Selling stories
Who's selling what in contemporary media?
Sold a Story, the podcast by Emily Hanford of American Public Media about misguided reading instruction, was influential in alerting people to scientific evidence about reading and contributed to other advances in public policy (e.g., “dyslexia laws”). Long-time readers of Special Education Today will remember posts about publication of episodes from Sold a Story 2022-2024 (and maybe others, too); you, Dear Readers, can find a catalog of most of those posts in a later section of this article.
In Sold a Story, Ms. Hanford and colleagues clearly and thoroughly explained how a misbegotten myth—young children develop fundamental reading competence naturally from being surrounded by reading materials and provided many opportunities to discover how to decode1—had taken root in education, expanded, and led to awful consequences of students, including some children with disabilities.
In a post on his eponymously2 named Substack, Alexander Russo’s The Grade, Alexander Russo argued that journalism itself has adopted some myths that deserve busting.
For teachers, the gist of the core myth exposed in ‘Sold a Story’ was that pretty much all kids could learn to read through exposure to engaging literature. But teachers aren’t the only ones who’ve fallen prey to false ideas.
I’d argue that journalists, too, have been sold a story about their work.
Some of journalism’s core beliefs and practices are ineffective if not downright corrosive. And yet, for lack of a blockbuster podcast exposing journalism’s myths and misbeliefs, they’re still being taught in journalism schools, repeated in newsrooms, and undercutting journalism’s tattered reputation with its readers.
As a journalist-wanna-be, I perked up! “Oh, cool!,” I thought. “I can learn some stuff here.” Mr. Russo listed 5 beliefs and practices (maybe 6, depending on what one counts) that “warrant reconsideration, with a particular focus on those that dominate the education beat.” Among them are that quality journalism is necessarily a good thing and that too much reporting about education is decontextualized. I encourage interest readers to read his list.
Reflection
Mr. Russo’s post got me thinking (a dangerous state). As I hope I’ve explained, I am concerned about the coverage of special education and disability in the general media. I think one of the valuable services SET can provide is to call out bologna about our topics in the press. Wouldn’t it be grand if Website, blogs, and other sources about special education and disability were transparent about what they were selling?
Sometimes it is pretty obvious what someone is selling. Beyond “a story,” many are selling books, curricular materials, workshops, and the like. But they may not be as clear about what they are “selling” in a broader sense.
“Whoa, John!” I said to myself. And I thought I ought to be cautious about calling some other kettles black if I wasn’t transparent about what I SET was selling. So, in the spirit of being at least somewhat forthcoming, think of these statements as a new and revised “about statement.”
The stories that SET is selling are that
Students with disabilities are humans (albeit little ones);
Disabilities are actually okay, even normal, and not just a cause for sympathy or pity;
Individuals with disabilities have an inherent right (and a legal one, too) to live in environments that make their disabilities less burdensome;
Some aspects of environments—viz practices, procedures, programs, policies, etc—objectively enable access to those environments;
It’s up to us (parents, educators, other professionals, policy makers) to know about and ensure provision, with fidelity, of those environmental adaptations that have been objectively found to benefit individuals with disabilities and to eschew use of unfounded and bogus adaptations.
So, what do you think, Dear Readers? Is that accurate?
Sold a Story on SET
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, here I am selling some previous posts on SET. I won’t contend that the following is an exhaustive list of SET posts about the Sold a Story podcast—let alone argue that it is more than a hint at the extensive (and well-deserved) coverage in the wider world of the work by Ms. Hanford and her colleagues. But, for those who want to go back to see some of our posts, here are links by date.
17 October 2022—E. Hanford’s Podcast on reading education is coming soon;
21 October 2022—Episodes 1 and 2 of “Sold a Story”;
27 October 2022—Episode 3 of “Sold a Story” dropped;
4 November 2022—“Sold a Story” episode 4;
10 November 2022—Sold a Story—Episode 5;
20 November 2022—What have you head people say about E. Hanford’s Sold a Story;
12 May 2023—Another installment in “Sold a Story”;
19 May 2023—Sold a Story: “Bonus 2” dropped;
10 October 2023—"Sold a Story" received a Murrow award;
24 March 2024—Sold a Story in Español
Footnote
I was tempted to go off on a tangent at this point and explain how that faulty theory of reading instruction intersects with a broader faulty theory about teaching and learning: It’s all about motivation. But, I must save that discussion for another post rather than loosing the thread for this one.
Woohooooo! I got to use that word! I don’t remember when or where I first learned it nor how I looked up its meaning, but I do remember wanting to be able to use is it!