I've been watching different announcements and statements coming from deaf leaders on AB 2072 after it was vetoed by California's Governor. Some of them tried to save their faces by celebrating. Some of them went even further and misled their people. Some of them misinterpreted the veto statement by the Governor. What kind of leaders are they? How could they allow their people to be misguided and misled with misinformation on top of misinformations?
For a couple of days people asked if I'd be willing to vlog on the subject of AB 2072 veto to help them understand what's going on. I declined until somebody pointed my attention to a video done by Ken Davis with Deaf Newspaper. The subject was AB 2072. In the middle of the message I could not believe my eyes because the information were grossly incorrect.
According to Ken Davis, the bill known as AB 2072 would have encouraged the parents to go with cochlear implants and oralism programs and even pay for it. I wondered where he got that information. How could a leading newspaper for the deaf community give out misinformation like that? This begs the question. Can they read? If so, did they read the bill? Or was it a classic case of bison jump, following the crowd and believing other people's words. Whatever happen to credible journalism?
Because of the carelessness in journalism I felt obligated to vlog on the veto event so that people are going to have their facts together. Will somebody please step up to the plate here?
Friday, October 1, 2010
Trust Your Leaders On AB 2072?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I had to shake my head once I saw that Deaf video news. You're right. There was no proper journalism being done. Ken never bothered to do the proper research. If you're going to call it a "newspaper" then it be best to get the right information first before publishing it. Else you might as well not call it a "Deaf Newspaper" but "Deaf Tabloid" with all the alien stories to go with it.
ReplyDeleteI even had a brief discussion with one person in a Facebook discussion where I corrected the lady's statement who said the bill was introduced by audiologists. After I corrected her she then spun it saying it was a "grammar" mistake when in fact it had nothing to with "grammar" at all but about making a statement to begin with which turned out to be false.
Had to chuckle at the 'alien story' part. Funny.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, you're right. It's not a newspaper if they're that reckless. Tabloid is more likely it.
Grammar mistake? My eye! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
The EVER BURNING question, DID they read the bill? I mean, come on! Deaf Newspaper, an online News media didn't check their facts?
ReplyDeleteUnbelievable.
How can anyone see their news as being reliable anymore?
Not me.
What I see from across the pond, is a deaf community disunited and in a stand off position, and not in any position to put forward and unbiased viewpoint, or offer unbiased advice, it would seem to me Arnie had no choice in turning it down. Can they even FIND a dozen deaf people who will offer up an neutral view on anything ? If the deaf 'community' was united there would have been no need at all for the legislation... common sense would have prevailed.
ReplyDeleteIt'll be interesting to see whether or not Ken will retract what he said and admit that the information he gave was incorrect for watchers out there. If he is going to name it "Deaf Newspaper" then he had better take the time to get some real factual information correct before airing them for public consumption.
ReplyDeleteMM...
ReplyDeleteI tried to leave a comment at ur blog but, can't do it. I'm signed in to Google.
(sorry Barry...this is totally off topic)
They don't value ASL and they don't care about deaf babies. The yellow t-shirts camp blew the opportunity from the very beginning and their "celebrating" shows either complete illiteracy or toxicity. Whichever it is it's a huge disadvantage for deaf children and the community as a whole.
ReplyDeleteRussell
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete