We Owe an Apology to John Fetterman

Photo via Getty Images

SNEHA PURI: On May 13, 2022, a few days before the Pennsylvania Senate Primary Election, frontrunner Lt. Gov. John Fetterman suffered from a stroke and was hospitalized for over a week during which he won the Democratic nomination. 

In the months that followed, the country saw the man fight all odds to become a United States senator. However, his campaign was not an easy one as he had to deal with ableist coverage surrounding his auditory processing difficulties by reporters who were not prepared for covering a candidate with disabilities.

Political campaign reporters are generally not experts in medicine. They were unprepared to relay the intricacies of Fetterman’s illness to the public. However, as the country encountered a rare occurrence of a person with a disability running for office on a national scale, reporters from publications across the political spectrum seemed to struggle with the best way to cover candidate Fetterman. This was especially evident after the only debate between him and his Republican opponent, Dr Mehemet Oz.

Prior to the debate, Fetterman’s team had announced that he would be using closed-captioning during the debate as he recovers from the side effects of his stroke. During the debate, he announced that he “might miss some words during this debate” or “mush two words together.” What followed after one hour of debating was an unfair, ableist, and discriminatory coverage of a candidate by various publications that questioned his fitness for office. 

Holly Otterbein of Politico argued that Fetterman struggled to “effectively communicate — missing words, pausing awkwardly and speaking haltingly.” Even though her article provides some context by including quotes from Fetterman’s cardiologist and family doctors about his fitness for office, these are buried at the bottom of the article and would have been missed by most readers. Similarly, Shane Goldmacher of The New York Times wrote that Fetterman’s “words were frequently halting, and it was apparent when he was delayed in either reading or reaching for a phrase or word” and Howard Kurtz of Fox News described Fetterman as a  “struggling stroke victim” who “turned in a train-wreck performance.” 

The issue goes beyond simple commentary on public speaking skills. For decades, politicians’ gaffes during debates have been scrutinised, analysed, and commented on by the media. However, with Fetterman’s coverage, there was an implicit connection drawn between his performance and his ability to serve functionally as a senator. His cognitive abilities were questioned, and current members of Congress were repeatedly asked to comment on his decision to participate in the debate. The implication that one’s difficulties in auditory processing as a side-effect of an improving medical condition would have any impact on their ability to serve their constituents is dangerous and regressive. 

To give credit where it is due, instead of simply publishing commentary on Fetterman’s performance and its supposed impact on the electorate, many publications included quotes from potential voters about their views. For example, Dan Merica and Gregory Krieg of CNN included a quote from a potential voter who hadn’t changed her decision to vote for Fetterman but was “a little less comfortable in his ability to win the election.” Evidently, superficial considerations such as oratory skills during a debate performance do have an impact on voters’ decisions so reporters incorporating those views into their articles to give balance to their arguments while analysing the debate’s impact on the electorate is fair. Some articles also interviewed independent medical experts; the Associated Press included quotes from various doctors who said that Fetterman performed “very well” and his difficulties are “common for people when they have a stroke.” However, these quotes were much later on in their pieces. The headlines and ledes were highly one-sided, so unless readers read the entire article, they would have taken away only the negative coverage.

What was very interesting is that almost all of these publications – with the exception of conservative outlets such as Fox News – immediately flipped the narrative once Fetterman won, touting him as an inspiration to people with disabilities. However, all these were written retrospectively. The damage was done. They illustrated that the path for someone with auditory difficulties to run and win elected office is via extreme media and public scrutiny of their medical conditions and fitness for office. It is undeniable that voters have the right to know general medical information about the individuals on the ballot. However, with his in-person interviews, town halls, rallies, and testimonies from various medical experts, Fetterman has presented more evidence about being fit for office in six months than former President Trump did in six years. 

The bottom line is that it is imperative for publications to be mindful when covering candidates with disabilities. While fairly analyzing the potential impact of their performances through interviews with voters is acceptable, the side effects of their disabilities should not be used as a reason to question their ability to serve their constituents. There is a severe underrepresentation of elected officials with disabilities, and such negative coverage can make it even harder for such candidates to shift the narrative from their medical conditions to their policies; as proven by the election results, Pennsylvanians would rather have a Senator who stutters occasionally than one who thinks that the local government should be involved in decisions about their bodies. 

As a young boy in Pittsburgh with auditory processing difficulties watches Senator Fetterman swear on his Bible to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, he too believes – for the first time, possibly – that he can one day run for office, apply for his dream job, or fulfill his professional ambitions. The journey would be a difficult one, but competence would prevail. So, thank you, Senator Fetterman, for paving the way for Americans struggling with disabilities to continue striving towards their dreams.

Sneha Puri is a staff writer for On the Record, focusing on American politics, policies, and elections. Currently a first-year Master of Public Policy student, she is originally from Hong Kong and holds a Bachelor’s degree in Economics from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.