People with disabilities represent a significant portion of the population in any given country. Across contexts, media representations of disability tend to reproduce existing tropes and follow established narratives. One of the most enduring is that of the helpless victim in a tragic story, but that of a resentful villain or inspiring hero is also intimately linked to suffering. In this article, I discuss language use, algorithmic bias, and AI-generated content concerning online representations of suffering by people with disabilities in South Africa. This is a country characterized by profound social inequalities, a sophisticated media and regulatory framework, and one of the highest Internet penetrations on the African Continent. Rather than providing practical recommendations, the envisaged contribution of the present paper is to advocate for critical awareness and emphasize the need for further problematization.
AbayR. A.SoldaticK. (2024). The coloniality of disability: Analysing intersectional colonialities and subaltern resistance. In The Routledge Handbook of postcolonial disability studies (pp. 15–23). Routledge.
2.
Abu ArqubS.Al-MoghrabiD.AllareddyV.UpadhyayM.VaidN.YadavS. (2024). Content analysis of AI-generated (ChatGPT) responses concerning orthodontic clear aligners. The Angle Orthodontist, 94(3), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.2319/071123-484.1
3.
AhmadS.LoneZ. A.AhadK. (2024). A qualitative analysis of derogatory labels used against persons with disabilities in Kashmir. Development in Practice, 35(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2024.2424874
4.
ArapolK. G.PadecioJ.BalgosL. R. (2023). Uncovering Ableism in Social Media: an Investigation on demeaning Remarks Toward Persons With Disabilities. Available at SSRN 4899588.
5.
AreheartB. A. (2008). When disability isn't just right: The entrenchment of the medical model of disability and the goldilocks dilemma. Indiana Law Journal, 83, 181. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/indana83&i=189
6.
ArmatM. R.AssarroudiA.RadM. (2018). Inductive and deductive: Ambiguous labels in qualitative content analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 219–221. http://eprints.medsab.ac.ir/id/eprint/300
7.
[@Balentine]. (2024, August 10). mia being the first ever deaf [M]iss [S]outh [A]frica is nothing short of amazing honestly. there is ability in your [Post]. https://x.com/BALUCIAGA/status/182234571521907518.
8.
BarnesC. (2019). Understanding the social model of disability: Past, present and future. In Routledge handbook of disability studies (pp. 14–31). Routledge.
9.
BattistiF.BrunoM.PeruzziG. (2025). Dis/Ability journalism in Italy: Subjectivity between experience and reflexivity. Journalism Practice, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2025.2487530
10.
BattistiF.DalvitL. (2023). Celebrating authentic bodies: Instagram (self)representations of models with disabilities in South Africa. H-ermes Journal of Communication, 25(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1285/i22840753n25p7. Based on a paper presented at the preconference on Media Sociology of the 73rd International Communication Association conference, 31 May 2023, Toronto (Canada)
11.
BattistiF.DalvitL. (2024). Exploring methodological challenges of researching disability and social Media in South Africa. In The fields of digital research: Theoretical, methodological and application challenges (pp. 181–206). McGraw-Hill Education.
12.
BitmanN. (2022). Authentic” digital inclusion? Dis/ability performances on social media by users with concealable communicative disabilities. New Media & Society, 24(2), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211063183
13.
BoatcăM.RothJ. (2016). Unequal and gendered: Notes on the coloniality of citizenship. Current Sociology, 64(2), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392115614781
BrennenB. S. (2021). Qualitative research methods for media studies. Routledge.
16.
BrunskillA.GilbertE. (2023). Academic libraries’ social media posts related to disabilities: A review of libraries’ tweets in terms of their content and accessibility. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 49(3), 102684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2023.102684
17.
BuitenD.CrescianiR. (2023). Representations of violence, representations as violence: When the news reports on homicides of disabled people. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 12(3), 64–76. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.2720
CirklováJ. (2024). The place and role of purgatory in the twenty-first century: A visual content analysis of students’ AI-generated works. Theology, 127(5), 344–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040571X241276633
20.
Cohen-RottenbergR. (2012). Caught inside a paradox: How cultural representations perpetuate disability stigma. Disability and Representation: Changing the Cultural Conversation.
21.
CoolsH.DiakopoulosN. (2024). Uses of generative AI in the newsroom: Mapping journalists’ perceptions of perils and possibilities. Journalism Practice, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2024.2394558
22.
CraggS. (2024). Members of the Disability Community and their Perceptions of Disability Representation in the Media: A Qualitative Study (Doctoral dissertation University of Windsor (Canada)).
23.
DahlM. (1993). The role of the media in promoting images of disability-disability as metaphor: The evil crip.
24.
DalvitL. (2022). A decolonial perspective on online media discourses in the context of violence against people with disabilities in South Africa/ uma perspetiva decolonial sobre discursos dos média online no contexto da violência contra pessoas com deficiência na África do sul. Comunicação e Sociedade, 41, 169–187. https://doi.org/10.17231/comsoc.41(2022).3722
25.
DalvitL. (2023a). Please do not call it human right: A Southern epistemological perspective on the digital inclusion of people with disabilities in South Africa. In Communication rights in Africa (pp. 55–69). Routledge.
26.
DalvitL. (2023b). A critical exploration of YouTube texts by and about people with disabilities in South Africa. Mediascapes Journal, 21(1), 344–358. https://rosa.uniroma1.it/rosa03/mediascapes/article/view/18303
27.
de Sousa SantosB. (2012). Public sphere and epistemologies of the south. Africa Development, 37(1), 43–67. eISSN: 0850-3907.
28.
DirthT. P.AdamsG. A. (2019). Decolonial theory and disability studies: On the modernity/coloniality of ability. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 7(1), 260–289. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v7i1.762
29.
DonianJ. (2021). The comedy-scape in apartheid South Africa: A historical overview. Phronimon, 22, 15.
EllisK.GogginG. (2015). Disability, global popular media, and injustice in the notorious trial of Oscar Pistorius.
32.
EllisK.GogginG. (2017). Disability, global popular media, and injustice in the trial of Oscar Pistorius. In Disability media studies (pp. 197–221). New York University Press.
FeuerriegelS.HartmannJ.JanieschC.ZschechP. (2024). Generative AI. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 66(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7
35.
FilimowiczM.2022). Systemic bias: Algorithms and society. Routledge.
36.
FurrJ. B.CarreiroA.McArthurJ. A. (2016). Strategic approaches to disability disclosure on social media. Disability & Society, 31(10), 1353–1368. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1256272
37.
GhaniM. M.MustafaW. A. W.HashimM. E. A.HanafiH. F.BakhtiarD. L. S. (2022). Impact of generative AI on communication patterns in social media. Journal of Advanced Research in Computing and Applications, 26(1), 22–34. https://akademiabaru.com/submit/index.php/arca/article/view/5436
38.
GoethalsT.MortelmansD.Van den BulckH.Van den HeurckW.Van HoveG. (2022). I am not your metaphor: Frames and counter-frames in the representation of disability. Disability & Society, 37(5), 746–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1836478
39.
GogginG.NewellC. (2005). Disability in Australia: Exposing a social apartheid. unsw Press.
40.
GoldbergN. (2023). Strategies for people with intellectual disability to engage in social policy-related self-advocacy in South Africa.
41.
GondweG. (2023). CHATGPT And the global south: How are journalists in sub-Saharan Africa engaging with generative AI. Online Media and Global Communication, 2(2), 228–249. https://doi.org/10.1515/omgc-2023-0023
42.
GrechS. (2017). Decolonising eurocentric disability studies: Why colonialism matters in the disability and global south debate. In Disability and colonialism (pp. 16–31). Routledge.
43.
GrosfoguelR. (2004). Race and ethnicity or racialized ethnicities? Identities within global coloniality. Ethnicities, 4(3), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796804045237
44.
GrueJ. (2011). Interdependent discourses of disability: a critical analysis of the social/medical model dichotomy.
45.
HallerB.PrestonJ. (2016). Confirming normalcy:‘inspiration porn’and the construction of the disabled subject? In Disability and social media (pp. 63–78). Routledge.
46.
HamptonL. M. (2021). Black feminist musings on algorithmic oppression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.09869.
47.
HänninenR. (2024). Content creation in the age of AI: generative AI’s impact on social media content creators and freelancers.
HerzogL. (2021). Algorithmic bias and access to opportunities. In The Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics (pp. 413–432). Oxford Academic.
50.
HeungS.JiangL.AzenkotS.VashisthaA. (2024, May). Vulnerable, victimized, and objectified”: Understanding ableist hate and harassment experienced by disabled content creators on social Media. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3641949
51.
HowellC.ChalklenS.AlbertsT. (2006). A history of the disability rights movement in South Africa. Disability and Social Change: A South African Agenda, 46–84. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://hpod.law.harvard.edu/pdf/SocialChange.pdf
52.
KaneK. (2018). Hyper-normative Heroes, Othered Villains: Differential Disability Narratives in Marvel Movies and Shows.
53.
KhanI. (2022). The allure of disability: a rhetorical analysis of three YouTube™ advertisements. University of Johannesburg (South Africa).
54.
KordzadehN.GhasemaghaeiM. (2022). Algorithmic bias: Review, synthesis, and future research directions. European Journal of Information Systems, 31(3), 388–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1927212
55.
LeeH. E.ChoJ. (2019). Social media use and well-being in people with physical disabilities: Influence of SNS and online community uses on social support, depression, and psychological disposition. Health Communication, 34(9), 1043–1052. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1455138
56.
LinesB. W. G. (2020). Social Media Discrimination: TikTok as a platform that was openly hiding disabled people’s content.
57.
LipengaK. J. (2014). Narrative enablement: constructions of disability in contemporary African imaginaries (Doctoral dissertation). Stellenbosch University.
LugonesM. (2016). The coloniality of gender. In L. De Souza Lima, E. D. Quezada, & J. Roth (Eds.) Feminisms in Movement Theories and Practices from the Americas (Vol. 35, pp. 35–58). Feminisms in Movement.
McDougallK. (2006). Ag shame’and superheroes: Stereotype and the signification of disability. In Disability and Social Change: A South African Agenda, pp. 387–400. ISBN: D-7969-2137-7.
65.
MenonS. (2023). Postcolonial differentials in algorithmic bias: Challenging digital neo-colonialism in Africa. SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology & Society, 20(2), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.2218/scrip.20.2.2023.8980
MontgomeryM. (2022). A study of how people with learning disabilities experience social media. Canterbury Christ Church University (United Kingdom).
71.
MoodleyS.MchunuG. (2019). Current access and recruitment practices in nursing education institutions in KwaZulu-Natal: A case study of student nurses with disabilities. African Journal of Disability, 8(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v8i0.429
72.
MoolmanC. (2024, October 14). Policy statement: Inclusive Language Matters! Using terms like “hard of hearing” can: > Perpetuate stigma and negative stereotypes. > Emphasize limitations rather [Group post]. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CZAAyQr9e/.
MzansiMagicOfficial. (2022). “Vovo wants a baby”. Available at: shorturl.at/hsw09. Last accessed on 18 July 2022.
78.
NakoN. (2018). Invincible yet vulnerable: Race, disability and trauma in South Africa after oscar pistorius. Word and Text, A Journal of Literary Studies and Linguistics, 8(1), 187–206. https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=b2148353-992f-3b9b-ba2f-91d0e415d23a
79.
Ndlovu-GatsheniS. J. (2013). Coloniality of power in postcolonial Africa. African Books Collective.
80.
NdouM. (2024, October 30). BAN “disable” terminology, including ‘Disable People South Africa” Don't automatically refer to ‘disabled people’ in all communications – acceptable is person [Group post]. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18KCTfLxGy/.
81.
NeilleJ.McEwenH.de AndradeV. (2024). An exploration into people with Disabilities’ access to sex, sexuality, and sex education in South Africa. Sexuality and Disability, 42(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11195-023-09827-6
82.
NhapiT. (2023). Unpacking Zimbabwean media’s representations of vendors who are persons with disabilities (PWDs): A critical social work perspective. In In disability and Media-an African perspective (pp. 103–117). Springer International Publishing.
83.
OcranJ. (2022). I don’t command the equal respect as my peers’: Middle-class disability, stigma and social expectation in Ghana. Ghana Journal of Development Studies, 19(2), 208–237. https://doi.org/10.4314/gjds.v19i2.9
PeruzziG.BattistiF.LombardiR. (2024). Covering disability in Italian journalism. Language, practices and perspectives in mainstream and alternative media. Journalism, 14648849241266073. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241266
86.
PhutaneM.SeelamA.VashisthaA. (2024). How Toxicity Classifiers and Large Language Models Respond to Ableism. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.03448
87.
PrinslooJ. (2009). Textual analysis: Narrative and argument. In FourieP. J. (Ed.), Media studies (pp. 204–253). Juta.
88.
ProudfootK. (2023). Inductive/deductive hybrid thematic analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(3), 308–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221126816
SamuelsA.MorwaneR. E. (2023). Inclusion of persons who use AAC in the Media: A South African perspective. In In disability and Media-an African perspective (pp. 183–202). Springer International Publishing.
91.
SchultzC. (2022). Comparative Analysis of the Television Broadcasting of the 2020 Olympics and Paralympics in South Africa. University of Johannesburg (South Africa).
92.
ShakespeareT. (2006). The social model of disability. The Disability Studies Reader, 2(3), 197–204. https://files.commons.gc.cuny.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/3295/files/2017/09/SocialModelofDisability_Shakespeare.pdf
93.
ShakespeareT. (2008). Disability: Suffering, social oppression, or complex predicament? In In the contingent nature of life: Bioethics and limits of human existence (pp. 235–246). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6764-8_20
94.
SofokleousR.StylianouS. (2023). Effects of exposure to medical model and social model online constructions of disability on attitudes toward wheelchair users. Results from an Online Experiment. Journal of Creative Communications, 18(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973258622113626
StadlerJ. (2006). Media and disability. In B. Watermeyer, L. Swartz, T. Lorenzo, M. Schneider, & M. Preistly (Eds.) Disability and Social Change: A South African Agenda, pp. 373–386. ISBN: D-7969-2137-7.
97.
Statistics South Africa. (2022). “Profiling Socio-economic Status and Living Arrangements of Persons with Disabilities in South Africa, 2011–2022”. Available at: https://www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=1854&PPN=Report-No-03-01-37. Last accessed on 15 November 2024.
Valūnaitė-OleškevičienėG.SelmistraitisL.UtkaA.GudelisD. (2023). Offensive language in user-generated comments in Lithuanian. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 19(2), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2023-0013
103.
VertoontS.GoethalsT.DhaenensF.SchelfhoutP.Van DeynseT.VermeirG.YsebaertM. (2022). Un/recognisable and dis/empowering images of disability: A collective textual analysis of media representations of intellectual disabilities. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 39(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2021.1979239
ZagorulkoD. I. (2023). ChatGPT in newsrooms: Adherence of AI-generated content to journalism standards and prospects for its implementation in digital media. ВЧЕНІ ЗАПИСКИ, 34(73), 1. https://doi.org/10.32782/2710-4656/2023.1.2/50
