DREDF Condemns the Unabashedly Ableist Response of Mainstream Journalists and Politicians to NBC’s Recent Interview With John Fetterman

October 14, 2022

DREDF is outraged by the ableist criticisms directed at Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman in the wake of his recent NBC interview. During the interview, which aired on Tuesday’s “NBC Nightly News” and Wednesday’s “Today” show, Fetterman used closed captions to answer questions in real time. Rather than focus on Fetterman’s ideas and ideologies on topics like access to health coverage and prescription drug pricing, coverage of the interview has almost exclusively zeroed in on Fetterman’s use of closed captioning, claiming that his use of such technology indicates “brain damage” and an unfitness for office. This offensive coverage has infuriated disability rights advocates.

Ableist assumptions about disability and basic competence are so prevalent that many don’t even think of them as discriminatory. However, they are.

Ableism is a set of beliefs or practices that devalues and discriminates against people with physical, intellectual, or psychiatric disabilities. It privileges able-bodiedness and frames disability as a flaw or abnormality that needs to be fixed. It is a form of systemic oppression that affects people who identify as disabled, as well as anyone who others perceive to be disabled. Like racism and sexism, ableism classifies entire groups of people as “less than,” and includes harmful stereotypes, misconceptions, and generalizations of people with disabilities.

Let’s be clear: John Fetterman’s status as a disabled person and use of captions do not disqualify him for public service. Nor do they undercut his ability to comprehend ideas, articulate thoughts, grant interviews or participate in debates. The NBC reporter who interviewed Lt. Governor Fetterman funneled attention toward the presence of disability (i.e., the ability to make small talk before the actual interview), rather than highlight any of the substantive discussion on important issues including inflation, abortion rights, and crime.

Using the stigma of disability as a political weapon is nothing new. We saw it when Hillary Clinton fainted in 2016 as she battled pneumonia – she was described as vulnerable, weak and unfit for office. We saw it when Bernie Sanders had a heart attack in 2019 – it was suggested that due to his age and health condition that he should stand down and endorse another candidate. And currently, we see it in conversations about Joe Biden’s stutter – his stutter has been described as evidence of ineptness, cognitive decline, or dementia.

Unfounded, ableist accusations of physical and mental “infirmity” may or may not damage the politicians at whom they are directed, but they do hurt and harm people with disabilities as a community. Central to the disability rights movement is the concept that a disabling condition does not inherently diminish one’s abilities or make them less valuable or worthwhile. To the extent people with disabilities do experience disadvantage in society, it is often the result of pervasive prejudice and stereotypes; the barriers that prevent access to necessary services and supports; and the stigmas attached to the equipment and technology individuals use to manage their condition.

Assumptions regarding the capabilities of disabled people and their ability to contribute to society are also often inaccurate and misguided. When discussing and considering disabled politicians, don’t let stereotypes and biases about their disabilities become the story rather than the policies they’re fighting for. Be better.