From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: "blind loyalty"
Date: 31 Jul 92 04:35:52 GMT
Reply-To: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA
X-Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 23456

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to Tom Gerhart <15 Jul 92 20:25> Jamal Mazrui wrote:

JM> Hats off to Amy Cuningham
 JM> for her courage and determination to seek and tell the
 JM> truth!  Despite all the cries of foul play by NFB "blind
 JM> loyalists" in this echo, I observe that almost nothing has
 JM> been specified that contradicts Cuningham's analysis.  Of

Au contraire, I specified two matters in which the truth was at variance
with statements in the Cunningham article.  Perhaps the lack of
point-by-point rebuttals of the article in this echo has something to do
with the fact that most of the slanted material and falsehoods so baldly
paraded in the article as truth have been disproved long ago in other
forums and the fact that most of those participating in this echo who
criticize the National Federation of the Blind indicate by subtle and
not-so-subtle means that they wouldn't believe any counterarguments
should such be proffered.  Under the circumstances, I would suspect that
many NFBers have probably said to themselves, "Why bother?"

 JM> course, some matters may be subjectively interpreted in
 JM> different ways, but it is a journalist's job to make some
 JM> subjective interpretations after making reasonable efforts
 JM> to accumulate and check all relevant facts.  Amy Cuningham

This is the first time I've seen it maintained that subjectivity was
part of a journalist's job.  To be sure, some subjectivity will enter
into the work of an investigative reporter, if only because he/she must
pick and choose which facts he/she believes to be relevant, but I always
thought that such a journalist was supposed to make a great effort to
see that material was handled with objectivity.  The key here is
defining what are "relevant facts".  IMHO the objectivity of Ms.
Cunningham is called into question by her failure to investigate
thoroughly the veracity of the claims of those quoted in the article as
making unfavorable comments about Dr. Jernigan and the Federation.

 JM> did that.  She visited the National Center for the Blind
 JM> (NFB headquarters) personally.  Interviewed Jernigan on
 JM> more than one occasion.  In fact, she ran a draft of the
 JM> article by him to check for and eliminate inaccuracies
 JM> before writing the draft which went to press.  She was a

I am moved to inquire, Jamal, how you know that she interviewed Dr.
Jernigan "more than once"?  And I wonder if Ms. Cunningham had the
courtesy (and the guts) to show the final draft to Dr. Jernigan and
other Federation leaders to make certain that no inaccuracies had crept
in during the refining of the story?

 JM> responsible, independent journalist who deserves credit
 JM> for covering what many of her peers are afraid to do with
 JM> depth and honesty..

I am not certain that "depth" and "honesty" are the correct words to
describe Ms. Cunningham's article.  Nor am I convinced that "credit"
will redound to her as a result of the hatchet job that, IMHO, this
article turned out to be.  Ms. Cunningham may have made money; the
Baltimore Magazine may have made a splash.  But the article hardly does
credit to a profession that has produced such giants as Lippman, Murrow,
Sevareid and Cronkite.

Mike Freeman < K 7 U I J >
... *The National Federation of the Blind is changing what it means to be blind.*
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org