Media Storm - S4E12 Paralympics: An afterthought? Plus ‘two-tiered’ policing and Labour’s migrant ‘amnesty’

Episode Date: August 29, 2024

The Paralympic Games are underway - and there's plenty to celebrate! More coverage than ever before, a public-participating opening ceremony, and over 160 nations televising the event.  But is it enough? There were 10 million tickets available for the Olympics - and only 3 million for the Paralympics. What does it mean that the Paralympics will be broadcast on Channel 4, rather than our state broadcaster BBC (where extensive Olympics coverage takes place). Is this a question of reduced public interest and 'relatability'? Or an underlying bias against disability? Joining us to discuss perplexing media coverage and perpetuating stereotypes of the Paralympics are two para athletes. Wheelchair tennis silver-medallist-turned-fashion expert Samanta Bullock is in the studio, and two-time Paralympian blind footballer Keryn Seal tunes in from Paris.  Plus, your week's Media Storms: the shocking truth behind attention-grabbing headlines about crime at Notting Hill Carnival, journalists band together to denounce Israel's assault on a free press, and why numbers CAN lie when it come to how much immigrants really cost the country...  Hosts: Mathilda Mallinson (@mathildamall) and Helena Wadia (@helenawadia) Music: Samfire (@soundofsamfire) Assistant Producer: Katie Grant Episode research: Camilla Tiana Support Media Storm on Patreon! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When you're with Amex Platinum, you get access to exclusive dining experiences and an annual travel credit. So the best tapas in town might be in a new town altogether. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca. www.ca slash YMX Hello, hello media stormers

Hello, hello, Helena Hi, Matilda, did you enjoy your bank holiday? No, we're freelancers. Obviously not, I asked you that just so we could brag about the fact that we worked on a bank holiday. What's the back holiday? I also was struck down on Monday by a UTI.

Again. No, again. Any opportunity to plug Media Storm's chronic UTI episode, season two. Are you getting UTIs in order to plug media storm? That's the real question. No, as you know from attending my wedding, I'm not shy talking about UTIs in any environment. That's true. For those of you who weren't at Matilda's wedding, Matilda said the word UTI in her vows in a church,

along with the words fuck boy and shag. I did not say shag. I did not say shag. Sorry, that was fake news. But yeah, I did call my husband a fuck boy in church. in front of his dad, the vicar. Anyway. Yeah, bank holidays, they don't exist for freelancers.

And also, the news doesn't stop on a bank holiday because as we saw, there was actually quite big piece of news with the Dagenham Tower Block Fire. Yeah, that actually put me immediately on edge, especially when we heard that there was an issue with the cladding. She thought, oh, God, it's going to be another grandfell. Thankfully, everyone was evacuated safely. There were two people in hospital with injuries after,

but the only casualty that the BBC reported was a woman's wedding dress, which burnt two weeks before her wedding. It's sad, but given that what we know can happen... Yeah, and this is coming back into the new cycle because next week, the final report from the Grenfell Tower Fire Inquiry will be published. Maybe that's going to make a good media storm episode. Maybe you'll have to listen in next week. This week in the world and beyond,

Space X had to delay its launch of Polaris Dawn on Tuesday due to helium leak. The company is aiming to stage the first ever all-civilian spacewalk. Pacific nation leaders gathered in Tonga on Monday for a five-day summit. An earthquake on arrival stressed the main topic of interest for local islanders, climate change, a topic generally overshadowed by the US and China's skirmishes for regional influence. And the Taliban has passed a law. banning women in Afghanistan from speaking in public. This last story is just awful.

The best analysis I've heard was, of course, from an Afghan woman, Fazwea Kufi, an Afghan female MP in exile, speaking to Michelle Hussain on the BBC Today's program yesterday morning. They both stressed that whatever the Taliban stands for is not Islam, an important distinction at this time. Why is the Taliban thing that? by enforcing further and further restrictions on women that they can protect Islam. And why is Afghanistan different from the rest of Muslim world?

In fact, actually, they are the one creating Islamophobia. It's time for the Muslim countries, especially Muslim women around the world, to start challenging these narratives of misrepresentation of Islam by Taliban. Yes, because predominantly Muslim countries are full of women not only participating in normal life, but indeed leading the countries in different ways? Absolutely. I mean, the same country that the Taliban still have their political office, Qatar. They have 15% more female students in universities, in education institutions, than male.

You know, many Muslim countries around the world, they have female foreign ministers with whom the Taliban engage. I have seen them taking photos with Muslim women leaders from across the world, Indonesian foreign minister, for instance, former foreign minister of Pakistan. What makes the women of Afghanistan different from other Muslim women? It's just the patriarchy and the Taliban fear of women getting power and they, the Taliban losing power. Fosio Kufi, thank you. I value that here, the international media's response to the Taliban law

has been to lift the voices of Afghan women. to be honest, I think we can expect to see quite a lot of different coverage where people speak for Afghan women and denounce Islam in response to this law. Definitely. Speaking of which, what other media storm stories caught your eye this week? Okay, this is less of a media storm story, just something that I enjoyed. Katie Price is being tried for bankruptcy. This is a long-running case.

She appeared at court on Tuesday, and on the way in, she was smiling at reporters like, oh, hey, you're right there, guys. And then on her way out, she was like, calling them scumb bags and shouting at them and shouting all the bullshit you write about me wow what happened in the trial I want to be in the room where it happened no I was about to say Hamilton

don't worry about that her case was actually adjourned until next month so that she could be questioned in private away from the media glare which is a nice big fuck you to all the paps I'm going to say fair enough okay the big bank holiday news story I want to talk about Notting Hill Carnival

So this is Europe's biggest street carnival and it takes place in London every year to celebrate local Caribbean culture. It's creative and joyful and a lot of fun. But there is also a very small minority of attendees drawn to the area for criminal purposes. This year saw eight stabbings and 334 arrests over the two-day event. For context, two million people attended the festival. Any incidences of crime were reported rapidly and reliably across our own. outlets like the BBC, Sky and Guardian, outlets that also covered the positive cultural aspects of the event, the BBC streaming the parade on IPlayer. Okay, but to give credit to the Daily Mail, they also did showcase the cultural value of the carnival.

Didn't you see this headline, Maya Jammer shows off her long legs and Somali roots in custom mini dress? Very respectful and diverse. So diverse. Well, I want to talk about preemptive coverage of the carnival. So the coverage that came before, which was overwhelmingly and in some cases exclusively negative in outlets further on the right. This coverage focused on the heavy policing of the event. 7,000 police officers were in attendance and it featured a term that we all knew was coming. It was a term popularized by Reform Party politicians.

That's Nigel Farage's party, and it trended during the racist riots. Can I guess it? Go. Two-tiered policing. Guess it in one. Bullseye. Two-tiered policing. This idea that white people are now actually being subjected to heavier and more unfair policing than ethnic minorities.

So commentators... No. Sorry. Carry on. The day before the Notting Hill Carnival, the Telegraph released this feature with the headline, Notting Hill Carnival. is, quote, ultimate example of two-tier policing, says Inspector. It then says,

Retired Scotland Yard Detective alleges officers are hesitant to make arrests for fear of being called racist. The next day, the Daily Mail, pairs this claim of two-tiered policing with the headline, thousands of officers to hit the streets on Family Day. G.B News, the next day, quote, It can't carry on. Ex-officer blasts police, saying Nottinghill Carnival. is example of two-tier policing.

And Talk TV publishes several programs across all their different shows with various headlines reading, A Gang Culture, Woman Stabbed at Notting Hill Carnival. Notting Hill Carnival, quote, considered a success when there's stabbings, but no one has died. Oh my God. And of course, quote, two-tiered policing is alive and kicking. And if I haven't grabbed you with these grabby headlines, this is where I need your attention.

Okay, hurry up because I'm at the edge of my tolerance. All of these headlines I've just read you, quote, the same guy. One ex-police officer whose name is Mike Neville and who's been rolled out across all these platforms. Was there one original interview with this guy that was then picked up by different outlets or has this guy gone on each other? of these different platforms. He has gone on each of these platforms. As far as two-tier, it's very much two-tier government that I see. And, of course, that policy then spreads down to the police. So the Telegraph, G.B. News, Talk TV. He is brought on and re-interviewed, and not just once.

The challenge I have for anybody who claims there isn't two-tier police and is this. Go to Nottingale and you can smoke drugs openly. You can abuse the police, shout at the police. And then the experiment is you go to Millwall next night. Saturday, and you do those things on the way to the ground, and you'll be swiftly arrested and taken to the police station. Seven, eight times across different programmes. And then his views are being splashed as all of the views of the whole police. Twenty headlines about two-tid policing based on one rogue ex-officer's views.

How is that okay? So I looked into this guy. I found this 2017 Daily Mail article about a guy called Mick Neville. If you compare his CV with Mike Nevels and then, you know, find old photos, it is the same guy. So the Daily Mail article from 2017 was Top Detective accuses politically correct Scotland Yard of hounding him out of his job. The article shows he's a UKIP supporter. He's published critical comments about gay marriage on religious grounds. Has a very vocal history on his Facebook speaking out against migrants.

It's very clear that this is a great. guy with a very specific set of views who actually described himself as being hounded out of the police because his views are not representative of the police. Yet he is being rolled out across platforms to speak for the policing culture. None of his past and the fact that he was subject to disciplinary hearings while he was in the police force is mentioned in any of these articles or programs. To me, I just think this story has been manufactured. This quote two-tier policing, it trended during the riots when there were extremists and racists

violently taking to the street and it's turned into headlines multiple headlines headlines upon headlines by media outlets because it's making them a shit ton of money this is so profitable you know if people read that and they think they're being unfairly police then they're going to be like

what click on it but the basis the evidential basis for this is one guy who has had disciplinary hearings against him and who left the police because he thinks they're too woke. Yeah, exactly. Oh my God. This is how extremism is taking root in this country.

It is through mainstream media outlets. I know talk TV isn't mainstream in many ways, except it is owned by Rupert Murdole. I'm just like, I'm just like, what the hell? Isn't it just mad? Do you see what's happening here? Oh my God. And I tell you what, now I know everything about Mike Neville.

I've read his book. He's obsessed with Christian Freemasonry Like sacred conspiracy theories Are very much his vibe He's actually got a street walking tour in London coming up I might go You're now in love with him Another media storm story

One world's new story That caught my eye Because it speaks to why I think we put so much work Into Media Storm Remind me Is because the media is bigger Then the papers we read, it's a front line for all other debates about our society. So whether it's housing you care about or health or human rights or criminal justice or education or whatever, you should care about the media.

And this story speaks to why? Bold opening. Can I back it up? European-based journalists have come together to demand the EU stops trading with Israel, not on the grounds of their association. assault on Palestinian civilians, but on the grounds of their assault on journalists. Because their assault on Palestinian civilians isn't nearly enough. Right, but that's the issue with being a journalist. You can't be accused of picking sides.

But this letter clearly doesn't counter the principle of impartiality in the minds of the 60 press freedom and journalism organisations that signed it, which includes Index on Censorship, Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders. Because whether or not you think the war is a just war or a war at all, you can't know that it's a just war if you don't actually know what's going on during that war. And it's gotten to that point with Gaza. As we spoke about a couple of weeks ago on Media Storm, the Israeli military is by and large barring foreign journalists from the Gaza Strip.

Only a limited number of international media crews have been granted access and even then only under the supervision of the Israeli army. There have also been a scary number of journalists killed in Gaza since October. Over 100, according to the Open Letter, which directly accuses the Israel Defence Forces of deliberately targeting and killing at least three with another 10 deaths under investigation. And it points out at least 48 media workers have been detained by Israel with allegations of torture.

So in sum, the letter says, the cumulative effect of these abuses is to create the conditions for an information void, which brings me back to my point at the beginning. Information is everything. Well, at least, information is the only basis on which anyone can designate this war, lawful or not. So I think this really piles of pressure on foreign governments

because how can you justify supporting warmongers who so blatantly block information getting out. And of course it's legal pressure too because killing journalists, either through deliberate targeting or indiscriminate violence, is a war crime. I don't suppose the EU has responded. No, it's journalists. Who cares? Oh. I'll tell you something people definitely do care about, according to Twitter. Katie Price? Oasis? The weather? I was thinking, actually, how much illegal migrants are costs the country.

Oh, you never do fun stories because you know nothing about pop culture. No offense taken. But anyway, my story is this. Labor Amnesty may add 44,000 illegal migrants to welfare bill, and Tories say it could cost taxpayers 18 billion pounds. This headline is from the Daily Mail, but the story is originally printed in The Telegraph, where it's written by one of the very Tories mentioned in this,

Daily Mail headline, the MP Nick Timothy. Okay, so other than the fact that the original article was written by a politician, I'm hoping, as an opinion piece. Yeah. Why is this a media storm story? Because they say numbers don't lie, but this story shows they can. Okay, there's quite a few numbers to unpack in that headline. So firstly tell us, what is Labor's amnesty? does it add thousands of illegal migrants to the welfare bill

and could it cost taxpayers 18 billion pounds? Okay, so the policy that they're calling Labor's amnesty, it's about the Rwanda deportation deal. Now, the Tories brought in this idea to criminalise anyone entering the country without papers, ban them from applying for asylum and instead deport them to Rwanda. Labor has always said they're not going to do this.

So their option is leave these people in the country unprocessed or process their asylum claims. So this amnesty just means we will process your asylum claims. And then we will reject you or accept you, as was always done before the Rwandan deal. I don't think amnesty is quite the right word for that. Amnesty gives the impression that all these illegal people are just going to be given legal status. No, that's not what's happening. Okay. But they will be processed for asylum.

and by the home office's own data, as many as 70% could have valid claims. So that's where this 44,000 number comes from. That means 44,000 people could be accepted as refugees. Of course, the Daily Mail goes with the description. As many as 44,000 will now be allowed to stay in Britain with full access to the welfare system. They could also say, as many as 44,000 will now be allowed to work and pay taxes, the factual thing would be as many as 44,000 could be given refugee status. This is where the data gets a little more complicated.

The Tory MP, Nick Timothy, has taken this 44,000, and he said this is going to cost taxpayers $17.8 billion in welfare. He is assuming here that the average refugee will take more in benefits than they will pay in taxes over their lifetime, quite a lot more, €475,000 per immigrant. And this is a number that comes from the Netherlands. So he points out the problem in the UK, which is actually the data doesn't exist

to make these calculations locally, right? We don't have that fiscal data. But a few countries do, and one of them is the Netherlands. So this number of €475,000 that Nick Timothy quotes, that comes from a single study that I looked into. Well, the first thing to note about the study is that it was funded by something called the Renaissance Institute. Look that up. It's the think tank attached to the far-right Dutch political party forum for democracy. The second issue is the method it uses.

It takes data on how much every person is paying at this time, and it comes up with a formula to predict how much they're likely to pay at different stages of their life based on how much they're paying now. The issue is that an asylum seeker is not legally allowed to work in the Netherlands all year round. They're only allowed to work for 24 weeks of a year. And they are also being supported by the state system around asylum. So they are in a temporary situation where they cannot pay income tax and they have to take benefits. So it's not really representative of how they will be paying taxes for the rest of their life. Once they get their papers. Exactly. And I cannot see anything in the study that explains, you know, how he's accounted for that in the method, although the author does acknowledge this is a problem.

So this is the data that the Tory MP has decided to use. It's not a terrible extrapolation, it's an important conversation, but it's very selective. There's other countries' data he could also have used. For example, the US's data, a study by the US Department of Health and Human Services found that over 15 years, refugees had a net positive fiscal impact on the country of $123.8 billion. An overview of evidence across all countries shows that the longer a refugee is in the country, the more they narrow the gap between the benefits claimed and the tax paid. And ultimately, they generally become positive contributors after a certain number of years.

In Canada, it's 20 years. Australia, 15 years. In Germany, it's 11 years. America, eight years. So what I'm hearing is, the quicker you let refugees work, the quicker they'll have a positive fiscal economic impact. In a nutshell. You didn't need to read me 7,000 academic studies to know that.

Don't say that, please. I literally died yesterday, like slaving my way through 7,000 academic studies. But look, the point I'm actually making isn't about immigration and refugee rights. It's about data and the fact that no one seems. to understand it. How dare you? Now, I'm offended. I'm really good at data.

Nick Timothy has chosen one specific data set of many, the one that serves his agenda and presented it as, you know, the only possible conclusion. This is given to the public. This is the information that they have to draw their conclusions about migration. And it's wildly subjective. And wildly misleading.

But it's all people have to formulate their views, which is why we have such a fucked up debate about immigration. Yeah, only someone with a serial killer mind is going to read a headline like that and think, oh, you know what, why don't I just check this data against 7,000 million academic studies? All that research done while sitting on the toilet with the UTI.

Welcome to our main media storm topic this episode. Earlier this month, Olympic fever gripped the world again. We tuned in to watch the indomitable Simone Biles make gymnastic medal history. We watched the Refugee Olympic team when it's, its first ever medal. Egyptian fencer Nadar Havesz shocked us with the revelation she'd been competing while seven months pregnant.

Damn. And we all watched Polvolta Anthony Amarati become an instant viral phenomenon after an incident involving his, let's just call it his bulge, shall we say. We are children. And now, today, the Paralympics are underway. But with fewer tickets available, less meat. media coverage and perpetuating stereotypes of the athletes. We're asking, should there be more of a media storm?

Paralympics, can they ever match up to how spectacular they were in London? Low ticket prices, budget issues and a lack of volunteers. Also a rather offensive pay disparity. How can a man born without legs have an unfair advantage? The lack of wheelchair assistance at Kings Cross Station resulted in Baroness, Tanny Great Thompson, to crawl off the train by herself. Welcome to Media Storm, the news podcast that starts with the people who are normally asked last. I'm Helena Wadia and I'm Matilda Mallinson.

This week's Media Storm. Who's watching the Paralympics? Welcome to the Media Storm studio. We are lucky to be joined by two very special guests. Our first guest was named one of the 100 most influential people with disabilities in the UK. She is a doubles silver medalist at the Parapanam Games where she represented Brazil in wheelchair tennis. Now she is the founder and co-owner of various projects

which specialise in inclusion and social projects in fashion and sport, including Bullock Inclusion, Enable Rise and London Represents. Welcome to Media Storm Samantha Bullock. Hello. Nice to be here. Love you to have you. Our second guest is the two-time Paralympian footballer and a technical consultant for the Indian blind football team. He has been playing blind football for 19 years,

representing his country 127 times in multiple international tournaments, including the 2008 and 2012 Paralympic Games and three World Cups. Tuning in from the Paralympics in Paris, Karen Seale. Hey, guys. Good to be here. Perfect. Well, thank you so much for being here. It's very exciting Paralympic Games have kicked off. And there's plenty to celebrate. Paris 20204 will be the first Paralympic Games in history

to offer some broadcast coverage from all the 22 sports being played. Plus, more than 160 nations have confirmed agreements to televise the event compared to a total of 115 for the London Paralympics of 2012 and 154 for Tokyo. It's on the app. And for the first time in the history of the Paralympic Games, the public were able to take part in an opening ceremony. Thomas Jolly, the artistic director for the ceremonies, described it as a spectacle that will showcase the Paralympic athletes

and the values they embody. It will unite spectators and television audiences worldwide around the unique spirit of the Paralympic Games. A week before the Paralympics kicked off, official statistics showed that over 1.75 million tickets had already sold. Although 92% of those tickets did come from French buyers compared to 61% for the Olympics, which suggests fewer people may be keen to travel for the event.

And it's also worth noting that regardless of how many tickets have been sold, 10 million were available for the Olympics versus 3 million for the Paralympics. The Olympics was broadcast on the BBC. The Paralympics are taking place on Channel 4. According to GB Paralympics, for the first time since London 2012, the key finals and podium moments will take place in prime time slots. But there has been criticism. Many from the disabled community have said that broadcasters need to commit

to airing the Paralympics in prime time and on their main TV channels. Karen, as somebody who has competed in the Paralympic Games, I wonder, what do you make of Paralympic media coverage versus Olympic media coverage? Is there enough coverage? No, I think it's a very short answer. There's not enough coverage. I think Channel 4 have definitely bucked the truth. friend for that since 2012.

But I think in short, you know, when you look at, you know, our national broadcasters and sky, when you see the wall-to-wall coverage that the Olympic Games had on multiple channels, and then you see the kind of scale-down efforts, there's still a long way to go. But, you know, we flip back to the positives, what Channel 4 is doing on its main platform, its main channels, and then across on its sister channels and then across YouTube, I think is absolutely incredible and it's going to be as widespread as it has ever been from one provider. Channel 4 has actually announced that all Paralympic content will be broadcast with subtitles, live peak time sport on channel 4 will have closed audio description, live sport on

more for and channel 4 streaming on weekday afternoons will include BSL live signing. Sam, is this the kind of development that will help bring in and inspire more young athletes with disabilities. The fact that you are going to see people doing that sport on television or magazines or whatever. We are growing very slow, but I think very strong. Did you watch a lot of sports when you were growing up? Is that one of the things that pulled you into becoming athletes yourself?

Be in mind that we were talking about 30 years ago. The internet, social media was not there. So it was not like everyone knew about this sport. I'm from a small seat in the south of Brazil and I used to start to play tennis at the age of 8 years old. I'm 46 now. So I had my accident when I was 14 and I didn't know about wheelchair tennis at that point. When I was working in politics in Brazil,

we are doing the set of rules for disabled people for the whole country that was a massive project. One of the projects was school for wheelchair tennis asking for money. And I was like, oh, this is impossible because we don't have wheelchair tennis, you know. And then I went there to see them. And then I started to play and I became the number one of Brazil and he started to play national, international tournaments. I end up playing three World Cups and the Parapanam in Brazil. But I had this gap of 12 years that I didn't know about wheelchair tennis.

If that was on the television and everything, maybe I would not. never stopped after my accident, keep playing and, you know, and be very good. And Karen, how about you? How did you first come across blind football as an option? So for me, I was just playing mainstream football, rugby, a little bit of cricket, not very well, and wasn't aware of visually impaired sport until my mum accidentally sold a house to a visually impaired guy that was running a partially decided football team in the late 90s. That's how I got involved in partially sighted football and cricket. Later on, when I lost my sight, I became aware of blind football through the kind of blind people's grapevine, really.

Again, because there wasn't as much coverage. There wasn't formal structures and pathways until early into the 2000s, you know, very, very little media coverage. I think it's really interesting that both of you kind of found out about your sports almost like by chance or by fate. And as Matilda mentioned, Channel 4 has said that the Paralympic content, there's going to be subtitles, there's audio description, there's BSL sign language. And this is really great. But I wonder why we also don't have that for Olympic coverage or other sport coverage. Is it a bit like saying, well, it's disability sports for disability viewers and able-body sports for able-body viewers? It is interesting that that kind of level of accessibility is brought in now within this kind of parent-of-game site.

You can look at the good and you can look at the patronising of it. But I think it's a fantastic thing. It would be great to see that kind of coverage across Olympics, across, you know, Football World Cubs, Wimbledon, whatever it might be. So maybe this is the catalyst for that and people can see what is possible when you put a bit of thought and effort into it. Yeah. I mean, I'm the first person to admit that, like, I'm just not into sport, okay?

I've never watched sport. I've never really played sports. We were a bit worried about having to present a sports-themed show. Yeah, we're both ignorant. But the thing is, is that I watch the Olympics, because the Olympics manages to attract even those most uninterested in sports, i.e. me. So the idea that, like, we have to relate to the people that are playing the sport is actually not true, because I don't relate to the Olympians, you know.

I'm not like, oh, wow, now I can suddenly do a pole vault or whatever. So really what it reveals to me is that it's not about relatability. It's more about an underlying societal bias against disability. And I know that it can be argued that media coverage is proportionate to the reduced public interest. But as we know from many media storm episodes, the media often sets the narrative, right? And so I think the media should recognize their role in creating the same excitement for the Paralympics as it does. for the Olympics. Yeah, absolutely.

Because I suppose ultimately, even though now we're seeing more coverage than before and we're seeing prime time slots, it's fair to say that Paralympians don't get exactly the same coverage as Olympians. We've talked a bit about drawing young people into the sports, but it's also about drawing in supporters, public supporters, financial supporters, sponsors because at the end of the day, athletes aren't paid the same amount if they're Paralympians as if they are Olympians. Do you feel that the comparative lack of visibility makes it difficult to showcase your talent and to attract those necessary supporters? Sam, what do you think? So I'd say that the

Paralympics is ever four years and one big event. So it's hard for people to connect with you and understand the journey of a player as they never see you. And I'm going to give as a example for me what I think is the most successful, the ITF, the International Tennis Federation, start to manage the wheelchair tennis inside of them. So it means that all the marketing or the magazines or the tournaments would be the same. And there, the wheelchair tennis starts to be inside of all the Grand Slams. We are inside of Hollongerbos, Australia Open, US Open, Wimbledon. And that if you like tennis and you go to the Grandslam,

You know, not only you're going to watch the tournaments, but you are seeing the wheelchair tennis players at any tournament that exists, you know? So nowadays, the wheelchair tennis players, they are big stars. You go to England and you have the cue of someone wants a autograph of Lucy Schuquer, Alfie, Gordon, Hade, you know, like these guys became bigger stars. They are on the television all the time. The BBC cover them because covers Wimbledon all the Grand Slams. So it's like people, they need to connect and they need to see you. You are not participating. You are competing.

And this is interesting actually because through our research, we have seen that certainly since the Tokyo Paralympics, there has been a more informative frame in articles and media coverage. But the most crucial difference that we've noticed is that often with able-bodied athletes, there is this athlete-first approach to coverage. So we hear about their dedication and their training and their workout schedule and their high results. Karen, do you think this athlete-first coverage extends to para-athletes?

No, it doesn't. And I think within able-bodied sport, it is very much about, you know, this athlete's journey and what they've done and done that. But when it comes to the Paralympic Games, because people haven't seen those athletes, suddenly there's a fascination with disabled bodies and how that disabled person came to get their disability.

And if it's an acquired disability, is there a sexy story behind it? Is there an exciting story? Is there a sad story behind it? So when you actually come to get interviewed by somebody, very often it is about your disabled body. Or it is about, so how does your sport work? You wouldn't interview David Beckham 20 years ago. So tell me, how does 11thside football work?

You wouldn't do it. So it's that kind of lazy narrative or that lazy framing of disability sport that kind of holds us back. It's really difficult to portray your sport as being ultimately professional, competitive. Whenever you're confronted with a camera or a print journalist, you know, it's these kind of questions that come up time and time again rather than, so why are you so good at what you do? You know, why is your team so successful? and the sort of things that any able-bodied athlete would get asked. Yes, and this brings us on, I think, very neatly to what we're going to discuss next, which are some of these stereotypes and dive into them.

One month ago, Channel 4 launched an advert for this year's Paralympic Games. The advert, Channel 4 said, is designed to turn the lens on the viewer after a survey it conducted found that more people watch the Paralympics to see people overcome their disabilities rather than to see elite sport. The advert features many comments heard frequently by disabled people. That's a bit of magic. He's incredible for someone like that.

It's something brave. She's doing so well considering. Samantha, I wonder, have you heard these comments before and have you been asked maybe insensitive questions by people from the media when you've been interviewed? All the time, you know, people they focus on, in my case, in their accident, they want the drama, they want the blood. It's because of what sells is the super operas, is the dramas, is the pain. We need for people not to consume this kind of thing, because more you consume this kind of information is what they are going to come after.

So we need to be aware of like what we want to know. What I really admired about this Channel 4 advert is I think it acknowledges that relationship you just described between the media who are shaping these narratives, but the public who are internalizing these narratives and then, you know, continuing them. And in this advert by Channel 4, we're seeing media taking responsibility to shine a mirror on the public. But it definitely shows an evolution from some of the adverts that have been broadcast for the Paralympics in the past. In 2012 and 2016, Channel 4's advertising caused some controversy because it branded Paralympians as, quote, superhuman. The moniker was criticised for focusing on athletes' impairments rather than sporting success

and for implying that there was something heroic about being disabled. Karen, perhaps you could tell us what is wrong with this superhuman narrative and does it still exist today? Yeah, I think we are slightly coming away from that now. And I was part of that 2012 superhuman generation. And I tell you, at the time I fell into that, I thought, this is quite cool, you know, because we had public enemies doing the music for the advert and this is cool.

And I think part of my elbow or kneecap was part of one of those ads at some point. So I was part of that generation. And yeah, it was dangerous, I think, because just like able-bodied athletes, there's only a very small percentage of the disabled population that goes on to compete at international or elite sport, you know, through one reason or another. And what it did is it framed the narrative of people outside of disability sport

was like, you know, anybody who's not assuming it's superhuman is, you know, is in effect quite lazy, you know, and it's obviously not true. I think it's a really, really good thing that the Channel 4 have flipped that now and brought in this kind of ad because it's really divided people's opinion. And I think the people that are negatively spun towards this. new advertising campaign are probably people that didn't realize they had these kind of biases and would say things like, oh, yeah, that's not about considering you're blind or, you know, that's pretty good.

It gets you out, doesn't it, doing that, you know? And that's the sort of, you know, sort of things I contend with on or used to contend with on a daily basis when I was playing. I understand that this is totally a stereotype of the superhuman. But I mean, like, I understood the point of the Channel 4 when they did that campaign, the amount of resilience that we as disabled people we need to have, to get out, to get to the studio, to get to life, to get to train, to travel, all these barriers that we need to face day to day, this superhuman is just the fact that's like, oh my God, you really did against all the

odds. Am I right in understanding? You think, yeah, superhuman is an appropriate term to use for Paralympians, but it's also an appropriate term to use for all people with disabilities who overcome so much to do everyday things as well. I mean, we should be so proud of how much we achieve against all the odds. You want to get a train. You want to get any kind of transport is not accessible. It's not human, you know. I don't know how to describe that. It's just once make me cry to think about that. I have a friend of mine that she was going home

and the toilet was broken for the accessible toilet and there she peed herself. Do you know what I mean? Like it's just, it's not seems that to be in the safe side we would be at home and not to live home. This week, that has been

a huge headline. Baroness Tanny Grey Thompson who has won the London wheelchair marathon six times and has 11 gold medals to her name, was travelling from Leeds to London on Monday in order to then travel to Paris for the Paralympics. Tanny said that after waiting 16 minutes for passenger assistance,

she decided to crawl off the train herself. The train line, LNER, said they are investigating the incident. Now Tanny said that she can just about get off a train if she needs to, but she also highlighted that there are so many other people who can't do that. and she also drew attention to the issue of level boarding under the Disability and Discrimination Act in the subsequent media interviews she gave after this incident. I mean, yeah, this is dangerous, it's unfair, it's upsetting. And, you know, sadly, it wasn't a shock to me because it happens a lot in the not-so-distant past.

You know, as disabled people, if we wanted passenger assist, we had to book up to 48 hours in advance. You know, it's like disabled people who like to travel on a whim as well. or might get called away to a meeting. I can't believe we are in a system in 2024, but this still happens to people and people have to call off trains. You know, it's utterly discussed and an embarrassing that we have a rail network

that is still kind of mired in the Victorian age already. I mean, the fact that this is a woman who can win six marathons and she can go off a train. It just put it in. Yeah, it's bad. And that's on her way to the Paralympics. It's just so ironic. I think something that really explained this issue to me.

It was an article written by one of your colleagues, Karen, Will Norman, straight after the London Paralympics. And like you, and like you said, he was part of that superhuman athlete generation and its terminology that he uses and reflects on in the article. But sort of the issue he paints with seeing Paralympians as superhumans is that it separates that group from regular people with just. who, like you point out, Samantha, have to overcome so much every day. So he wrote in this article, Attending functions and events as a Paralympian, I am treated with the utmost respect and dignity. Trying to buy light bulbs from my local store,

I am treated with the utmost condescension. And actually, after the London 2012 Paralympics, hate crime against disability went up. And there was this question that, you know, the superhuman narrative separates the respect society shows to disabled athletes as superhumans from the respect they fail to show disabled people as humans. Yeah, you know, we are the biggest minority group in the UK and probably across the world and yet still we're probably last to the table when any discussions around quality

and diversity are being had. this is such an exciting week Paralympics is happening people have been waiting for a long time training for a long time but of course coverage needs to continue beyond the Paralympics to week lifespan so we're coming to time but before we lose you Karen why don't we start with you tell us about the work you do now and where listeners can follow you and if you have anything to promote okay cool so you Yeah, the work I'm doing now in Paris is as an athlete ambassador for ParalympicsGB. So we've got a real push on better access to school sports and fewer barriers to participation for disabled athletes as well. If people want to follow me, I'm on Kerr-N-Seal coaching on Instagram and I'm on LinkedIn as well.

Samantha, how about you? We have just launched the Enneighborize where me and my partner, Louise Hunt. We are working with companies, universities, schools. We also have a fashion show called London Represents. We can find us. We are verified. We start a new Instagram as well. And you can find me on the Samantha Bullock Instagram and LinkedIn.

And thanks for your work. I can everything that you do. This is so important. Welcome back to Media Storm. Now, if you are interested in this topic and want to dive a little deeper, we want to tell you about a previous Media Storm investigation we did into Abelism in the workplace. We asked, if not for discrimination, why are disabled people struggling disproportionately to access work? And if there is discrimination, why is no one paying for it?

We were then joined in the studio by two very special guests, host of the Triple Cripples podcast, Gimoki Abdullahi and campaigner consultant Ellen Jones. And there we talked about the mainstream media's coverage of disability. A lot of that ties into what we were talking about just now. So we'll play you a few clips. With the media that I consume, you can usually tell when the person writing it doesn't have necessarily like a lived experience of disability. We are spoken for. We are spoken over.

are spoken about. A really good example of disability and accessibility not being prioritised is that for months, Channel 4 had no captions at all, and it was supposedly because of a tech failure. I wonder if the sound stopped working, would it have gone on for so long? Obviously not. They would have fixed it almost immediately, but it wasn't a priority, and that's producing news. And it's always a wheelchair. We're never thinking of those that are neurodiverse. We're not thinking of those that might have auditory or like visual impairments, etc. So we have to think about and consider those that are in the margins of the margins. The representation of disabled people is only of them suffering or is only if them are being like a charity case or

only of them being like not sexual. It was just a case of this is something to be pitied. This is something to feel sorry for. This is a condition to lament. And often myself included, disabled people, those that have visible disabilities, it's a case of, oh my goodness, I don't know how you do it. I would have killed myself. People need to realize that with the way that the world and life generally set up, it's not that you're not disabled, you're pre-disabled, because life could change at a second, at a flash, and then all of a sudden your world has turned upside down. Listen to us. It's not like disabled people haven't been in the press as being scroungers and all the rest of it.

It's not like that you don't know they exist. It's not like we've not had children in need putting pictures of disabled children being failed by the government and failed by the NHS on our televisions every year as a big celebration. Like, you know, you just don't want to listen. That was a snippet of conversation from our series one episode, Abelism Enabled, the loophole's inequality law. Scroll back if you want to listen.

Thank you all for listening. Follow MediaStorm, wherever you get your podcast so that you can get access to new episodes as soon as they drop. If you like what you hear, share this episode with someone and leave us a five-star rating and a review. It really helps more people discover the podcast and our aim is to have as many people as possible hear these voices. Media Storm is an award-winning podcast produced by Helen Awadier and Matilda Malinson

with music from Samfire. Episode research was by Camilla Tiana, and our assistant producer is Katie. grant you can follow us on social media at matilda mal at helena wadia and follow the show via at media storm pod listen and hit follow on spotify