The Destructive Power of Blogs: False CMP Rumors Hurt NAD
By Shane Feldman on Thu 1 Mar 2007 |
Email This Post
Today two deaf blogs claimed that the Captioned Media Program, administered by the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) would close its doors on March 30th. The NAD CEO, Nancy Bloch, responding to a DeafDC inquiry about the announcement on these blogs said, “That information is not true, the CMP will not close.” She then pointed to a press release on the NAD website which described a new five-year agreement with the Department of Education to continue to administer the program, now called the Described and Captioned Media Program (DCMP). In addition, Nancy Bloch said that the NAD just made an announcement on February 20, 2006 announcing the second launch of the “Read Captions Across America” initiative which is organized and promoted by the DCMP. The DCMP is nowhere near closing its doors.
This incident demonstrates the power of v/blogs, and how irresponsible v/blogs can cause unintentional or intentional harm upon individuals and organizations. DeafDC has covered this topic extensively with blogs about potential lawsuits for defamation or libel, posting potentially inaccurate or unreliable information and the importance of responsibility while blogging, and the importance of using critical thinking skills and detecting bias when reading information on the blogosphere.
This incident should serve as a lesson to all bloggers, not just those in the deaf blogosphere, that information should be verified before it is announced. This kind of mistake erodes the credibility of the blog in question, and all other blogs in the blogosphere.
Update:
Thanks to several people who brought this to my attention. One of the two bloggers posted an apology and a correction. The other blogger modified information on their blog.
© 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.
66 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hmm. Speaking of bias… I notice you linked to your own blog 2 out of 3 non-CMP/NAD links. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… Hmm.
This is an important topic, and I happen to know one blogger feels awful about this and would never, ever have posted if the blogger had not gotten information directly from a CMP librarian. She retracted as quickly as she could. So not only do bloggers need to be responsible, they need to ACCEPT responsibility when they make mistakes. I commend this blogger for doing so.
I agree with this. Bloggers should always hold themselves up to the highest ethical standards (i.e. journalism)when reporting on matters like this.
Check your sources. Always compare information gotten from sources to check validity.
Ask: Who, what, when, where, and why?
Then do follow-up which is always important in journalism.
Critical thinker,
You are probably correct in some ways, but do take into account the fact that Shane did not exactly have an overabundance of choices when choosing from among blogs (within the deaf blogosphere) that covered this particular topic.
I agree with your last statement re: accountability. That, or at least make it abundantly clear that whatever “facts” are being posted are “unverified”.
This blog demonstrates the power of the blogs to self-correct each other. :-) The correct information will bubble up to the surface sooner or later.
Yes, but not before causing irreparable damage and pain to the person, program and/or organization.
Mistakes happen and they can be fixed within a few minutes. The more eyes and blog posts that are out there, the quicker the correct information is brought out in the open.
Jared - I have to disagree. It doesn’t matter how quickly mistakes can be fixed. Bloggers and Vloggers still need to take more responsibility in finding facts before releasing it. It is like if some of bloggers or vloggers are trying to be first in breaking a news before others. We need to reflect Noelle’s statement above that v/bloggers “should always hold themselves up to the highest ethical standards (i.e. journalism)when reporting on matters like this.” It is happening too often these days.
In the past couple of days, there were some inaccurate information that hurt some individuals/groups and that is not good. Maybe it is time for us to discuss Vlog/Blog Standards that will help and elevate Deaf people and organizations in positive way.
Upward we go!
Joey,
I’m not saying that bloggers should start making up things or write whatever they want without first doing some due research. What I am saying is that if they post something that turns out to be incorrect, I have faith that the large swarm of bloggers and commentors will be able to correct the information.
I believe any blogger worth his/her salt would be very careful while composing blog posts and be quick to correct anything that may turn out to be inaccurate.
Because none of us are professionals, we cannot be held to the same standards of newspaper reporters nor be afforded the same level of respectability. Bloggers can still express their ideas/opinions/report news and over time, the swarm of readers will come to an implicit understanding of who is more reputable than the others. This is an systematic response from an organic structure that is made up of many different invididuals.
Misinformation is a fact of life on the Internet and you can’t simply believe everything that you read or see out there. I always give any piece of information/news a short time delay to see if it can stand up to the wisdom of the crowd and become more reputable and trustworthy over time.
Jared, I agree that bloggers and journalists belong to two distinct categories - but the line is being blurred even more these days. Also, I feel that we owe a higher sense of duty to our audience. If we want to band together as the deaf community with common needs, then we need to deliver nothing but the highest standard in our blogging. You’re blessed with a level of critical thinking that may not be so readily accessible to a large portion of our audience (if taking into account that English is not their native language). In sum, we have to hold ourselves to higher expectations because we’re an oppressed minority (and by “oppressed”, I am simply referring to the inequality we experience, nothing more).
Jared and Joey,
Both of you are right.
Jared is right, the blogosphere *can* act as a self-correcting mechanism. And misinformation is indeed a fact of life.
However, I agree with Joey that Jared is describing the deaf blogosphere with rose-colored glasses. Jared has “faith” in the deaf blogosphere to correct itself. Speaking from experience prior to joining DeafDC.com, a lot of erroneous and damaging information about individuals and organizations was posted and judging from the comments, was accepted as fact. No one had presented a strong counter-argument to correct the erroneous information.
Here’s another situation that I brought up at the V/Blogging Conference that Jared responded to. Understand, Jared and I agree to disagree on this issue. If a private citizen’s dirty laundry is aired on the deaf blogosphere, Jared feels that the person should defend themselves by creating their own blog. I have to heartily disagree with that position for two reasons. First, if you do not want to participate in the deaf blogosphere that pretty much makes you unable to defend yourself. And second, even if you are able to defend yourself, the information is still there for the public to view (and probably for an eternity).
For example, if someone aired Jared’s dirty laundry, even if the information may or may not be accurate, it is still information stored in my memory. When I hear Jared’s name or talk with Jared I will remember that information about him whether or not it is accurate. I may even erroneously judge him based on that information, even though I may be as smart as J.J. Puorro (I hope so). I am human after all. Is that fair to poor Jared?
J.J. Puorro explains that people should take blogs with a grain of salt, and he is right. Yet, I would like to direct J.J. Puorro to moi’s blog and read some of the comments thanking moi for the information about the CMP and lamenting it closure. The same could be said of the blog about CIs and hybrids.
Let’s say that we have a system like the Dept. of Homeland Security Advisory System to rate the level of critical thinking skills by deaf blog readers as a whole. Green (low) means a HIGH level of critical thinking and red (high) means that there is a LOW level of critical thinking. I may be pessimistic, but I would put the deaf blogosphere at color code red. The self-correcting mechanism that Jared talks about needs to actually take place on a much more frequent basis as well as more bloggers taking more responsibility for their content and holding others up to those same standards.
This is why I think it is wise to take a position of preaching responsibility and accountability rather than lauding the power of self-correction in the blogosphere.
Ouch. Well, it’s good to know that we have honest, responsible bloggers out there who will retract their mistakes. Mistakes do happen, despite following a code of ethics sometimes.
I was faced with a similar situation recently. I got an e-mail tipping me off about something, but since I did not have any independent sources to verify the information, I declined to blog about it. And I think I made the right decision.
My rule of thumb is: Get at least TWO sources that can independently verify your information before you blog it. Obviously I wouldn’t need a second source if someone like the CEO of NAD gave me information about NAD itself… but in MANY situations, it’s smart to do that, in my opinion.
False information on both blogs got “best of deaf blogs and news” stamp of approval from DeafRead. Explain that.
Second that!! How could Deafread endorse a blog full of misinformation due to unverified sources and unjustified headlines?? Is beyond me!! Says a lot about the editors, doesn’t it?? Borders on hypocrisy. Me thinks because Tayler Mayer was chosen as person of year, the editors felt their hands were tied?? I feel the editors should have had more intregrity and be for blogsphere than for individual blogs. Amy Cohen Efron is blunt and honest, and I hope she will nip at the other editors’ heels and keep them in line!
Hmm. I’m not so sure.
I think this really has nothing to do with DeafRead. They take it with a grain of salt just like JJ Puoro #79596 commented here. They see what they see. They read what they read.
If they had to confirm every b/vlog; it’d take forever for the editors to confirm every single facts out there.
Even so, we would still read ‘em without the help of DeafRead. Heck, I’m sure many of you read Ridorlive.com faithfully before DeafRead.com was born.
I am not discussing censorship or moderating posts. I am talking about endorsing such a blog for awards. That is quite different between accepting posts and nominating and putting the blog on the list for an award. Doing this, they are saying the blog is deserving of an award and they support the blog. Now they are saying “wait, we need to moderate. We need to make bloggers accountable.” Talk about an oxymoron. The editors need to finetune what kind of reputation/image they want their blog to reflect. Right now, I’d day they’re skating on thin ice by continually entering oxymoronic entries. I feel they are trying to be “politically correct.”
Tulip — it is obvious that you do not check blog awards on different sites other than DeafRead.com. They are all about *popularity* — people gets to vote their favorite ones, so what DeafRead.com did was to run the polls, and let people nominate and vote! DeafRead does NOT select the winners!
I repeat, DeafRead simply conducted the polls, nothing personal.
RidorLIVE.com’s Person of the Year has nothing to do with this at all.
Capisce?
R-
Hmmmm…then how come deafread’s nomination winners were all from Deafread, and not from other sites? By allowing your blog in as a nominatee, they endorse your blog. There is no other way around it, no matter how you try. The point being made here is that it is a double standard when DeafDC is saying we all must be responsible with providing accurate information from verifable sources, and Deafread jumped on this bandwagon as well not too long ago. Yet, they both allowed your blog to be nominated. This is a conflicting message. The point is both DeafDC and Deafread editors need to, as well as everyone else, be held accountable for what they have said. No point in being “politically correct” by saying we all must be responsible and turn around and practice double standards. This is something for the editors to think about and what they want for their blogs - be transparent with intregrity or be politically correct and follow the trend or platforms? We all know politicans try to sell their platforms and what they say are not necessarily what they believe in or value in. Is this what DeafDC and Deafread is doing? Or do they truly value for their bloggers to be responsible in providing verifiable sources and posts? This is a fine line because we do have our 1st amendment to protect us….
DeafRead doesn’t endorse any blog by the mere act of publishing it. The editors use their judgement to select those blog posts that we feel would be of interest to a wide audience. Don’t shoot the messenger :-)
We leave it up to the readers to make their own personal judgement on the blog posts.
Yes, Blogs and Vlogs can both bring positive and negative information. Sometimes bloggers will report fault information about a person or Deaf-related-agency and that either destruct or hurt the person or agency. We all need to be very careful about what we write or make videos about a topic. I’m a firm believe of ALWAYS check your sources or even contact the person or agency to verify the information before posting for the world to see.
I enjoy reading different topics and cringe whenever a person or agency are “being attacked” by a blogger or vlogger. I think it’s too bad. Attack the issue, not the person or agency.
whoa the way everyone praising moi for her info abt the cmp and many critising shane u would think he did something wrong and is the villian here…no one is applauding shane for what he did
People, this is the “freaking internet!”
Anyone who reads this stuff has to do so with a grain of salt.
I mean not even the New York Times can stop a reporter from fabricating a story.
True, but let’s not make the assumption that regular newspapers are so much better at this than we are. The regular, so-called “professional” media screws things up all of the time.
That is a gorgeous point. Gorgeous enough I might hafta kiss your feet the next time I see you. The judgment is in our heads, not in what we read.
Allison, that’d make my day when I see you kiss Chris’ feet. :-)
R-
Gotta disagree. The “War of the World” broadcast, for one, demonstrated the power of the media to induce hysteria. The Internet is faceless, much as radio was (back then the FCC was a very different regulator and didn’t necessarily license stations with the intent to make them public trustees). So, you see bloggers who act in self-interest and on whim, and don’t see themselves as trustees, though they should. For them to just leave it to readers to distinguish between good and nutty posts is burdensome.
I’d think bloggers should demonstrate minimum standards. Such as?
1) When there’s a breaking news tidbit, there should be a direct link.
2) If not, then the blogger should at least name the source. And corroboration should be standard… go for two or three sources.
This blogger is asking off the hook… for what? For misjudging his/her source to be “unimpeachable.” Sounds like saving face rather than making amends. This isn’t the deaf blogland righting itself but a knee-jerk CYA reaction.
Self-righting would be a blogger issuing breaking news with disclaiming language such as “According to SOURCEX…” then another blogger posting “Actually, this press release says differently. See here…”
Self-righting is not “Oops, I thought my source was reliable. Live and learn. The NAD’ll weather this on their own.”
Glenn, I am NOT saying “Oops. C’est la vie.” Please go to my blog and read my latest post… and re-read my comment here as well. I believe I made it clear that I accept responsibility for my mistake. I acknowledge that what I did was wrong, and in my view, inexcusable. I am NOT asking to be “let off the hook,” as you put it, Glenn. Thanks.
I’d like to rephrase, if I may. Glenn, I’m inferring that you now look upon me (or at the very least my posting that danged post) with revulsion. That’s your prerogative, and I’m certainly in no position to object. However, I *am* in a position to say that I believe your characterization of my attempts to rectify some of the damage is inaccurate and to ask you to check what’s already been posted.
That said, you and I are on the same page regarding the need for bloggers (and commenters, in my opinion) to see themselves as trustees. You raised some good points. Thank you for that.
And JJ, the NYT did stop the reporter (Jayson Blair) from fabricating stories: He was fired. : )
Repercussions should be equal to the deed. One view of justice. Then again, to forgive is divine…
Jayson Blair was fired by the New York Times once his fabrications came to light.
On the other hand, the treatment given to Judith Miller with all her connections, all her anonymous sources, “senior administration officials,” and the breathless (and false) stories of WMDs in Iraq, adding to the war drums in 2002 and 2003, is vastly different than that of Blair.
I have not been impressed by the gullibility of both the blogosphere and the mainstream media in failing to differentiate fact from spin. But I am glad that Shane took the time to point out that the story as posted was false. I think that the mainstream media fails to police itself or even recognize where it has failed in correcting errors.
jj so what moi did is ok and shane is overreacting…ok
Um, wow. First, thanks to those of you who understand that it was an honest mistake on my part. That doesn’t excuse it, though, much as I appreciate your support and/or understanding. Noelle and Pundit, I would not have posted if my source were not unimpeachable (or so it SEEMED) - I absolutely agree with you guys. (note: I’m not confirming nor denying where I got my information, out of respect for the individual involved. Much as I’d love to blame the person for misinforming me, it is my responsibility and mine alone that it ended up on my blog.) And, yup, double-check… which I did, but I didn’t wait for replies before I posted. *That* was my mistake. A detailed explanation of what is really up with CMP with info directly from the upper echelons of the administration there as well as what happened will be up on my blog after I get home and in front of a computer. Again, I apologize and accept responsibility for my post last night. Thanks, Shane, for pointing out that we, all of us bloggers (and commenters too, in my opinion) need to be responsible when we post entries and/or comments.
Hey, it happens. Owning up to it is what’s important. :)
moi,
I agree with WSS, and you did the right thing. If anything it increases my respect for you.
I second WSS and Shane’s comment. No worries there, Moi! :)
Thanks, everyone, for your kindness. *smile* It is very much appreciated, even while I regret the whole thing. Thanks… :)
Thanks, WSS. *rueful smile*
E’body, the post clarifying the CMP changes is up at my blog now.
Moi:
I appreciate you doing that. To err is to be human. What makes you more human is you’re willing to acknowledge your mistake.
I find it interesting that those misinformed reports in the media about the Unity for Gallaudet protestors were allowed to happen. These people are well versed in journalism. Why wasn’t this issue raised? Just my observation.
I agree with you - we only saw one side of the protests in the newspapers. And I also think the same is happening with the war in Iraq; a lot of good things are actually happening over there (according to some of the Iraqis), but our media chooses only to publish the bad.
Can you back up that claim of the media focusing only on the bad? (I don’t actually expect names of these Iraqis.) I’m asking only because I could always use more citations for that general claim, which is pretty much my thesis statement for my grad paper.
For starters, Anthony Shadid’s “Night Draws Near” really did it for me - it tells the story from the Iraqis’ perspective. Yes, some pages will make you wince (as an American) but you leave feeling like you’ve finally heard both sides of the story.
Look at http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/, for instance, or http://www.pajamasmedia.com/. There are places to go if you look hard enough. Some of these have been around since GWII.
This is a false premise echoed by right-wing posters. Did you know that there are more than 150 bombings a day on our troops in Iraq? What good things can happen in all the middle of all that violence?
That still doesn’t address the point I was trying to make - the media does distort the truth. Headlines, omission of facts, and choice of wording all contribute to media bias (note that I am not condoning the war), which *is* a fact of life, whether you like it or not. You saw how it happened with the Gallaudet protests, why deny the same for the Iraq war?
This article written by a soldier quite nicely conveys how I sometimes feel:
http://www.worldtribune.com/wo.....55557.html
The media distorts the truth according to biases, whether institutional (Fox) or personal (Judith Miller, John Solomon), etc.
When I was in the newspaper business, you were supposed to be as objective as possible. This goal has either been abandoned in the wayside in the last few years or was never an achievable ideal in the first place.
To Jt: Media distortion is unfortunate, but likely true. I think magnification is more accurate… you report on a plane crash, not a succesful landing; thus, on bombings and not on quiet. But I nonetheless agree… we’re being denied the whole story.
…how about, the people well-versed in journalism were *not* misinformed about the Gallaudet protests? That makes sense to me, really.
Heh. An unpopular viewpoint, but arguably one that has a lot to go for it.
I knew it was a rumor but that is the major problem of anyone doing the blog, they jumped to conclusion without any research or investigation. In this case, it shows how people read the information and misinform the readers. Makes me wonder if these people who put out the blogs know how to read. Does that apply deaf people having up to 5th grade reading level?
Guess Who,
Good question, I have wondered if the reading levels of deaf people (which is generally accepted as behind that of hearing people) have resulted in a level of critical thinking skills that is lower than the hearing community.
You are confusing reading level with intelligence. Do not fall into that trap of assuming that a 5th grade reading level somehow translates into a lack of critical thinking.
If anything, I’d assign this to a cultural propensity rather than lack of critical thinking. Information is very important in the Deaf community and it is, I think, a community requirement to pass on and share information with others. The lowest common denominator of this propensity may be passing along unsubstantiated rumors as fact.
It’s hard to say really. But yeah, I would lean towards there being a correlation between critical thinking and reading skills. The more you read, the more concepts you’re exposed to, and you’re better able to compare these concepts and decide which one makes the most sense.
And once you move onto sophisicated reading materials, it also does teach you some critical thinking skills. For instance, take philosophy. That requires excellent reading comprehension skills. And philosophy - particularly ethics - does teach you a LOT of critical thinking skills.
I’m not saying a deaf person with low reading skills aren’t intelligent. There are many variations of intelligence. It’s just that critical thinking skills is the main avenue of gauging intelligence in general, unfortunately.
Yes, always question the source like I said in my recent vlog on Deaf Driver, watch out! I have seen many deaf people falling for this picture and jumping to conclusions easily.
I like to look at the primary source or documents to back up the information and that is what a historican tends to do; however, there are errors made by them as well not just by those 5th grade level deaf readers. Heck, media isn’t perfect either!
Yes, that’s right, look at how Washington Post made some erroneous coverage on Gallaudet. We are to be critical thinkers on making decision whether if it is true. When I read about Moi’s blog on CMP, I had doubts because I was registered and used this service for my students recently. I just decided not to accept this as a fact until I get CMP’s confirmation but Shane beat me to it. So thanks for saving my time!!
The budget for the Caption Media Program (CMP) seems to have been slashed last January and their output will be down to 75 new movies a year. But that’s not bad news at all. We can take over this program. We can crank out about 300-plus new captioned movies a year using our volunteers who want to learn how to become captioners. We can easily outbid the current purveyors of captioning services. We’re even getting a lot of help from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to crank up our captioning services. The U.S. Department of Education had been fleeced by the ‘Big Deaf Industry Complex’ all these years and that is changing now and that’s part of the evolution of the deaf society.
“We can take over this program.”
Can the ‘Old Deaf Guard’ help, too?
(cough)nut(cough)
Please forgive me if this is a stupid question, but the article does not say how the NAD was harmed despite the title. I know the potential for harm is there but I’m not aware of any specific harm the NAD suffered here. So, what’s the harm?
That’s not a stupid question. Here are some examples of ways that incorrect information can harm an organization. In this case, the NAD and CMP have to dedicate time and resources to correct the error. That is time and resources diverted from other issues.
And even that effort will not always be successful. Some people read a blog once, and never bother to read the comments, subsequent comments after reading the blog or even the follow up retraction in a following blog entry. Some CMP consumers may actually believe that the CMP is closed for good and stop using their service. Fortunately we nipped the bud before it got out of hand. Other inaccurate information in the deaf blogosphere probably has not met the same amount of immediate scrutiny.
When I worked at the NAD I remember going to trade shows, events, and other gatherings where people would ask me if something was “true” about the NAD. I was surprised at some of the errors and quickly corrected the information.
Question,
Here is an example of the NAD expending time and energy to correct false information in the deaf blogosphere:
http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp.....;b=2556639
On another note this announcement by Gallaudet University was just made concerning the deaf blogosphere (it has nothing to do with false information though):
http://news.gufssa.com/2007/03.....-progress/
Let the “CMP reporting fisaco” be the true lesson for every deaf/Deaf bloggers and vloggers about how important of source verification before posting anything on the blog/vlog. Deaf blogger/vlogger also ought to remind
I was kinda gullible about the closing of CMP program which I usually double-check every news source for my own personal benefit. I did not have any time to double check the source. I was skeptical about the CMP report at first, then embraced it with the benefit of doubt.
Another issue is personal slander/intentional smear of someone deaf on the blog/vlog. I have been a victim of smear campaign, disinformation, misinformation and inaccurate information about me as a person.
For example, the DeafDC.com or another deaf blog did not delete or censor someone deaf;s entry message smeared my name with “pedophile” or “sexually harassed students” which were very hurtful and replusive for me seeing such false and inaccurate information targeted me.
I did not contact the DeafDC.com or another deaf blogger for deleting the same inaccurate info which I had a mixed feelings about the so-called censorship practices. I had to respond to this false accusation and confronted the e-user.
Shane is absolutely right about many people tend to remmy anything negative or bad about anyone whether those information were factually inaccurate or wholly false.
Shane and the DeafDC.com is no better themselves like letting someone falsely smear or slander me “pedophile”.
I did consider about suing the DeafDC.com for letting someone slander me, but I personally have much respect for Rob Rice.
I just want a formal apology from the DeafDC.com for letting someone unjustly smear me “pedophile” which I am NOT the person.
I will do the same thing with one of deaf blogger for letting someone called me “pervert” and “sexually harassed”. I personally stands for the freedom of expression and speech, but some people could not tell the difference between truth and disinformation.
I notice lately that some people have the change of attitude toward me for what I am falsely accused or intentionally smeared.
Let me repeat that I am no pedophile or whatever some people call me.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLM,
We just searched for the comments that you referred to and removed them. We apologize for overlooking that comment. We try to diligently monitor all comments and remove anything that violates our terms and conditions.
http://www.deafdc.com/blog/wp-.....s/toc.html
Should anyone have any concerns about the content of any blogs or comments, he/she must email the DeafDC.com manager immediately to have them removed. Please email info -at- deafdc.com.
Robert, do u mean that you always have the right to smear Dr. Jane Fernandes and her supporters numerous times, maybe over fifty times while no one can say about you?
not to mention, he smears a lot of other people too.
Shane,
I was trying to make pros and cons about the so-called misinformation or slanderous intents on the Deaf Blogsphere.
If not for the DeafDC.com removed such offensive or slanderous intent, I would not learn about some people making ugly rumors behind my back. So I could confront someone with accurate information, etc.
You and the DeafDC.com did step in and scold some individuals about the rules within the DeafDC.com last December. You done the good job of de-intesifying the given situation anyway.
I would not hold the DeafDC.com any legal responsibility for someone else’s message, because I love you, all the DeafDC.com for giving me an opporunity to pontificate and express my inner thoughts.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
weve seen tayler mayer defend n support ridor and ridor do the same for tayler … deafread and ridorlive what an beautiful relationship
Please review the DeafDC.com Terms and Conditions before posting your comments:
http://www.deafdc.com/blog/wp-.....s/toc.html
“It’s simple. Do not make any offensive, personal attacks on other commenters or DeafDC.com bloggers. This kind of behavior will not be tolerated. Action taken may range from deletion of offending comment to site-wide ban, with or without notice.
If you have any questions, please contact info –at– deafdc.com.”
Blue Fox and Working Brain and other readers, I criticized Jane Fernandes and IKJ for their leadership qualities and human characters with all the whole truth. Nothing fictionous or slanderous intent.
I am making the point about the deaf blog/vlog in general if someone INTENTIONALLY smear another individual without backing up any proof or collobrative evidence.
Let give me some example of one deaf individual, who happens to go out on two-weeks vacation. Someone intentionally smear hir (his and her) name which he/she is aware of this particular deaf individual not able to conduct in hir own self-defense to defuse such allegation or false slander. That’s what I am talking about!
I pointed out to one deaf blog as an example of how could we possibly self-defense ourselves if any of us do not aware of such existing smear or slander targeting the particular deaf individual. How can we resolve this issue without slandering anyone unfairy with all falsehood?
I still stand by my comments regarding Jane Fernandes and I. King Jordan which are all factual. Neither of them did not come to the self-defense and make any rebuttal. That tell much about those individuals or other people hiding under the shadow or refuse to make any rebuttal or to correct such an inaccurate information regarding themselves.
I would greatly appreciate that you, Blue Fox and Working Brain find anything that I did make such smear comments toward Jane Fernandes and I. King Jordan. Give me a list of smear comments toward JK and IKJ I previously make! I CHALLENGE BOTH OF YOU!
Before closing this comment, why would you use online anonymous e-user name?? I use my own real name without hiding anything or behind the pretentious alias.
That is the real difference between psychological warfare and intentional smear campaign to discredit someone.
I do recall that I did call JK a pathological liar on one of the deaf blog. I also call IKJ a manipulator on different blog. I use my own real name. I have nothing to hide behind the pretenious online alias. :)
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
Sometimes a smear job can be disguised as an accusation and can be hard to differentiate at times as to the intent behind it. This could be the case when one is trying to discredit a person publicly over a variety of reasons. Doing so can be seen as a smear job by others.