytreatsdisabledpeople.NotonlyisdisabilitynowrecognizedasanequalityissuebutitispartofthenewSingleEqualityAct(2010)andassuchhasequalfootingwithothergroupsfacingdiscriminationongroundssuchasgender,ethnicityandsexualorientation.Recentchanges,representingmanyyearsofcampaigningbydisabledpeople,haveculminatedinarguablysomeofthemostadvancedequalitylegislationintheworldandkeyelementssuchastheEqualityDutyplaceveryhighexpectationsonpublicsectorbodies.TheUNConventionontheRightsofPeople
70
withDisabilitieshasbeensignedandratified.Nolongeraredisabledpeopleexpectedtolivetheirlivesininstitutionsasamatterofcourse.Thereis(forthemoment)apresumptionthatdisabledchildrenwillbeeducatedinamainstreamschool,whiledirectpaymentsandotherformsofself‐directedsupportarenowawellestablishedpartofcommunitycarepackages.Putsimply,disabledpeoplecanexpecttobeincludedinthemainstreaminmostaspectsoftheirlivestoahithertounknowndegree.Thisprogressisnotsetinstone,however.Inparticular,itmustbestressedthatprogressonlegislationandrightsstandsincontrasttoarelativefailuretotransforminstitutionsandinstitutionalpractices.Ontheonehand,equalityfordisabledpeople,anideathatwasoncesocontentiousandsodubious,isnowpartoftheequalitymainstream;ontheotherhand,thedemandsforequalityhaveyettoberealisedinpractice.Thus,critiquesof,forexample,segregatededucation,exclusionfromwork,housing,denialoffamilylife,oftherighttosexualexpression,toformrelationshipsandtobeparents,whichappearedsoincendiarynotsolongago,arenowwidelyendorsed.Howeverthischangeinattitudeshasbynomeansdoneawaywiththesepractices;whilsttherehasbeenachangeinthewaythatwetalkaboutdisability,disabledpeoplethemselvesstillfacewidespreaddiscriminationintheirdaytodaylives.Intheirrecentlypublishedtriennialreview,HowFairisBritain?,theEqualityandHumanRightsCommissionprovideasubstantialbodyofevidencetosupportthisclaimandshowhow,despiteover15yearsofanti‐discriminationlegislationdisabledpeoplearestillconsiderablydisadvantagedwhencomparedtotheirnondisabledpeers.Thetenuousandcontingentnatureoftheprogressexperiencedbydisabledpeoplesuggeststhatthesegainscanbeeasilylostorwithdrawn.Thereisadangerthatmuchofthereportingthatwediscussinthisreportcouldlaythegroundworkfortheremovalofsomeofthesupportstructuresandprocessesthatarecurrentlyinplace.Thisfearwasexpressedopenlyinoneofthefocusgroupsofdisabledpeopleandisonethatthepressshouldtakeseriously.Bysimplyreplicatingthegovernment'spositionondisabilityanddisabilitybenefitwithoutcheckingeithertheirstatisticsorthebasisonwhichtheclaimismadethepartisanapproachtheyadopthasthedangeroffurtheraddingtotheoppressiondisabledpeopleareexperiencing.
71
72
ReferencesAllan,Vicky.(15thMay2011)‘Waragainstthedisabled’inGlasgowHerald,p22.BBCNews(8thJanuary2011)‘DisabilityBenefitCuts‘CouldBreachLaw’’inBBCNewsWebsite,Availablefrom:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk‐12141725,Accessedon27thJune2011.Beatty,C.et.al(May2007)THEREALLEVELOFUNEMPLOYMENT2007,Availablefrom:http://www.shu.ac.uk/_assets/pdf/cresr‐RealLevelUnemployment07.pdf,Accessedon:27thJuly2011.Bott,Richard(12thOctober2004)‘RhinoShock’inDailyMail,p74.Beatty,CandFothergill,S(2010)IncapacitybenefitsintheUK:Anissueofhealthorjobs?,AvailableFrom:http://www.social‐policy.org.uk/lincoln/Beatty.pdf,Accessedon:28thJuly2011.Boffey,Daniel(24thJuly2011)‘WelfarePolicy‘inciteshatredofdisabled’’inTheObserver,p14.Booth,Robert(9thOctober2009)‘WhoisbehindtheTaxpayers'Alliance?’inTheGuardian,Availablefrom:http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/09/taxpayers‐alliance‐conservative‐pressure‐group,Accessedon:9thJuly2011.Bowers,Simon(3rdDecember2004)‘Backtoworkscheme’s£220mshot:JobsNorth,WalesandScotlandaretargetedinexpansion’inTheGuardian,p21.Brooks,Tony(21stOctober2010)‘I’mtrappedsaysMumon£37,000ayearbenefits’inTheExpress,p27.Broster,Paul(4thDecember2004)‘Andseenherebrushinguponhisgolfswing,andluggingaheavybag,isaclaimantwho‘cannotwalk’’inTheExpress,p21.Brown,Martyn(28thDecember2010)‘1.5MarespendingfifthChristmasinarowonsickbenefits’inDailyMail,p2.
73
Chapman,James(16thDecember2004)‘Twothirdswhogetincapacitypaycouldworksaysminister’inDailyMail,p15.Carvel,John(5thNovember2004)‘PolicyandPolitics:DebtGripsFamiliesofDisabledChildren’inTheGuardian,p15.Clark,Ross(12thOctober2010)‘IncapacityBenefitTestswillPosenoThreattoDisabled’inTheExpress,p12.CommonsSelectCommittee(30thMarch2011)“MPsraiseconcernsaboutLegalAidreforms”atparliament.uk,Availablefrom:http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees‐a‐z/commons‐select/justice‐committee/news/legal‐aid‐report‐published/,Accessedon:9thJuly2011.CPAG(October2005)‘WorkandPensionsCommitteeInquiryintoReformofIncapacityBenefits’PolicyBriefingReport,Availablefrom:http://www.cpag.org.uk/info/briefings_policy/CPAG_WP_inquiry_into_reform_of_IB.pdf,Accessedon29thJuly2011.Crace,John(26thOctober2004)‘TheTeachingAwards:Childrenshouldbelievetheycanfly:JohnCracemeetstheteacherwhopushespupilstotheirfullpotential:Awardforexcellenceinspecialneedsteaching’inTheGuardian,p10.DailyMail(4thDecember2004)‘Footballboy’scourageisrewardedbyacutinbenefits’inDailyMail,p41.DailyMail(22ndOctober2010)‘You'repickingontheweakest:Wheelchair‐boundwomanconfrontsCameronandCleggoverwelfarecuts’inDailyMail,Availablefrom:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article‐1322569/Wheelchair‐bound‐Margaret‐Lynch‐confronts‐Cameron‐Clegg‐cuts.html,Accessedon:28thJune2011.DailyMail(5thOctober2010)‘Osborneaxeschildbenefitforthemiddleclasses‐andslapsacaponwelfaretoensurethatworkALWAYSpaysmore’inDailyMail,Availablefrom:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article‐1317438/George‐Osborne‐axes‐child‐benefit‐higher‐rate‐taxpayers‐slaps‐cap‐welfare.html,Accessedon:27thJune2011.
74
Davies,Nick(8thDecember2004)‘SpecialInvestigation:WastedLivesoftheYoungletdownbyJailSystem;Concludinghisinvestigationintomentallydisorderedprisoners;NickDavieslooksatthenumberofchildreninprisonswhichcannotdealwiththeirmentalhealthproblems’inTheGuardian,p12.Derbyshire,David(28thFebruary2011)‘Lifeofcrimebeginsatthreeforsomechildren,scientistsclaimafterdisturbingtraitsidentified’inDailyMail,Availablefrom:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article‐1359203/Life‐crime‐begins‐3‐children‐Scientists‐identify‐disturbing‐traits.html,Accessedon:13thJuly2011.DisabilityRightsCommission(December2005)AguidetotheDisabilityDiscriminationActforpeoplewithHIV,cancerandMS,Availablefrom:http://www.uhad2bthere.co.uk/factsheets/ddahivcms.pdf,Accessedon:25thJune2011.Douse,Barbara(22ndOctober2004)‘DearSun’inTheSun,letterspage.Doughty,S&Fagge,N(7thJuly2011)“Alossofdignity:Judgesturntheirbacksonformerballerina'sfightforovernightcare”inDailyMail,Availablefrom:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article‐2011868/Former‐ballerina‐Elaine‐McDonald‐loses‐Supreme‐Court‐battle‐overnight‐care.html,Accessedon:16thAugust2011.DWP(Spring2001)‘LabourForceSurvey’quotedinTUC(October2004)DefendingIncapacityBenefitBriefing,Availablefrom:www.tuc.org.uk/extras/IncapacityBriefingnote.doc,Accessedon:7thJuly2011.DWP(15thMarch2005)‘JOHNSONANNOUNCESSUMMERGREENPAPERTOREFORMINCAPACITYBENEFITASRADICAL"PATHWAYS"PILOTSGET10,000OFFIBINAYEAR’,DWPPressReleasesOnline,Availablefrom:http://www.gov‐news.org/gov/uk/news/johnson_announces_summer_green_paper_reform/20857.html,Accessedon29thJuly2011.DWP Information Directorate (2011) Fraud and Error in the BenefitSystem:Preliminary2010/11Estimates,DWPOnline,Availablefrom:http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/fem/fem_oct09_sep10.pdf,Accessedon:16thAugust2011.
75
Elliott,Larry(18thOctober2004)‘Economics:TheoutlookisnotsoNicewhenhiddenhazardsareexposed’inTheGuardian,p25.ESRCstudy(2004),AudienceReceptionsofTelevisionNews,CurrantAffairsandDocumentaryProgrammesEndofAwardReport,ESRCR/000/23/9669Finney,Suzanne(4thDecember2004)‘TheGolfSwingingofa‘Disabled’ManonBenefits’inDailyMail,p12.Gentleman,Amelia(23rdFebruary2011)‘ThisMan’sDoctortoldhimnottoWorkbecauseofHeartDisease.Butbenefitofficialsmadehimtaketwoteststoseeifhewasfitenough.Hisfamilythinksthestresskilledhim’inTheGuardian,G2.Greenwood,Chris(27thJune2011)‘'Criminals'agedjust3:Childrenresponsibleforhiddencrimewave,includingrapeandvandalism...andthere'snothingpolicecando’inDailyMail,Availablefrom:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article‐2008403/Criminals‐aged‐just‐3‐Children‐responsible‐hidden‐crimewave‐including‐rape‐vandalism‐‐theres‐police‐do.html,Accessedon12thJuly2011.Hagan,Pat(26thOctober2004)‘IsthisthefirstdrugtohelpDown’sChildren?’inDailyMail,p44.Hall,Macer(26thJanuary2011)‘75%ONSICKARESKIVING’inDailyExpress,p1.Hardy,Frances(3rdMarch2011)‘Ican’tmoveorspeak.ButamIhappy?Youbet!’inTheDailyMail,p37.Hennessey,Patrick(12thSep2004)‘Blairfacesrevoltoverplansfor£23aweekcutindisabilitybenefit’inTheTelegraph,Availablefrom:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1471533/Blair‐faces‐revolt‐over‐plans‐for‐23‐a‐week‐cut‐in‐disability‐benefit.html,Accessedon:29thJuly2011.Hunter,Mel(12thOctober2004)‘AManofSteel’inTheSun.InclusionLondon(19thJanuary2011)‘Don’tcutaccesstojustice’inInclusionLondon.co.uk,Availablefrom:
76
http://www.inclusionlondon.co.uk/dont‐cut‐access‐to‐justice,Accessedon10thJuly2011.James,Rhydian(22ndOctober2010)‘Comment:Afightontheirhands:TheSpendingReview’sPenny‐pinchingTargetsDisabledPeople–butwearenoPushover’inTheGuardian,p38.Jones,George(31stOct2005)‘Cabinetinsplitovermovetocutbenefit’inTheTelegraph,AvailableFrom:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1501852/Cabinet‐in‐split‐over‐move‐to‐cut‐benefit.html,Accessedon28thJuly2011.Kavanagh,Trevor(4thApril2011)‘HackingofftheHeadoftheWelfareMonster’inTheSun,p6.Letter(19thOctober2004)‘DearSun’inTheSun.Little,Alison(21stApril2011)‘BLITZONBRITAIN’SBENEFITSMADNESS’inTheExpress,Availablefrom:http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/242007,Accessedon:27thJune2011.Logan,R&Brandley,B(13thOctober2004)‘Iwillalwayscherishbothmytwingirls’inDailyMail,p72.Lower,Allison(9thOctober2004)‘RecordRecovery’,inDailyMail,p14‐16.Lynch,R.T.&Thomas,K.L.(1994)“PeoplewithDisabilitiesasVictims:Changinganill‐advisedparadigm”,inJournalofRehabilitation,Vol.60,No1,pp8‐11.Marsh,Geoff(16thDecember2004)‘Disabled?Wecanonlyputyouintrain'sbaggagevan’inTheExpress,p15.Mills,James(17thNovember2004)‘The20‐year‐oldfatherofsixwhorefusestoworkbuthappilytakes£1200ofyourmoneyeverymonth’inTheDailyMail,p21.Moody,A(26thOctober2004)‘OurSocialConscienceMattersMorethanCash’inTheExpress,p66.
77
Moore,Jane(8thDecember2004)‘MotherofSixVikkiLedger’inTheSun.Moriarty,Richard(4thDecember2004)‘TheCrazyWorldofDisabilityBenefits;Battlingone‐leggedteenagerhashispaymentsaxedafterheturnsoutforthenationalamputee’sfootballteam’inTheExpress,p20.Mulchrone,Patrick(4thDecember2004)‘What’shisHandicap?;Mercyfor‘Disabled’Conmancaughtonfilmplayinggolf’inTheMirror,p17.NewtonDunn,Tom(1stDecember2010)‘ShirkersParadise;Exclusive:IDSonBenefitsBritain;Wagner’soneofmillionwhoclaimincapacity;Workshyarelargelytoblamefordeficitcrisis’inTheSun,14‐25.Nicks,Gary(28thApril2010)‘75%ontheSickareFittoWork’inTheDailyStar,p2.ONS(2001)FraudandErrorinClaimstoIncapacityBenefit,Para2.2,quotedin‘InquiryintoIncapacityBenefitsandPathwaystoWork’inDepartmentofWorkandPensionsWebMemos,Availablefrom:http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/wpwebmemos1to30.pdf,Accessedon7thJuly2011.Patrick,Ruth(13thOctober2010)‘Society:Secondthoughts:GoodCitizensarenotonlythosewhowork,arguesRuthPatrick’inTheGuardian,p4.Peev,Gerri(27thOctober2010)‘75%ofIncapacityClaimantsareFittoWork’inDailyMail.Philo,Greg(1999)‘MediaandMentalIllness’inPhilo,Greg(1999)(Ed.)MessageReceived:GlasgowMediaGroupResearch1993‐1998,Harlow:Longman,pp54‐61.Platell,A(2ndOctober2010)‘Platell’sPeople’inDailyMail.Pyatt,Jamie.(8thMarch2011)‘BombedHeroGetsParkingFineSnub’inTheSun,p20.
78
Ramesh,Randeep(14thFebruary2011)‘'Lifenotworthliving'fordisabledpeoplefacingbenefitcuts’inTheGuardian,Availablefrom:http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/14/disabled‐facing‐benefit‐cuts‐despair,Accessedon:27thJune2011.Riley,C.A.(2005)DisabilityandtheMedia:PrescriptionsforChange,Lebanon:UniversityPressofNewEngland,p54.Roberts,(12thOctober2004)‘SuperhumantotheVeryEnd’inDailyMail,p10.Routledge,Paul(17thDecember2004)‘PaulRoutledge:JaneKennedy’inTheMirror,p23.Rosemary,Dr.(26thOctober2004)‘SickNotes:EveryPatient’sDifferent’inTheExpress,p48.Ross,Karen(2003)‘AllEars:Radio,ReceptionandDiscoursesofDisability’inNightingale,VirginiaandRoss,Karen(ed),CriticalReadings:MediaandAudiences,Maidenhead,Berkshire:OpenUniversityPress,pp131‐144.Shaban,N.(1996)SupercripsandRejects(WithoutWalls),Channel4.SilvermanD(2006)InterpretingQualitativeData:MethodsforAnalyzingTalk,TextandInteractionLondonSageSmith,Richard(24thMarch2011)‘BlindCourage’inTheMirror,p31.Smith,Richard(17thNovember2004)‘IsupposeI’llhavetogetajobnow,saysfatherof6afterdole’inTheMirror,p27.Taggart,Michael(29thOctober2004)‘Feelingill?Trygoingbacktowork’inDailyMail,p45.Taylor,Matthew&Domokos,John(31stMay2011)‘Mentalhealthexpertswarnagainstpaceofincapacitybenefitcuts’inTheGuardian,Availablefrom:http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/31/incapacity‐benefit‐cuts‐mental‐health,Accessedon10thJuly2011.
79
Teather,Sarah(14thMarch2011)‘Reply:Letter:SpecialNeedsPlansGiveParentsaChoice’,inTheGuardian,p33.Tempest,Matthew.(14October2004)“Blairsignalswelfarecrackdown”inTheGuardian,AvailableFrom:http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/oct/14/labour.uk,Accessedon:12thJuly2011.TheExpress(26thJanuary2011)‘75%onSickareSkiving’inDailyExpress.TheExpress(8thNovember2004)“Tip‐offJailsWelfareCheat;NewsinBrief”inTheExpress,p39.TheExpress(8thDecember2004)‘£100MBillatMinistryofSickies;butsomearefittodrop’inTheExpress,p14.TheExpress(27thOctober2010)‘MOSTNEWCLAIMANTS'FITTOWORK'’inTheExpress,Availablefrom:http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/207837/Most‐new‐claimants‐fit‐to‐work‐,Accessedon:27thJune2011.TheExpress(26thOctober2004)‘TheGirlswhoGiveTeenagersaGoodName:Fun,fearlessandInspiring,thesewomen–Allunder20–Werehonouredyesterdayasshiningexamplesofmodernyouth’inTheExpress,p21.TheMirror(17thNovember2004)‘LazyDad:JobShock’inTheMirror,p11.TheSun(17thDecember2004)‘CrippledBobTold:FindJob’inTheSun.TheSun(17thNovember2004)‘SpongerDadhasSixthKid’inTheSun.TheTimes(19thOct2004)‘GPstoldtoend'sicknoteculture'’inTheTimes.Thornton,Lucy(22ndOctober2010)‘MrCameron,You’rePickingontheWeakestPeopleinSociety’inTheMirror,p6.
80
Toynbee,P(5thApril2011)‘Comment:TheBenefitBonanzaismoreBigSercothanBigSociety:TheEvidenceisDamning:Privatefirmsaren’tmuchcopatwelfaretowork.ButtheirChiefExecutivesareearningMillions’inTheGuardian,p29.TUC(October2004)DefendingIncapacityBenefitBriefing,Availablefrom:www.tuc.org.uk/extras/IncapacityBriefingnote.doc,Accessedon:7thJuly2011.Wainwright,Martin(29thOctober2004)‘Repeatattacker,18,isjailedforRosiemurder:Afterninehours’deliberation,juryfindsteenagerguiltyof10‐year‐old’smurderandistoldofpreviousviolentincidentsinvolvingothergirls’inTheGuardian,p5.Walker,K(19thOctober2004)‘I’msickofSick‐noteBritainsaysMinister;DoctorsaccusedofcausingbenefitscrisisbysigningoffMillionswithlittlereason’inTheExpress,p32.Walker,K.&Dixon,C.(23rdNovember2004)‘ScandalofBritain’swarheroescheatedoutofpensioncash’inTheExpress,p2.Williams,Rachel(22ndJune2010)‘Budget2010:Tougherdisabilityallowancetesttoreduceclaimants’inTheGuardian,Availablefrom:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/22/tougher‐disability‐allowance‐test‐budget,Accessedon27thJune2011.Wintour,9thSeptember2010)“GeorgeOsbornetocut£4bnmorefrombenefits”inTheGuardian,Availablefrom:http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/09/george‐osborne‐cut‐4bn‐benefits‐welfare,Accessedon:8thAugust2011.Wood,Claudia&Grant,Eugene(20thOctober2010)‘Reply:Letter:IncapacityTestisnotFitforPurpose’inTheGuardian,p35.Wood,Claudia&Grant,Eugene(8thOctober2010)DestinationUnknown,Demos,Availablefrom:http://demos.co.uk/publications/destinationunknowndisability,Accessedon:27thJune2011.
81
Appendix1:CodingScheduleARTICLE
Articlenumber___________
Headline:_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Articlepagenumber:_______ Section(ifstated):1.News2.Features3.Society4.Home5.Leader6.Letters7.Education8.Opinion9.Jobs&Money10.City11.Sport12.Special13.Weekend14.Obit15.T.VMedia:1.Sun.2.Mirror.3.Express4.Mail5.GuardianEdition_________________________________Region:0.N/S1.UK2.National3.Scotland4.NI5.Highlands6.Lancashire7.Yorkshire8.TT9.WalesDate:(DD.MM.YY)____________________________________________________Pejorativelanguage:0.None1.Scrounger2.Hand‐out3.Workshy4.Sponger5.Lay‐about6.Feckless7.Sicknotesociety/culture8.SickmanofEurope9.Cheats 10.Other______________________________11.LifestyleChoice 12.Languish 13.Shameless(ly) 14.Dependency 15.‘Milkingit’16.‘Onthesick’SpecifyDisability0.N/S1.PhysicalandSensoryImpairments2.MentalHealth3.LearningDifficulties
82
CATEGORY/REFERENCESPoliticalissues:
Prominentinheadline?0.No1.Explicit 2.Implicit
LevelofProminenceinArticlescaleof2‐62beingdominanttheme6beingbaremention
Referencemadeby1.Politician(MP,spokesperson,CivilServant)2.Disabledindividual3.Family/carer4.Memberofpublic5.Charity6.Employer7.Editorial/commentpiece8.Medicalexpert9.Factualarticle10.Otherexpert11.Celebrity12.LegalExpert
PARTY0.None1.Lab2.Con3.Lib4.Coal5.SNP6.Green7.UKIP8.SSP9.SDLP10.DUP11.SFein12.UUP13.Other
1.AttackofpastLabourgovt.
2.AttackofpastCons.govt.
3.Attackofcontemporary
Labourgovt.
4.AttackofCoalitiongovt.
5.DefenceofpastLabourgovt.
6.DefenceofpastCons.govt.
7.Defenceofcontemporary
Labourgovt.
8.DefenceofCoalitiongovt.
9.Discussionofpeople
encouragedontobenefitsas
resultofdeliberategovt.policy
10.BigSocietyhelpingdisabled
11.BigSocietynothelping
disabled
12.Suggestingalternativesto
bothexistingservicesAND/OR
governmentreforms
13.Definingdisabilitybenefit
claimant(s)asundeserving.
83
Explicitorimplicit
14.Definingdisabilitybenefit
claimant(s)asdeservingExplicit
orimplicit
15.Generalfinancialburdenof
disabilitybenefitson
state/taxpayer‐specifyfigure?
‐
16.Stats/proceduresofbenefit
system&its
function/explainingchanges
(whetherassociatedwith
‘opinionornot)
17.Attackofbenefitsystem
18.Defenceofbenefitsystem
Socialissues:
19.Discrimination/Marginalised
20.Tragicoutcomes
21.Triumphoveradversity
22.Euthanasia/Righttodie
debate
23.Descriptiveinformationof
specificdisabilityconditions
(not
cures/treatments/charities)
24.Reallifeexperienceofcarers/family/individuals
25.Disabilityasoutcomeoftragicevent(medicalissues/accident/war/neglect)
26.Curesor
therapies/treatment
27.Facilities
(Individual/Community/Nationa
lLevel)and/orResources
(inc.financial)–provided/not
needed
84
Appendix2:DetailedDescriptorsforCoding&Analysis1)AttackofpastLabourgovt–2010‐2011articlecriticising1997–2010NewLabour
Policy/Ministers.2)AttackofPastConservativeGovernment–Anyarticlecriticising1979–1997Conservative
Policy/Ministers.3)AttackofContemporaryLabourGovernment–2004–2005articlecriticisingNewLabour
Policy/Ministersfromthattime.4)AttackofCoalitiongovt–2010‐2011articlecriticisingcurrentCoalitionPolicy/Ministers(except
explicitreferencestoBigSociety)5)DefenceofpastLabourgovt–2010‐2011articledefending1997–2010NewLabour
Policy/Ministers.6)DefenceofPastConservativeGovernment–Anyarticledefending1979–1997Conservative
Policy/Ministers7)DefenceofContemporaryLabourGovernment–2004–2005articledefendingNewLabour
policy/ministersfromthattime.
28.Facilities
(Individual/Community/Nationa
lLevel)and/orResources(inc.
financial)‐needed
29.Mediarepresentation
acceptable
30.Mediarepresentation
unacceptable
31.Charity/Volunteering
32.Antisocialbehaviourby
disabledperson
33.Fraud(specificcase)
34.Social/Legalreforms(not
benefits)affectingthedisabled.
Other:
35.Referenceofdisabilitywithoutrelevance
85
8)DefenceofCoalitionGovernment–ContemporaryarticledefendingCoalitionpolicy(ImplicitorExplicit)
9)Discussionofpeopleencouragedontobenefitsasresultofdeliberatepast/currentgovernment
policy(Explicitreference)10)BigSocietypoliciesdiscussedashelpingdisabled11)BigSocietypoliciesdiscussedasnothelpingdisabled12)SuggestingAlternativestobothExistingServicesand/orGovernmentReforms13)DefiningDisabilityBenefitClaimant(s)asundeserving.(Explicitorimplicit)14)DefiningDisabilityBenefitClaimant(s)asdeserving.(Explicitorimplicit)15)GeneralFinancialBurden(notspecificburdenofanindividual/location)ofDisabilityBenefits
onState/Taxpayer–specifyingfigurewheregiven.16)Statistics/ProceduresofBenefitsystem&itsfunction/ExplainingChanges(Whether
associatedwith‘opinion’ornot)17)Attackoftheexistingbenefitsystemorchangestoit(ImplicitorExplicit;Generalor
Individual)18)Defenceoftheexistingbenefitsystemorchangestoit(ImplicitorExplicit;Generalor
Individual)19)Discrimination/Marginalised(GeneralorIndividual;ImplicitorExplicit;NotBenefits)20)TragicOutcomeasaResultofProvisionFailure(GeneralorIndividual;MustBeSevere,eg.
death)21)TriumphOverAdversitybyDisabled(ImplicitorExplicit;GeneralorIndividual)22)Euthanasia/RighttoDieDebate(Mustbespecifictodisability)23)DescriptiveInformationofSpecificDisabilityConditions(NotIncludingCures/Treatmentsor
Charities)24)RealLifeExperienceofCarers/Family/Individuals(fromtheperspective(s)oftheindividual
concernedand/oranyothercommentators).25)DisabilityasanoutcomeofTragicEvent(ie.medicalissues/accident/war/neglect)26)DiscussionorDescriptionofCures/Therapies/Treatment
86
27)DiscussionofFacilitiesand/orResources(inc.financial)atIndividual/Community/Nationallevel–asnotneededoralreadyprovided
28)DiscussionofFacilitiesand/orResources(inc.Financial)atIndividual/Community/National
level–asneededorwanted29)Mediarepresentationofdisability–discussedasacceptable30)Mediarepresentationofdisability–discussedasunacceptable31)Charity/Volunteering–Discussionofactivities(Mustbemorethanbarementionofacharity
organisation)32)Reportofanti‐socialbehaviourbydisabledperson33)BenefitFraud(generaland/orspecificcases)34)Social/Legalreformsconcerningcontemporarydisabled/disabilityissues(notbenefits‐related)
andinitiatedbygovt/otherorganisations35)Referenceofdisabilitywithoutrelevancetoarticle/explanation(eg.Toengendersympathy)