From: Jamal.Mazrui@p0.f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org (Jamal Mazrui)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: "blind loyalty"
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:05:17 GMT
Reply-To: Jamal.Mazrui@p0.f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:101/460.0 - VI/BUG, Holbrook MA
X-Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 23405

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

I think Amy Cuningham spent more time personally interviewing Jernigan
and tourning the NFB headquarters than she did with anyone else.  She
learned quickly by observation that despite the fact that he is not an
elected representative of the organization, he is clearly "the boss"
and no one--staff or members--is willing to speak about him in a way
that may be perceived as critical.  It doesn't require a lot of insight
to come to this conclusion--just watch how people treat him at NFB
headquarters, at public meetings, in NFB literature, etc.  Therefore, I
certainly understand why she didn't think it worthwhile as a journalist
to spent a lot of time interviewing NFB leaders such as Homer Page (the
state president in Colorado).  I personally admire much of what Homer
Page has accomplished, but have no doubt that as a state president and
chair of the "Affiliate Action Committee" (whose duty is to monitor and
report signs of controversey to Jernigan) that he would have given
strictly loyal party line.

I think Amy Cuningham should have spoken to others in the
blindness/disability field who are not NFB public figures, and my
understanding is that she did.  Justin Dart, Chair of the President's
Commitee on Employment of People with Disabilities, was quoted with a
positive opinion of Jernigan.  The head of the Consortium of Citizens
with Disabilities was also quoted, though in this case with a critical
statement about NFB's unwillingness to work in concert with other
disability groups.  You mention others that Cuningham coulc have
interviewed but didn't.  That charge could be made against any
journalist since no story can realistically be comprehensive in its
coverage.

I did know a story was being done until Amy Cuningham called me after
hearing about my case.  I supplied her with extensive source
documentation about my case, the same material I distributed to blind
people last year.  Nothing was doctored:  she saw the correspondence
back and forth, including the document that expelled me.  It is not
correct for you to say that she did not look for evidence before
stating her conclusions.  She may not have always quoted the specific
evidence (since this is not an academic article with footnotes), but
she did seek out a lot of evidence from multiple sources.  She spent
several months on the article.  I know this because it was originally
supposed to be published about April she told me.  When I contacted her
later to inquire as to its status, she said that she was running a
draft by Jernigan and then by the magazine's legal counsel to identify
and correct possible factual erros or libelous statements.

The article is not a one-sided critism of the NFB.  Rather, the
difference between this and NFB publications, is that it presents both
sides.  People can then judge for themselves and wigh various factors.
Jamal

s

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!101!460.0!Jamal.Mazrui
Internet: Jamal.Mazrui@p0.f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org