For the past several years, the term “at risk” has been increasingly used by journalists when writing about a missing younger person, or by reporters when announcing it on TV.
At one point I caught the headline yet again, but this time, the “at risk” adult had been found after going missing. His special circumstance? He was 89.
Now, if the story says he’s 89, then it’s a no-brainer that he’s “at risk,” in that he’s more vulnerable to physical endangerment due to a very old body.
So why was “at risk” put in the headline? Why not say “elderly” instead or just put his age?
Or has “elderly” become the latest offensive term? Would “89” been considered politically incorrect?
Seems to me that “89” in a news header would grab more attention, which is precisely the goal of the report in the first place.
But what about a disabled younger person?
Whenever a disabled child or teen goes missing in my state, the headline often says “at risk” instead of identifying any disability or atypical challenge (e.g., previous runaway, autism) — assuming one exists for that youth.
If a child or teen has gone missing — whether they intentionally ran away or were abducted — they are INHERENTLY at risk due to their age!
They are inherently at risk, due to their age, even if they’re at the top of their class and have a GPA of 4.2.
A non-disabled teen who’s abducted is at risk simply because they were abducted.
A non-disabled teen who ran away from an abusive home is at risk simply because they’re alone on the streets somewhere wondering where their next meal will come from.
A younger child who was kidnapped, no matter how cognitively or physically sound they are, is at risk by virtue of their young age.
I know I’m being repetitive here, but it’s to drill in a point: Why is the term “at risk” used in missing cases of minors?
If that’s all the descriptor is, other than their appearance and clothing, then it makes the reader wonder if indeed there’s a disability, a history of running away, a history of behavior problems or some other unusual circumstance.
It’s important to know the disability because it may help make the missing individual more recognizable.
For instance, cerebral palsy or semi-verbal autism could make the minor more obvious in a community that’s been alerted that they’ve gone missing.
However, I’ve also seen “at risk” used for missing adults – with no clarification for why this term is in the flyer.
Do they have severe social anxiety? Do they have autism that causes selective mutism? Do they have a head injury which impairs short-term memory? Do they have asthma?
These are crucial factoids that can help in finding the person, as opposed to the overly generic “at risk.”
When I was growing up, there was no tiptoeing on eggshells in the world of journalism.
When you read a story in a newspaper of a missing individual, you knew exactly what the person “had” if they had a disability or condition. There was no guessing, no wondering. No PC terms.
Nowadays, journalists, reporters, content creators and bloggers are just so scared to be direct and straightforward.
If the missing teenager has the intellectual level of an eight-year-old, then just say it. Don’t just stop at saying “at risk” or “special needs.”
Also, sometimes the picture of the person doesn’t always reveal a visible disability.
EVERY child and adult who goes missing is at risk for danger.
Whether the missing individual is mildly or severely disabled, or has no disabilities at all, or is indigenous or has northern European ancestry, an intense search should get underway as quickly as possible.
