Ahmed Riad Younes working on his laptop using a screen reader designed for visually-impaired users. Image source – AP Archive report on Egypt’s first magazine written for and by the blind, featuring Ahmed Riad Younes.
By Ahmed Riad Younes
Accessibility is still missing from many newsroom diversity conversations. That failure does not only exclude audiences. It also weakens journalism itself and limits who gets to produce it.
News organisations today speak far more confidently about diversity than they did a decade ago. Many now track gender representation, discuss race and class more openly, and present inclusion as part of their editorial values. Yet one important issue is still too often missing from these conversations: accessibility.
In many newsrooms, diversity efforts still stop where accessibility should begin.
This article focuses mainly on visual impairment, because that is where many of the barriers in journalism become especially visible, or rather, invisible to those designing them. But the argument does not stop there. Accessibility also matters for deaf audiences, people with mobility or cognitive impairments, neurodivergent users, older audiences, and many others whose needs are still too often treated as secondary in digital news design (W3C, 2018; AbilityNet, 2023).
Disability is still frequently treated as a separate issue rather than part of the wider question of who journalism includes, who it serves, and how it works. Accessibility is often seen as technical, optional, or something to think about later. It may be handed to developers, buried in compliance discussions, or reduced to a box ticking exercise. But accessibility is not a side issue. It goes to the heart of journalism itself.
That matters on a global scale. According to the World Health Organization, at least 2.2 billion people worldwide live with a near or distance vision impairment. That alone should be enough to move accessibility out of the margins of newsroom thinking. But the case is not only demographic, legal, or technical. It is also regulatory and ethical. In the UK, accessibility is increasingly framed as a requirement through frameworks such as the Public Sector Bodies Accessibility Regulations (UK Government, 2018) and guidance on accessible digital services (GOV.UK, 2022).
If journalism is meant to inform the public, serve democracy, and reach diverse communities, then inaccessible journalism is not simply inconvenient. It is bad journalism.
When a news website is difficult to navigate with a screen reader, when an image carries key information but has no meaningful alternative text, or when a video lacks captions or a transcript, journalism becomes harder or impossible for many people to access. This is not just a technical failure. It is an editorial one.
Accessibility shapes whether journalism can be found, followed, understood, and trusted. It shapes whether people can move through a story smoothly or are forced to fight the format before they can even engage with the content. Standards such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, built around principles of being perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust, make clear that accessibility is fundamental to usability for all audiences (W3C, 2018).
That is why accessibility should not be framed as an extra or a disability add on. It should be treated as part of journalism quality.
Good journalism is not only about accuracy, verification, or strong storytelling. It is also about whether journalism reflects all sectors of the public and whether it can actually be used by them. A powerful investigation, an important interview, or a public interest explainer loses part of its value if large sections of the audience cannot access it properly.
And in practice, accessibility rarely helps only one group. What helps a blind reader using a screen reader may also help a tired commuter listening to an article, a deaf viewer watching a video on mute, or someone navigating quickly on a mobile device. Accessible design is widely recognised as improving usability for all users.
The good news is that many accessibility problems are not difficult to address. In many cases, they are the result of habit rather than necessity. Newsrooms can make immediate improvements if they choose to treat accessibility as part of everyday editorial practice.
The recommendations that follow are based on a combination of established accessibility standards, existing research, and professional newsroom experience.
First, write meaningful alt text. Too often, images are either left without alt text or given vague labels such as “photo” or “man speaking”. That is not enough. Alt text should help users understand what matters in the image. Practical guidance from organisations such as RNIB and WebAIM shows how alt text should convey meaning and editorial relevance, not just visual description.
Second, avoid over reliance on image led storytelling. Many digital stories depend heavily on visual layouts, graphics, and embedded content that may look polished but are difficult to navigate without sight. Visual storytelling can be powerful, but it should not come at the cost of accessibility. If essential information is locked inside visuals, some users are excluded from the story itself. Where visuals carry key meaning, providing audio description or equivalent alternatives helps ensure that the story remains accessible in more than one way (W3C WAI, 2020; BBC, 2021).
Third, make audio and video content more usable. Captions, transcripts, and clear structure are essential. The Ofcom Code on Television Access Services and related guidance highlight how subtitles and accessible formats are not only regulatory expectations but widely used by diverse audiences.
Fourth, fix website navigation and heading structure. This may sound technical, but it has major editorial consequences. A badly structured page can make even a strong article frustrating to read. Tools such as WAVE and axe DevTools help identify common accessibility barriers and improve content structure.
Fifth, involve disabled users in testing. Too often, accessibility decisions are made without the people most affected by them. Research and practice consistently show that involving users leads to more effective and inclusive design outcomes (AbilityNet, 2021).
These changes are practical and achievable. But there is a deeper issue that is discussed even less often.
When newsrooms talk about accessibility, they usually focus on audiences. That matters, of course. But accessibility is not only about who can consume journalism. It is also about who can produce it.
Disabled journalists, including blind and visually impaired journalists, still face many barriers inside the newsroom itself. These barriers are often embedded in systems and routines: inaccessible content management systems, visual first workflows, and assumptions about how journalism is produced.
The result is that accessibility remains underdeveloped not only in the final journalism product, but in the working culture that produces it.
This creates a contradiction. Many organisations now speak publicly about inclusion, yet their everyday newsroom structures still make it harder for some journalists to participate fully. Accessibility is not only about tools. It is also about culture. A genuinely inclusive newsroom should be a place where people feel welcomed, valued, supported, and able to fulfil their potential.
That applies across recruitment, training, workflow design, editorial planning, and professional progression. It also requires attention to how disability is represented and discussed. Style guides such as those developed by the National Center on Disability and Journalism and guidance from organisations such as Scope emphasise the importance of accurate, respectful, and non stereotypical language.
That is why accessibility should be part of every serious newsroom conversation about diversity, equity, and inclusion. It should not sit outside those discussions as a niche concern. It should be built into them from the beginning.
For journalism to be genuinely inclusive, it is not enough to diversify who appears in stories. News organisations must also think more carefully about who can access their work, who can contribute to it, and whose needs have long been ignored.
Accessibility is not a favour. It is not a charitable gesture. It is not a specialist issue for a small audience.
It is part of what makes journalism public, credible, and usable.
And ultimately, accessibility is not only about helping disabled people. It is about whether journalism fulfils its core function of informing the public.
Opinions expressed here are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views, policies or positions of the EJO or the organisations with which they are affiliated.
