WEBVTT

0:00:04.964 --> 0:00:06.249
[Leslie Sieleni] I'm Leslie Sieleni,

0:00:06.249 --> 0:00:08.558
and I am a parent advocate,

0:00:08.558 --> 0:00:09.560
and I also have a child

0:00:09.560 --> 0:00:11.266
with Down syndrome.

0:00:11.266 --> 0:00:13.208
So my question is, why do reporters

0:00:13.208 --> 0:00:14.708
frequently use the R word,

0:00:14.708 --> 0:00:16.140
or use the disabled...

0:00:16.140 --> 0:00:17.934
the word disabled

0:00:17.934 --> 0:00:19.558
as a noun in their stories?

0:00:19.558 --> 0:00:21.945
We feel that when you do that,

0:00:21.945 --> 0:00:22.838
it further creates

0:00:22.838 --> 0:00:24.158
a separation or segregation

0:00:24.158 --> 0:00:26.834
that we’re looking hard to change.

0:00:26.834 --> 0:00:28.540
[Rob Leer] Reuben, do you

0:00:28.540 --> 0:00:29.831
want to address that one?

0:00:29.831 --> 0:00:31.087
We're not accusatory here,

0:00:31.087 --> 0:00:31.983
but just in general

0:00:31.983 --> 0:00:33.029
there's a lot of

0:00:33.029 --> 0:00:34.979
insensitivities by...

0:00:34.979 --> 0:00:36.829
in stories that are written

0:00:36.829 --> 0:00:38.699
in which person first language

0:00:38.699 --> 0:00:41.034
is not always exercised.

0:00:41.034 --> 0:00:42.207
[Ruben Rosario] Well, I...

0:00:42.207 --> 0:00:43.646
from personal experience

0:00:43.646 --> 0:00:44.497
just this weekend,

0:00:44.497 --> 0:00:46.329
I did a column on Sunday

0:00:46.329 --> 0:00:48.748
about the Oscars, and I...

0:00:48.748 --> 0:00:49.509
I wrote down,

0:00:49.509 --> 0:00:51.013
without thinking too much,

0:00:51.013 --> 0:00:53.004
"an autistic classmate."

0:00:53.004 --> 0:00:57.951
And I got an e-mail last night,

0:00:57.951 --> 0:00:59.239
from someone who said,

0:00:59.239 --> 0:01:01.675
"I thoroughly enjoyed

0:01:01.675 --> 0:01:03.479
your column, but when I read that,

0:01:03.479 --> 0:01:05.381
it kind of left me sour,"

0:01:05.381 --> 0:01:06.488
because she's a person

0:01:06.488 --> 0:01:08.394
who has a son with autism.

0:01:08.394 --> 0:01:10.291
And all she wanted to do was

0:01:10.291 --> 0:01:13.511
clarify the people-first language.

0:01:13.511 --> 0:01:17.058
And when she sent the e-mail, I said,

0:01:17.058 --> 0:01:20.277
"Oh, my God, it just went right by me."

0:01:20.277 --> 0:01:22.492
I was the one that made the mistake,

0:01:22.492 --> 0:01:23.911
but it went through two or three

0:01:23.911 --> 0:01:25.160
others, and they also didn’t see it.

0:01:25.160 --> 0:01:28.441
So it's great when you have

0:01:28.441 --> 0:01:29.891
readers come and kind of

0:01:29.891 --> 0:01:31.462
set you straight a little bit

0:01:31.462 --> 0:01:34.170
and have that engagement, you know,

0:01:34.170 --> 0:01:35.211
where you learn more,

0:01:35.211 --> 0:01:36.677
or you have it more in the mindset,

0:01:36.677 --> 0:01:38.499
"Well the next time I write something

0:01:38.499 --> 0:01:40.655
anywhere near that, I'm going to have it

0:01:40.655 --> 0:01:42.399
in upper of my mind not to

0:01:42.399 --> 0:01:44.813
make that same mistake again."

0:01:44.813 --> 0:01:46.265
[Shamus O’Meara] Reuben strikes on really

0:01:46.265 --> 0:01:47.679
a practical reality of this.

0:01:47.679 --> 0:01:50.128
You know, he could be

0:01:50.128 --> 0:01:51.731
mindful of people-first language

0:01:51.731 --> 0:01:52.705
and write his story,

0:01:52.705 --> 0:01:55.077
but an editor will get a hold of that,

0:01:55.077 --> 0:01:56.152
maybe on another shift,

0:01:56.152 --> 0:01:58.185
and maybe they want to byline

0:01:58.185 --> 0:01:59.002
or a headline,

0:01:59.002 --> 0:02:00.963
and they only have so much room

0:02:00.963 --> 0:02:02.092
with that larger font,

0:02:02.092 --> 0:02:04.913
and so the story will be, you know,

0:02:04.913 --> 0:02:06.771
"Disabled waiting for services,"

0:02:06.771 --> 0:02:08.174
as opposed to, you know,

0:02:08.174 --> 0:02:09.492
"People with disabilities."

0:02:09.492 --> 0:02:12.916
I... I think that's a significant issue.

0:02:12.916 --> 0:02:14.694
You know, years ago

0:02:14.694 --> 0:02:16.025
when I chaired the Council

0:02:16.025 --> 0:02:20.509
we... initiated, and I think

0:02:20.509 --> 0:02:21.967
Colleen had already been doing it

0:02:21.967 --> 0:02:23.861
for a few years, but we reengaged,

0:02:23.861 --> 0:02:24.872
I think, the Star Tribune

0:02:24.872 --> 0:02:26.299
and some others, about people-first

0:02:26.299 --> 0:02:27.977
language and it's gotten better.

0:02:27.977 --> 0:02:31.486
I think.. I think generally

0:02:31.486 --> 0:02:33.488
you'll see in the newspapers

0:02:33.488 --> 0:02:38.129
and within the verbal media, you know,

0:02:38.129 --> 0:02:39.589
people-first language, but

0:02:39.589 --> 0:02:41.605
sometimes you have to be reminded...

0:02:41.605 --> 0:02:44.077
[Robb Leer] How about a show of hands

0:02:44.077 --> 0:02:45.823
of the journalists on this stage,

0:02:45.823 --> 0:02:47.643
is it something you think about

0:02:47.643 --> 0:02:49.201
when you're on deadline,

0:02:49.201 --> 0:02:50.407
you're writing your stories,

0:02:50.407 --> 0:02:52.004
show of hands,

0:02:52.004 --> 0:02:52.906
it is something anybody

0:02:52.906 --> 0:02:54.002
consciously is thinking about?

0:02:54.002 --> 0:02:57.374
Okay. So we got good intentions here.

0:02:57.374 --> 0:02:58.305
[Kelly Huffman] We need to

0:02:58.305 --> 0:02:59.673
do better at realizing that...

0:02:59.673 --> 0:03:00.739
that things that aren't

0:03:00.739 --> 0:03:02.263
right in front of our faces, you know,

0:03:02.263 --> 0:03:04.615
we’re human too, and we're on deadlines,

0:03:04.615 --> 0:03:05.651
and things that aren’t

0:03:05.651 --> 0:03:07.542
right in front of faces, you know,

0:03:07.542 --> 0:03:09.082
it's up to us to use

0:03:09.082 --> 0:03:10.285
situations like this

0:03:10.285 --> 0:03:12.166
to raise that discourse.