From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: "blind loyalty"
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:20:04 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: 23851

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to Joseph Miller <23 Jul 92 07:43> Jamal Mazrui wrote:

 JM> I personally admire
 JM> much of what Homer Page has accomplished, but have no
 JM> doubt that as a state president and chair of the
 JM> "Affiliate Action Committee" (whose duty is to monitor and
 JM> report signs of controversey to Jernigan) that he would
 JM> have given strictly loyal party line.

Jamal, I must beg to differ with you here.  You say that the duty of the
Affiliate Action Committee is to monitor and report signs of controversy
to Jernigan.  I'm afraid you're about 170 degrees out on this one.  The
prime duty of the Affiliate Action Committee is to solve convention
problems.  In most cases, these do not even involve Dr. Jernigan; they
are logistical in nature.  I know; I've solved some of those problems.
One involved a lady whose colostomy bag was coming undone; another
involved the procuring of a wheelchair in a hurry for someone; still
another involved taking care of a disoriented old lady (who has since
died).  The Affiliate Action Committee's purpose is to make things go
smoothly at the convention -- and I do not mean politically.  Yes, Dr.
Jernigan admonishes the Committee to tell him of things of which he
should know -- things that the Committee members cannot solve for
themselves.  It is not contemplated, however, that political squabbles
be reported to Dr. Jernigan unless they threaten to disrupt the
convention (which your case would not have done).  You, of all people,
should know this, Jamal, having been in the NFB for over a decade.
Given this, I am forced to wonder why you choose, in my opinion, to not
tell the whole story.  But then this is the problem with the whole sorry
business of this article, IMHO.  It's all of a piece.

[Material deleted]

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

On the contrary, I assert that the article in fact did present both
sides -- but not fairly.  You yourself admit that Ms. Cunningham spent
more time at the National Center than with other interviewees.  This
tells me that she was not a careful reporter; that she did not
scrutinize with a jaundiced eye the pronouncements of interviewees other
than those you would maintain toe the "Jernigan line".  What kind of
fairness is that?  Fledgling reporters learn very early that often there
is far more to *any* story than appears on the surface.  You intimate
that Ms. Cunningham found this out in working on the NFB story.  Fair
enough.  Then why didn't she cast the same jaundiced eye on the
statments of NFB critics, seeking to determine the motives of those
critics and trying to get NFB's side of the story?  She shows no
evidence of any specific research on any one of the "problem areas" of
the NFB she cites in her story; her language indicates that she
automatically assumes that the statements of NFB critics are, a priori,
correct and should be taken at face value.

One may call this style of journalism many things.  IMHO fairness and
even-handedness are not among them.

Mike Freeman
... ** "A cynic is right nine times out of ten." -- H. L. Mencken **
___ CRR QWK 1.40

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