Riley makes a lot of different points about disabilities and the media throughout his article. However, one point Riley makes really stuck out to me and made me really think hard. It was when he brought up how the media exploits certain disabilities to exploit them for the money earning potential. When I first read this I didnt really know what to think exactly. Were people really abusing their power as producers and exploiting disabilities for their own personal gain or were they actually doing it for a bigger cause? After really looking at it I could not really come up with a straight-forward answer. Sure, some people who speak in the media come out and support disabilities. Yet, I think that this is just to help build the support of the causes. For example, Clay Matthews of the Green Bay Packers came out with a series of commercials to help support the Duchene's Disease (spelling may be off). Then you have the other side of the argument. Are producers of television shows incorporating disabled characters to help build awareness or are they actually just doing it for the ratings. Again like I stated before I dont really know the answer but I believe it is your own opinion. Anybody who watches a show like say "Malcolm in the Middle" which has a boy in a wheelchair in it can say its for either one of those two reasons. Personally, if I had to decide which one I think that it is, I would have to say it really matters what type of show and situation it is. I know its a vague answer to have and kind of "skips around the bushes" but I truly believe that there really isnt anyway to find out unless you ask the person/s themselves.
DQ: What do you think about this idea: Do you think that people who endorse/incorporate/etc. a disability in the media are doing it for their own personal gain or are they doing it to enhance involvement within the topic?