The Washington Post Slaps Deaf Community’s Face
By Shane Feldman on Tue 17 Oct 2006 |
Email This Post
The Washington Post interviewed Gallaudet president-designate Dr. Jane Fernandes yesterday and made it available online, without captions. The Washington Post is insulting the entire deaf and hard of hearing community by telling us that they want to have access to our crisis but will not give us access to their reporting of our crisis.
By not captioning the radio interview, the Washington Post is telling us, “too bad, you can’t hear.” This statement is tantamount to a Washington Post reporter at Gallaudet watching a sign language-only presentation by the protesters or the Gallaudet Adminstration without interpreters. The deaf community could respond in the same way that they have, “too bad, you don’t know sign language.” That would be wrong. Of course, the Washington Post should have access to sign language presentations and the deaf and hard of hearing community should have access to the Post audio interviews.
Don’t tell me that the Washington Post cannot caption their radio show. Last spring the Kojo Nnamdi Show on WAMU 88.5 FM, American University Radio interviewed I. King Jordan and Dr. Jane Fernandes. WAMU 88.5 provided real time captioning, meaning that the audio was translated verbatim, live. Thousands of deaf and hard of hearing people followed the real-time captioning and simultaneously instant messaged and paged each other with comments about the interview after each response from I. King Jordan and Dr. Jane Fernandes. The Washington Post can do the same thing, and their interview is not even live.
Don’t tell me that the Washington Post does not know how to caption their materials. Last week, the Washington Post included a video in their online article, “Intensity of Gallaudet Unrest Surprised Incoming Leader” in which they interview protest leaders, and they provided captions.
There is absolutely no excuse for the Washington Post to conduct a radio interview and deny access to thousands of deaf and hard of hearing people who want to know the latest developments at Gallaudet University. The Washington Post should immediately scramble to find a company that can caption the radio interview and then provide a full transcript online.
The Washington Post is at the same time a public service and a business. By not captioning the audio interview, they have failed their deaf and hard of hearing public.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
You have to realize that JKF could request that the Washington Post captioned the interview but she did not. All the more reasons she must not become the 9th president in Januray.
You don’t know this for a fact. Did Fernandes ever make the request? Or did she assume that the Post would caption? Or did it not even enter her mind? Who knows- but we should NOT be speculating on her behalf. If you really stand by what you say, this is just like blaming the protestors for the campus lockdown videos not being captioned elsewhere. I do think that any good deaf (or hearing) citizen would have conscientously made a good-natured request, but in the end.. it’s still ultimately up to the Post. I sincerely would hate to see people mistake your post for fact and go around spreading yet more smear about Fernandes.
JK should make a request, automatically, without a second thought. If I was in that situation, I would ask immediately. In fact, in her role as the President of Gallaudet, I’m amazed she didn’t DEMAND it. She could have just went to another newspaper if it did not happen.
This is just one way I would like our future President of Gally to stand up for what deaf people need. I don’t see that happening. The radio broadcasts reek of audism. Reach the hearing people, the deaf people can’t hear what is going on and fight back.
This has left a bad feeling in my stomach.
Its typical for everyone to be a monday morning quarterback. You don’t even know if JK made the request and autmoatically put yourself on a soapbox saying you would if you were there. Quite a typical attitude. Besides, if she did or not DEMAND it, and it being a RADIO show, she may not have been aware of what could have been done to bring the message to a wider audience. Not being informed, who knows but I’d also point the finger at the radio station and the Post for not realizing their audience is the deaf community.
Actually, I would have demanded it if I was there. If I was President of Gallaudet, yes I would feel that it was my responsiblity, yes, to be AWARE of how my message reaches the audience. Yes, I would have asked. Absolutely. I wouldn’t have thought twice about it.
Now, maybe JK WAS aware of who her message would reach. That raises yet other questions.
Yes, the station is responsible, and you are absolutely correct. It is up to each and every of us to make them aware of their own ignorance. Our future is in our hands.
It saddens me to see that our future is in her hands, if she does not take the time to consider such issues like those.
I wouldn’t ascribe too much to the Washington Post’s failure to caption the interview. I suspect a lot of people there just didn’t think about the implications of the interview or that a lot of deafies would be interested in reading it. It’s just one typical example of ignorance and lack of forethought, I think.
Ignorance,
Ignorance and lack of forethought is not a valid excuse either. Even more so with a radio interview with Dr. Jane Fernandes, who the Wasington Post knows the entire deaf community is carefully watching. There is absolutely no excuse for that kind of ignorance by the Washington Post.
Like it or not, you’ll find plenty of ignorant people out there who also do not exercise any thought about the implications of their actions.
Of course, there are more than “plenty” of them.
You can sit back and whine about it, accept it and live blissfully within your limits or do something about it.
You are erroneously assuming that I am whining about it. I am simply stating a fact — there are plenty of willfully ignorant folks out there. How you deal with them tells much about your character.
Right. There’s willful ignorance and there’s unintentional ignorance. One is insulting while the other one isn’t meant to be insulting…just lacks information and awareness. And certainly, I don’t think that WaPo was trying to be rude in terms of communication access. Just email WaPo about this and note the irony of the interview with it’s message totally lost by those (deaf people) who cannot tune in.
Anonymous,
I did not make that assumption. Where did I say that you were whining?
I am describing a fact, there are three categories of people who respond to this kind of situation.
If you asked me which one you fit? I have no idea. Who knows, you could have already emailed the Post.
This is a topic that I’ve discussed in great detail with my friends. It really bothers me when I go to nytimes.com, cnn.com, and other media websites, and none of their online videos are captioned. This lack of accessibility goes across the entire media spectrum, and it’s going to continue unless we do something about it legislatively.
I have vaguely heard of efforts to ensure that all Internet videos are captioned. Can anyone point me toward that or provide me a link with that? NAD?
Ignorance,
You are probably referring to this effort:
http://tinyurl.com/ykkzzj
Technology alone will take care of this really quickly. There is a technology where instant real time captioning software will become available very soon where speech to text captioning can be done. It’s actually a lot closer for this to happen than not. Pretty soon, every clip on Google, Yahoo or whatever, you can click for instant closed captioning for those clips that do not come with CC.
Believe me, it’s coming.
McConnell,
Perhaps your futuristic technology could “take care” of our needs quickly, yet the onus falls onto businesses to use them or comply with the law.
For example, we’ve had movie captioning technology available to us for years and yet only a tiny fraction of a percent of the screens across the country have the technology.
That’s why it’s up to us to create the kind of law that we need that would mandate open-captioning technology in movie theaters, internet video captioning, and other forms of media. As I recall, in order for television captioning to happen, even though the technology existed at the time, we had to force the television industry to caption shows through legislation. I’d love to see a new legislative bill on this issue pass in the 110th Congress.
Yes, I agreed. I am hard of hearing myself but never able to understand fully of what going on if we keep not getting any closed captions/open captions news around the world. It is time to do something about “equal access”.
its incredibly frustrating, i agree. but i think its important to point out that there are independent media outlets that do provide that kind of access, democracynow.org provides transcripts of all their interviews. it says alot when a small independent media station can provide that kind of resource, but other media conglomerates with tons of money will not.
Slap in the face, indeed.
If I had an radio interview, I would request captioning so my (deaf) family and I could have access. That was a lack of common sense on BOTH the Washington Post AND Jane Fernandes’s part. Audism needs to end NOW, beginning with JKF’s resignation.
I think there’s a leap between Fernandes’ alleged failure to request captioning for the radio interview and her ability to manage an institution like Gallaudet. There is also something questionable about automatically assuming that this is all due to audism, which appears to be the buzzword of this protest.
I would think that as the President of Gally, I’d make sure that my radio show is captioned. Jane had to be aware of the interest that students have in her.
I wonder if she failed to request a real time captions or if the Washinton Post ignored her request while reassuring her it’d be real time captioned.
I know I spoke about social and cultural rights regarding the corporate world in my guest blog but it also applies here to our society in general. How do we promote these and make people less ignorant and aware of people with needs in their audience?
An example: “water cooler” talk in office, captioning all youtube clips, using portable videophones to make calls, etc - all little things that hearing people may not realize but could want to do it to expand their market audience.
I don’t think all youtube clips should be captioned because those are user-made. Would you ask a teenager in high school to caption his youtube video that he made? I think with internet video captioning, it should only extend to companies that use advertising or videos or to media companies, telecommunication companies, movie networks, and television networks in their internet videos.
It also would be a big help if the deaf community took initiative in captioning their own vlogs. That way it shows the hearing audience that they, too, can do it with their own videos if encouraged and provided easy tools.
I agree 100%. Deaf people should caption their vlogs.
Well said, Noelle.
I actually was involved in a debate over deaf people captioning their own vlogs over at ascdeaf.com/blog. Several deaf posters said they didn’t see why they had to caption their own vlogs for hearing and for deaf audiences, and said that I should learn ASL. It was a case of “Tough luck! Now you understand how we feel..” from these deaf posters.
Noelle,
That is an unfortunate attitude. The concepts that apply here is “two wrongs doesn’t make a right” and “practice what you preach”.
Everything should be accessible, we should all strive for that goal. The Washingon Post has vast resources and they have proven that they know how to caption their audio. The technology to caption radios is available.
The deaf person making a home video also has that obligation, but the Washington Post has even more of an obligation with its resources and committment to serving their *entire* audience.
Wait. Shouldn’t deaf people make sure that their vlogs and videos have ‘voice’ for hearing people and blind people?
It’s captions—and blind people using the internet already have computer programs that reads the text out loud.
Oh I agree with Shane with making everything accessible.
Reason why I agree with Shane is that I’ve had problems with people who refused to do as I request regarding my own communications issues.
I’ve spent too many years watching friends and classmates struggle with communication issues like teachers who barely know sign to ADA not being enforced in the workplace.
I agree in principle. Vlogs should be accessible but it’s actually asking them to translate, not transcribe. Getting spoken English down to written English requires considerably less skill and zero nuance.
- Those who can, should. But if a clip is 5 minutes long, that can become a huge job… 1) steno technology isn’t available to the everyday person (220wpm vs 50wpm) and 2) professional stenos are able to stare at their keyboard and transcribe by listening, meaning they don’t have to look back and forth at the video. I know of vlogs that run longer than 20 minutes!!! (Egads, what motormouths, or motorhands. :) )
- some of them can’t translate their own vlogs. (This is a cause for audists to keel over and self-gratify.)
Because I type at 50wpm but would have to look back and forth at video clips, it’d likely take me two minutes to transcribe 50 words. we speak/sign at 200 wpm, which means it’d take me to 8 minutes to transcribe a minute of video. let’s say my vlog runs 5 minutes… 40 minutes of transcribing, without a break.
Those who insist on vlogging for 20 minutes, sheesh… 200 minutes of transcribing if it’s me taking on the job.
I suspect we’d see vlogs captioned if it was made easy to do that. I’d love to caption my own so my hearing relatives can tune in, but it’s a tall order.
Bottom line, I hope vloggers who are aware that they are excluding nonsigners will adopt the viewpoint that transcribing is a high priority, rather than a courtesy. But we need to give them tools to make it inexcusable not to caption.
Person,
You hit the nail on the head, thanks for sharing this point. If you go over to the NAD Advocacy Blog at:
http://blogs.nad.org/advocacy/
I captioned all of those Vlogs when I worked for the NAD. It is *not* easy to translate signs, and the task isn’t any easier when trying to place captions with the same ASL concepts being signed.
Transcribing audio is much, much easier.
Agree. It’s hard but not impossible. I am sure they realize that and not doing it is tantamount to being a hypocrite after years of screaming why isn’t video clips, tv, dvd, etc by hearing people are not captioned?
What’s more if some one else is doing the captioning and translating, the person is more likely to paraphrase what was said while deciphering the ASL signing.
Complain here:
comment@washingtonpostradio.com
[…] Wouldn’t That Be a Slap in the Ear?Tuesday October 17th, 2006 2:37 PM by Big Head Rob Filed under: To be categorized From the DeafDC blog: “The Washington Post Slaps Deaf Community’s Face“slvShowNewIndicator(1161107481); by not captioning a radio interview with incoming Gallaudet Prez Jane Fernandez. […]
Shane:
Since you blogged about the Washington Post not captioning their interview, wouldn’t that be “whining”? *Grins*
There are ways to get them off their butt and start captioning their interviews–its called ADA lawsuit. You could, for one thing, file with the DOJ Civil Rights division and ask them to investigate the Washington Post because, its like you say, “a public service and a business.” Another thing, you could perhaps ask NAD and Deaf Law Center to get involved and file a complaint against them.
My point here is: writing and whining about it isn’t going to a darned thing. DOING SOMETHING ABOUT it will…that means taking ACTION against WaPo. Writing is just a bunch of words. ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER than words do.
Blogging, when done right, can be as good as taking action.
Shane is an excellent blogger, and it is this one person’s view that he was indeed taking action.
it speaks volumes about this woman….
Shane,
I sent an email to one of the associate producers at Washington Post radio. They are in the process of getting the transcript of the interview posted on their web site.
Here is their response to my email:
“We appreciate your e-mail about the transcript of Jane Fernandes’ interview on Washington Post Radio. Please accept my apologies on behalf of The Washington Post and realize that we did not intentionally ignore the needs of those who are hard of hearing. The Washington Post is in the process of transcribing the interview and it will be made available on the website soon. Again, I apologize for the slow transcription of the interview, but please let it be known that it is on the way.”
I found it interesting that she talked about the needs of the “hard of hearing” given that yes, I’m actually hard of hearing and consider myself that way.
But please pass on the good news.
Great news! Integrity isn’t necessarily shown only in action, but also in reaction. The WaPo reacted perfectly!
If the WaPo’s lack of captioning so bothers the blogger, why did it take SOMEONE ELSE to make the effort to bring this to light to the WaPo? In this case, it was HOHVIOLIST above who did. KUDOs to her for this action.
Yes, the post finally acted correctly but Shane is right all along that they should have known better than to not caption the interview for the deaf community.
HOWEVER, there are NUMEROUS other news outlets that FAIL to caption their videos, interviews, etc. on the internet.
My point is: Why do we single out the WaPo when we could collectively as a deaf community band together and go after the entire news spectrum and demand that they caption their contents on the internet as well?
Sometimes I wonder if it is apathy among us that is enabling them to not do anything for us to our benefit. Just IMHO.
Er, did you send an email to WaPo?
Mike,
Yes, I did email the WaPo Radio. I actually wrote a nice letter which said
“The deaf blogosphere is buzzing with the fact that Jane Fernandes did an interview with the Washington Post radio, but no text transcript of this interview has been posted to your web site for the benefit of the deaf community who wanted to know exactly what she said from the beginning to the end of the interview.
Even if Dr. Fernandes did not have the foresight to request a transcript be released, it would be in the public interest if the post radio did post a verbatim transcript of the entire interview. It would help the deaf community understand better, her zeal to remain as president of Gallaudet University.”
So…we’ll see how long it takes for the transcript to be up….
Actually, I was asking aquafina. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I know everybody appreciated what you did.
Aquafina,
I understand your criticism, however, the Post responded. Keep in mind that the Washington Post reads DeafDC.com regularly. Even before the Gallaudet protests, they quoted or linked to some of our Blogs that were not related to deaf issues.
I am in complete agreement with you, all media that have audio should be captioned.
This effort should be pursued from the bottom to top (such as this Blog) and also the top to bottom (Federal laws, etc.).
As for the collective action to get all Internet videos captioned, you can join the effort by taking action here:
http://tinyurl.com/ykkzzj
Shane
Thanks for your comments and in no way that my comments were personally directed towards you at all.
You are serious that the Post actually reads the DeafDC blog even before the deaf protests began long ago? I’m quite surprised as I didn’t think they would pay this site much attention.
Aquafina,
We had two Blogs unrelated to deaf issues and one related to deaf-issues quoted in the Express (published by the Washington Post) before the protests started. Check it out at:
http://www.deafdc.com/blog/dea.....s-express/
DeafDC.com Blogs have been mentioned in the Post, Examiner, and Express since the protests started (perhaps more, that I am not aware of). I posted this Blog with the assumption that the Post would get wind of it immediately.
There are a lot of things that need to be changed or improved in this world. I may “whine” about some situations, but I must pick my battles wisely. For example:
http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp.....;b=2048621
One person can only do so much. Like you said earlier, we need to put our heads together and collectively change the world and make it a better place for all deaf and hard of hearing people.
The radio stations are actually violating the ADA law anyway for not being accessible for providing real time captions.
McConnell, stop “sugarcoat” any daily inconvience for deaf people in general.
For years, deaf people always want to be part of the radio broadcastings in captions.
Jane Fernandes should know BETTER to make sure that her primary constituency is not being excluded, ex. live captions within her radio interview.
I wonder why JK did not appear on live television news for interviews lately. She seems aware of her limited signing abilities on TV.
RLM
No. Radio stations are not violating ADA law, much less the FCC or Section 504 because there is no language in those laws that address radio and captioning in the same sentence. Televisions, sure. Radios? No. Why not? Well, for obvious reasons if you haven’t figured it out. But today’s technology is changing that already.
We do not have radios in the house and cars that have CC capability. Do we? No. The next best thing is the internet radio where real time captioning can be done. But not everybody has internet connection. But that, too, is changing.
Compared to the rest of the countries around the world, we have the best technology and social services for people with hearing loss. I hardly would think deaf people are inconvienced daily when it comes to radios unless you’re serious about sitting in front of the internet screen and read nothing but CC texts scroll up with radio jocks doing their talking. Not really that exciting compared to television or movies. But that, too, will change when speech to text technology get to the point when CC can be done on the dirt cheap, increasing all deaf and hard of hearing access to video clips on internet, live radio shows on the internet, on demand CC on news during special live coverages, etc…
McConnell,
This is a well thought-out comment. I am not sure about the legal argument, though.
One thing you have to remember is that you cannot assume that deaf people will not listen to the radio, because we haven’t had access to it!
This evening I told a group of hearing people about Kojo Nnamdi captioning a radio show with I. King Jordan. The entire room of hearing people shook their head in the affirmative when they heard the name “Kojo” because obviously they enjoy listening to him. We would probably feel the same way too if we had access to radio shows.
It is not only a benefit for deaf people, but hearing people no doubt will want to have access to the transcripts of radio shows. It’s a win-win situation for everyone.
I am not assuming that deaf people don’t want to know what’s said on the radio. Please, don’t assume that I’m assuming that. What I’m talking about is the language regarding communication access specifically for a radio and because it was done for obvious reasons, or so they (the legislature) thought.
There is no specific language that says there ought to be closed captioning for radios, as there is for television or any visual medium. This was before the internet exploded to the scene where now, it is possible to provide live radio captioning via your computer though not through a regular radio in your car, for example (even though that’s changing as well when you have captioned lyrics displayed on the radio of your car).
The language on equal communication access needs to be revisted to include radios of all forms. Including regular radio (e.g. walkman, Ipod, stereo radio, satellite radio, etc). It would be such a language that would dove-tail nicely with emergency broadcasting requirement. Imagine 15 million people who have radios who can’t really use it.
You remember the old emergency preparedness guideline that tells you to stock up on food, water, flashlight, batteries, radios, etc..? Kind of useless for you to pack a radio if you’re alone, eh?
It’s a matter of raising awareness. And it is also a matter of that technology can make it possible without incurring too much cost for the makers.
I was just at a meeting last night where a CEPIN (TDI) coordinator explained that captioned radio is going to be possible on a widely-available basis soon due to a new technology called “digital radio.”
You are right, we need to change the federal legislation language to include so many new developments. The government is falling behind. The revised captioning legislation should include radio, movie theaters, web media, PA systems, and more.
Of course, the government is SO far behind. Private industry is so much father aahead than the govt themselves. We all should know that, right?
You don’t have to do that since money talks. Tell them that by doing so (captioned radio) they will have access to the 30 million people with hearing loss. Technology is making it easier (and cheaper) to do when it comes to captioned radio.
In 5 to 10 years, this will not be a problem at all when you have state of the art speech to text software along with increasing speed and memory computer chips while they continue to get incredibly smaller.
Make list on what you have now that benefits people with hearing loss to that of 7 or 8 years ago. Go ahead..make a list and compare.
Vlogs within the Gally protest are antidotes for non-signing hearing people in general. So hearing people could understand how they feel excluded from the mass media, especially vlogs.
GOOD for hearing non-signers!!!!! I did discuss with several protestors about the importance of written transcripts for hearing people, who do not know or understand ASL.
After reading several comments on this blog forum, I change my mind about urging several protestors to submit the written transcripts one week before JK’s “Washington Post Live” interview controvesty without providing live captions or written transcript.
National Public Radio (NPR) usually provide the written transcripts, but not all the time.
I.King Jordan, Jane Fernandes, ADA, Adminstration, Washington Post, protest, Board of Trustee,…what else do I have to say…
We didn’t start the fire,
but it always been burning
Since the world been turning…
No we didn’t light it,
But we tried to fight it..
Gallaudet, MSSD, Kendall,FSSA, ASL
Closed Caption, DEAFDC, North Korea, Not Deaf enuff…I can’t take it any more!
We didn’t start the fire,
but it always been burning
Since the world been turning…
No we didn’t light it,
But we tried to fight it..
We didn’t start the fire
but it will go on and
on and on and on
-Billy Joel :)
(College Student)
Pretty good! I actually memorized the song when I was younger. I still remember the first part of it.
Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnny Ray…
http://www.teacheroz.com/fire.htm
Thanks.. Still my favorite.. I hope he update the historical events with his new version oneday..
Transcript of the Fernandes interview on the Washington Post radio is at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00872.html
This is great news, thanks for sharing with us hohviolist.
Same deal here. I sent a complaint right before I posted the contact address, and I got the same cookie cutter reply.
Jennifer,
We appreciate your e-mail about the transcript of Jane Fernandes’ interview on Washington Post Radio. Please accept my apologies on behalf of The Washington Post and realize that we did not intentionally ignore the needs of those who are hard of hearing. The Washington Post is in the process of transcribing the interview and it will be made available on the website soon. Again, I apologize for the slow transcription of the interview, but it is on the way.
Thanks,
Jessica Marcus
Associate Producer
Washington Post Radio 1500AM/107.7FM
Because There’s Always More to the Story
http://www.washingtonpostradio.com
I didn’t even know that there was an interview with Jane Fernandes so how could I even email Washington Post to let them know that they made a huge gaff with the deaf community at heart? IF I had been watching it and found out that there were no captions, I would have called them to alert them to the fact that many of us would watch.
My point is: if someone alerts the deaf community about the “problem” out there, why does it have to be someone else to do the work to make the calls? I would give the blogger MORE credit for calling the business AND then alert us to the fact that this happened. KWIM?
See an ASL transcript at Joey Baer’s WEB vlog:
http://www.joeybaer.com/?p=32
It is sad to realize that the president designate still does not get it:
1. the protest is very much about her, that she is unfit for president
2. students are not afraid of future, they ARE the future
3. many cochlear implanted students are protesting against her presidency
4. her resignation would be a tremendous help to solve the crisis.
More frightening is her invention of a “new order of Deaf people”. It almost sounds like a “new race”. Have we already heard about theories like that in the 20th century? I am afraid yes. There was way too much suffering because of theories like this.
Jane Fernandes entertains a futuristic idea of Deaf education and a utopian view of the role of Gallaudet University with herself in the center of it as president. It is the ultimate evidence that she is completely out of touch with reality, and she doesn’t have any real understanding about the tumultuous events happening around her.
Mishka Zena has the written transcript at:
http://mishkazena.wordpress.co.....interview/
FYI, there is an ASL version of JK’s interview with the Washington Post Live. Just go to Joey Baer’s ASL Blog - http://www.joeybaer.com
Thanks to several people for arranging the ASL terp to ASLize the WP Live interview. So we could see how JK conduct her interview in such a manner like pauses, etc.
Robert L. Mason, FSSA supporter since the first day of Gally protest 2006
That was a fantastic idea. Thanks for sharing. Joey Baer is doing a great job with his website.
the morale of this story…
do not assume right away…always make efforts to find out the underlying causes or reasons for such given actions. perhaps, it must have been a honest mistake or quite to the contrary, it was an unbelievable act of stupidity and ignorance that one did not bother to give the heads-up and to acknowledge to someone that the interview was primarily targeted to the deaf and hard of hearing audience and thus, captioning should be provided promptly or simultaneously.
again, people have long resonated with the idea that we , as the ones with differently abled ears, have hearing loss and it may have been one of the follies in our dear human nature that “we” are to quickly assume that captioning is not of the utmost concern for the interview itself and let alone, the respective audiences who, let me put it this way …simply (no puns intended, my dear King Jordan), can’t hear.
i see the “acts of quick assumptions” so indeed troubling and onerous in light of this entire movement…
a lot of people are quick to shoot their thoughts outwards and very little comes out of it.
Dan,
Here’s what “little” came out of it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00872.html
[…] Plus, the Washington Post was slammed on the DeafDC blog for providing online audio of an interview with Fernandes that didn’t have captions for the deaf. “The Washington Post is insulting the entire deaf and hard of hearing community by telling us that they want to have access to our crisis but will not give us access to their reporting of our crisis,” wrote Shane Feldman. […]
For those of you who claimed that the Washington Post could have been unintentionally ignorant for not captioning the Dr. Jane Fernandes interview yesterday…they made the same mistake today for an interview with a Gallaudet student and professor: