A Comment on Deaf Read
Drama! Drama! Drama! DeafDirt! Come read this post! NOW NOW NOW
There. Now I’ve done my part to convince people to come read this post. In reality, I don’t dish out drama or gossip, for the most part; I tend to take rather sober, sometimes dry, but mostly thoughtful takes on many topics.
Usually a post is composed of two parts: the post itself, and the comments. Our current drama revolves around Deaf Read and its role in our community. A number of people (including myself) are rightly bothered by the quality of blogs and comments of late, and how harmful and destructive some people’s behavior has been. Quite a few people have expressed disappointment with Deaf Read, to the point that some have left or are thinking about leaving.
My last post was about my take on the issue, and a plea of sorts for people to reconsider before they continue to split the community further. I received a dozen or so comments in response, with a near unanimous number being thoughtful remarks.
Normally, I leave comments in the comments section. But while I was typing a response to Joey Baer, I realized what I wanted to say was perhaps too important (at least to me) to leave in the comments area, where only a handful of people will probably bother reading it. Additionally, a few others made good points that I think need to be shared. So I’m dragging up some comments to make a posted comment on Deaf Read and the current situation.
First, Joey– the man needs no introduction. He was kind enough to read my blog, and then to leave his own thoughts. Here’s what he had to say:
“I still believe that DeafRead is partially responsible. If b/vloggers kept on telling each other that we must raise our bars by doing better jobs, why can’t DeafRead raise their own bars as well? It is time for DeafRead to set higher expectations from Deaf v/bloggers to do better job in order to reach on their front page. If they really care about Deaf community, they would do it instantly and they haven’t.
Other than that, thank you for sharing your thoughts by outlining specific excellent examples on how people were pushed off DeafRead.
I simply closed my door but I didn’t lock it. I have other things to do that is more important than DeafRead at this moment but I will keep my eyes open (I have always done that). 
”
In response, here’s what I replied:
“Joey, thanks for stopping by. I think you have made some good points on your vlogs, but I also think others have made good points as well, from moi on Random Thoughts and Musings, to Ben Vess on his most recent post. I think both of them are right.
I’d say I’m somewhere in the middle. I think Deaf Read has a responsibility to follow its own rules and standards; so where posts and inclusion of posts are concerned, yes, I think Deaf Read needs to reconsider its rules, and work on applying even standards all around. This appears to be what moi and you would like to see.
However, where comments are concerned, I’m in complete agreement with Tayler (and this seems to be what Ben Vess is driving at as well). There is absolutely no way the editors at Deaf Read can control the comments, or be expected to spend their time wading through comments and judging posts by them. That takes far more time than they have. All of the Deaf Read team have other responsibilities, including jobs. They are not paid full-time to babysit Deaf Read. They are largely volunteering their time in service to the community.
Each of us who owns a blog have ways to screen comments– I don’t moderate my comments, but I know moi does, and many others of you do. THAT is our responsibility, and we need to step up and be more proactive about maintaining a fair playing field for all.
I’m glad you’re keeping the door unlocked. Let’s hope in the future you’ll re-open it.
What I see as part of the problem as well is we all have our own version of what Deaf Read should be. This isn’t possible. As I said on Ben Vess’ blog in the comments, “…Deaf Read will never please anyone everyone, because if Deaf Read changes to satisfy one group of people, a different group will object. The key is finding a balance that meets the more crucial needs/concerns.”
We’re going to have find a balance here, people. Tayler’s offered to talk to us, via his recent posting on the official Deaf Read blog. Those of us who truly want to find a solution need to take him up on this, and start talking it out. Otherwise, nothing will be solved, and we’ll just be right back at square one again.
We’ll also end up going through this again if we don’t get to the root of the problem. Sheri Farinha Mutti stopped by to comment as well, and I think she hit the nail on the head, so to speak: we need to ask ourselves WHY this happened. It isn’t just a matter of venting our frustrations towards Deaf Read, or trying to start the healing overnight (something I’m guilty of as well). We need to first step back and really examine why this came about in the first place. Once we understand that, only then can we truly work towards a solution that will (hopefully) prevent this from happening again.
If we can’t do this, then there isn’t much of a community, is there? It won’t matter if people split off and start another organization; it’ll just happen again a few months from now, when people have drifted away from this current mess, things get calm again, then– blam. All over again.
My opening sentence indicates part of the problem: too many people come for the drama. Look at the posts on Deaf Read with the highest view counts: they’re the ones that offer sensationalism, drama, gossip. If we don’t want to encourage that, why do we feed the fire? Someone commented recently on another blog that they don’t pay attention to my blogs because I don’t write “sexy” titles. While writing a title and a post that grabs people’s attention is an important factor, I think the content is far more important than the glitz. Unfortunately, this is not a symptom limited to our community. All you have to do is look at the headlines on TV and in the newspapers these days. We were far more concerned with Paris Hilton than we were with much more serious matters. We’re being fed information about Christie Brinkley’s divorce trial while Congress essentially shreds the Fourth Amendment.
As always, there’s more I want to say, but I think I’ve offered enough for us all to ponder for now.
Sandman,
Another good thoughtful post. I’m definitely gonna make you one of my faves. Nothing else really to add though…. all good points here. I especially like your last line in the next to last paragraph. (Which one is the 4th Amendment, anyway? The one about unreasonable search, right?)
–DonG.
Mr. Sandman!
You are right on target! I would like to take a note that people have different views on the situation, for example, you view the situation as drama, other viewers would think it was immature, soap opera, grow up, and etc… To me, it was very educating for me. I read books about Deaf-related. Then I witnessed what was going on in DeafRead really help me to understand these books and the Deaf community even more. I think it was our first time that we are aware on what we see. I think it is a good thing so we can move our status and dialogue to a higher level. I wonder maybe it is them that need to grow up and realizes DeafRead invite different kind of people and different ways of delivering their messages on their blogs and vlogs. Tayler listens. He will stand by what he feels what is right. He will give a thought. Sometimes we do not agree with some of his decisions and we will need to come to agree to disagree. I always have enjoyed reading your blogs. :o)
Aidan
Like Aidan, I have always enjoyed reading your blogs and I was disappointed when you went a short LOA for a few months ;o)
As I have said several times before, DeafRead did succeed in showing diversity in the deaf community. It is interesting to see how we react to the diversity, disagreeing and agreeing… as well as embracing and rejecting. Aidan said an interesting point… that DeafRead was just a Deafhood journey for all of us, albeit on an individual level for each of us.
But yes, Taylor is right… it is up to the bloggers/vloggers to moderate AND up to the commenters to choose words wisely (or unwisely, depending on others’ perspective, which we have NO control over.)
Glad to see you blogging more :o)
Sandman,
You’re such a good writer. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Come back more often!
~ LaRonda
Gotcha, I am same with you. I am done bloggings for few months. I rarely made comments on any bloggeings. Yes, I just made more comments recently since I realized I need push myself more openness with somebody’s bloggings like you.
Looking forward your future blogging.
Cheers,
Charles B. Downing - The Rogue
“We’ve got to be responsible, somebody’s got to be responsible for it.” - Sir George Downing
Reading about this DeafRead mess… two thought comes to me:
1) If DeafRead raises the bar standards i.e. enforces standards, as Joey Baer suggests, they would be hit, criticized & accused as controlling, manipulating, interfering with freedom of speech, and all that.
2) Does the stuff on DeafRead really appeal to the majority? I doubt it. We still need to deal with what the heck happened to DeafRead. Its so boring nowaways.
We can argue all we want but how do we make DeafRead fascinating, cool, cutting edge, interactive, etc q
Ha ha ha, you pulled me in with the first sentence ;-).
Interesting point about a post being two parts, the second of which DR can’t control and which tends to spiral out. It’s obvious when you point it out, but I hadn’t thought of it that way.
Thanks, again, for a thoughtprovoking post.
I’m with LaRonda
Way to go Mr. Sandman! Starting yesterday and whenever I can, I ask bloggers and vloggers to remove comments at their sites when the comments are destructive and I shall keep doing this because I believe this is where it all begins and ends. DR cannot and that was the major thrust of Tayler’s message yesterday.
Hi, Mr. Sandman,
Thank you for your well thought out blogs, I have really enjoyed reading them. It is really a painful time and I am glad people are trying to come together to discuss it openly with open arms.
There is one concern… I think in general, we are confusing two things here. One is the concern for the “contamination” of the deaf blogsphere with negative name calling and degrading comments that are not constructive. The second concern being the blogs/vlogs that Deafread’s editors created that were posted on the front page by Deafread’s editors during and after the DBC conference.
Please revisit Amy’s vlog where she brought up her concerns about DBC’s “Gearing Up” blog and read the comments posted in response to this vlog. This was one the first few vlogs/blogs that surfaced at the beginning of DBC’s conference:
http://blog.deafread.com/abcohende/2008/06/27/message-to-dbc/
( I really would like to encourage that you see the vlog again and read the comments again even if you already saw it a few weeks ago :- ) )
After revisiting this vlog and reading its comments including Joey’s comments, I was able to better understand where he is coming from. My understanding now is one of his concerns here — the blogs/vlogs created by Deafread’s editors that raised concerns about DBC that started the dialogue that showed opposing views that cracked the foundation of support for DBC at a critical time when we needed to show POSTIVE UNITY in the Deaf community for DBC. As a result, this immediately revealed the divisions within the Deaf/deaf community. More vlogs/blogs were posted on DR’s front page that raised additional concerns about DBC including additional posts created by DR editors. The negative comments that followed, Hell broke loose. I can see how this can be viewed by some people as a bias within DR in which they (the certain editors who created their own blogs/vlogs to express their concerns) are in the position of “power” to be able to fuel or dampen the flames on the deaf blogsphere.
After revisiting Amy’s vlog,please ask yourself this:
How could all of this been prevented?
Raising DR’s standards (or revamp their guidelines) not to post flamer blogs/vlogs that will reveal the divisions within the Deaf community? In other words, keep quiet about our opinions until after the DBC conference (or other “movements”) to discuss our concerns with the leaders behind closed doors afterwards?
Should DR editors be allowed to comment their thoughts in their blogs/vlogs and have the power to approve those posts on the front page? Is this neutral?
Could all of this been prevented if more people were involved with DBC from the beginning and its members allowed to express their opinions in an atmosphere that accepts all views (no closed doors or booting out its Deaf/deaf members who are “deficit thinkers”)?
What if DBC’s Public Relations had been more postive in a way that celebrated ASL rather than taking shots at AGBell (emotional baggage)?
Who is to blame for this? DBC or Deafread?
It has been my experience that bad Public Relations, no transparency and non-inclusiveness is a recipe for disaster where there is democracy. How is this expected to be shown in the eyes of the media (DBC)? Is it possible to be “neutral” in this way (Deafread)?
Deafread in a way is becoming a powerful VOICE for the Deaf/deaf Community. We need to remember, it is not a fact finding newspaper that can distinguish facts from fiction. It is not a non-profit organization that can make a difference for the Deaf/deaf community. It is valuable to us as a communication tool because of the unique needs of the Deaf/deaf community. Maybe we need to look into creating the same tools for all of our non-profit organizations like NAD that will allow us to voice our concerns (open forums?), vote and make proposals from a distance? Let’s move our discussions and energy to the right places — get more involved in NAD, CAD and other deaf non-profit organizations even if you don’t agree with what they are doing right now (Hello, Ben Vess?). Pay more attention to their motions, get involved in their voting process and speak up first before we express our “beefs” with them on the internet.
I am afraid DBC went in the wrong direction when it did not involve all of its members in the decision making process. Where were the “checks and balances” in this non-profit organization (Hello CAD?)? Would this have prevented the bad PR? If there had been bylaws in place with all members involved to vote, maybe all of this would have not happened?
Does Deafread have a “checks and balances” system in place? No, because it is owned privately by Tayler whom we should respect. He did a wonderful thing for all of us, lets not forget that… It is such a valuable communication tool that meets the needs of an unique community. Would he consider bringing Deafread to go “public” to allow more involvement from the community to have a say on their guidelines, vote for new human editors and set up independent committees for problems that come up like following through to check on the facts and banning people from Deafread? Maybe this is the “checks and balances” we need to prevent biased human editors/false information/unfair bans? I have been saddened to see that no one registered on his website to propose solutions to this problem. Is it because most of us need to stay anonymous because of the risk of losing our jobs or the respect for our opinions in the D/d community? Would it work if we can find a way around this such as voting in private like we do as private citizens for major elections?
This is really getting complicated. It is heartbreaking to see all of this show further divisions the Deaf commmunity. Come on everybody, please lets come together for UNITY for all…
Clarification… I am very much calling on bloggers and commenters to take greater individual responsibility too, not just DeafRead. The way I see it is that DeafRead needs to re-vamp how it approves posts for publication, and the rest of us need to self-moderate what we put out there in DeafBLogLand.
Otherwise, great post.
I hope Tayler does stay and talk this through with us… he is a valuable person in the online community.
Anon,
You wrote:
“Deafread in a way is becoming a powerful VOICE for the Deaf/deaf Community. We need to remember, it is not a fact finding newspaper that can distinguish facts from fiction. It is not a non-profit organization that can make a difference for the Deaf/deaf community. It is valuable to us as a communication tool because of the unique needs of the Deaf/deaf community. Maybe we need to look into creating the same tools for all of our non-profit organizations like NAD that will allow us to voice our concerns (open forums?), vote and make proposals from a distance? Let’s move our discussions and energy to the right places — get more involved in NAD, CAD and other deaf non-profit organizations even if you don’t agree with what they are doing right now (Hello, Ben Vess?). Pay more attention to their motions, get involved in their voting process and speak up first before we express our “beefs” with them on the internet.”
All I can say… AMEN!
This valuable communication tool can be utilized in other organizations, so that these organizations will much more dynamic and attuned to the community’s needs.
NAD made a big leap, by adding blogs to their website, and had an extra server space for vlogs. So that NAD can make this website/blogsite accessible for everyone. I wouldn’t be surprised that before the next biennial conference, that the members and delegates will use NAD website to submit motions, vote on them, and address concerns through the website.
We are advancing ourselves with technology that allows us to share our voice to the non-profit organizations and the transparency will naturally come to the place. I believe that an organization needs to be transparent all of the times, including the information on the website must be congruent to the mission and their members’ values and beliefs.
I agree with you. Let’s use this tool to unify us, and let our voices (dissenting or supporting) be heard. That is democracy. Our voices had been repressed for a long time in America, including within our community too.
Let’s stop repressing each other’s voices, and start listening to each other more with open mindedness, open heart and work our differences together.
As Sheri Farhina Mutti quoted before, “Why do we have those differences?” - I think the answer is already there, and out in the open. It is up to us to actually see the answer with an open mind and heart.
Amy Cohen Efron
Amy,
You don’t seem to understand exactly what a coalition is. Any group that would follow your prescription (above) would not be a coalition.
You are implying that hundreds of people are being dishonest and are acting hypocritically by your statement above.
There is NOTHING wrong with setting aside a particular issue in order to focus on a mission. If someone tried to set up a group like the DBC, but instead added opposition to CI’s in its mission statement, then you would lambast that group just as harshly.
What DO you want? Do you want the DBC to close down? Would that make you happy?
Great post Mr. Sandman!!
Like I wrote in Moi’s blog to these following quotes:
“if you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say it”; “take it or leave it” and “let it be”
I echoed Karen’s comment re. about vloggers/bloggers to moderate and commentators to choose words wisely.
To have an open mind and heart.
Susan (Toronto, Ontario)
k
Reason for hide agenda: Money.
DBC have ties associate with the Deafhood Foundation. Free publicity with Deafhood/DBC mean more Deafhood workshops profit Deafhood leaders financial.
Don, yes– the 4th amendment guarantees (or should I say guaranteed) protection against unreasonable searches. That’s what the fundamental issue was with FISA.
Aidan, I agree that in general, Tayler is reasonable. He will listen, and he will think about what people have to say. However, I also think you have pinpointed something here:
“Sometimes we do not agree with some of his decisions and we will need to come to agree to disagree.”
I think that’s what we may have to do is to agree to disagree. This doesn’t mean that we have to accept the status quo, and it is why I urged people to remain and help Deaf Read improve, rather than abandoning it.
Karen, La Ronda, Rogue, Deb Ann, and Susan — aw, thanks for the kind words! It’s comments and support from people like you that give me the energy to keep blogging. At the same time, I always welcome people who want to discuss, debate, and disagree. It keeps things level, provides me with a challenge (and helps exercise my mind!), and keeps this blog from turning into a lovefest (but keep those lovely comments coming anyway. *grin*).
BEG, great to see you back! I always enjoyed your posts, and was wondering if you had taken hiatus or if you were gone for good. Yes, it’s interesting how often the obvious gets overlooked. As for the first sentence, glad it worked; obviously the second one did too if you stayed to comment.
moi, thanks for the clarification; I agree- we need to talk to Tayler, and he to us. He is a valuable person in the community, whether online or off.
DT, Amy, Anon, and Anonymous– I’ll respond to you soon.
Good to see you back, Mr. Sandman.
I agree with what you’ve said - and I think it’s important that people recognize the distinction between truly destructive comments, and comments that ask very legitimate and difficult questions.
If we’re going to “elevate the discourse”, we’re going to have to ask hard questions. We’re not going to grow as a community if we’re not willing to face our own demons. That’s just how I see it.
Anon, thanks for your kind words at the beginning of your response. I’m glad people are enjoying being here and reading what I have to say.
I joined in the fray over what’s been going on in response to Ben Vess’ vlog and the comments I was seeing/hearing about. I hadn’t really considered Amy’s vlog (although I did see a subsequent post by her, one by Mishka Zena, etc. about concerns regarding the DBC).
I followed the link you provided (thank you!) and watched Amy’s vlog. I then followed the link *she* provided, and read the “Gearing Up” entry that prompted her vlog.
My thoughts? I am not a fan of Brian Riley– those of you who are long-time readers know I took him to task for his questionable behavior a while back. I agree with Amy; it was not a very positive note to begin the conference on (to his credit, Brian Riley was the first commenter, and acknowledged Amy’s opinion).
To win a battle, or even a war, persuasive arguments are much more effective than attacks. This is where I disagree with Joey– it’s not about being “nice” or being “mean” to AG Bell; it’s about being *persuasive*. I’ll discuss this more later on, actually. It’s an important point, and even if I don’t agree with you, I thank you for mentioning it.
Support for our community and its institutions is important, but so is constructive criticism. I didn’t see Amy’s vlog as trying to tear down DBC, but as offering constructive criticism. This actually exposes one of the problems we have in this community, and again, is something I will tackle soon in a post, rather than in the comments.
I think you subscribe too much importance to Amy; while she’s a vlogger who has an audience, I don’t think she’s *the* number one vlogger. Even if she was, there’s others of us who can easily engage her in a debate, or question CONSTRUCTIVELY her opinion. That’s part of what blogging and online conversations are about.
You ask:
“How could all of this been prevented?”
I don’t think it could have been prevented at all. Some people are willing to say rude, nasty things, regardless of the topic. It doesn’t help that online anonymity seems to embolden certain people who might not otherwise have the “courage” to behave the way they are doing were they doing it in person. I think there is a possible solution, but I’ll mention that in a post, where it’ll get more circulation (at least I *think* so– I *could* be wrong…). After reading the comments to the end, I see what you meant by “it all started here.” Seems like it did. However, that vlog and its subsequent comments section is one of the better ones I’ve read the last couple weeks. It’s just unfortunate that Barry Sewell chose to take the encouragement he received there and spin it off into a rather unethical website. If you’re going to point fingers at anyone, it should be Sewell and not Cohen-Efron.
As for this:
“Raising DR’s standards (or revamp their guidelines) not to post flamer blogs/vlogs that will reveal the divisions within the Deaf community? In other words, keep quiet about our opinions until after the DBC conference (or other “movements”) to discuss our concerns with the leaders behind closed doors afterwards?”
So you’re saying if we see something that isn’t being done right, or could be done differently, that instead of speaking up right away to prevent further harm/damage, we should instead wait until much later, when it’s too late to repair anything? I don’t think that’s a very effective approach.
Now you bring up an interesting set of questions:
“Should DR editors be allowed to comment their thoughts in their blogs/vlogs and have the power to approve those posts on the front page? Is this neutral?”
I think the editors should be allowed to comment; HOWEVER, I do think that when they blog/vlog on their own forums, they should not approve their own posts. That should be done by another editor. At the same time, our community is so small that avoiding conflicts or appearances of bias can be tricky. It’s an interesting question… why not ask Tayler? I’d like to see someone ask him that. He may not agree, but he’ll listen.
Oy… you are asking so many good questions and bringing up interesting issues here. I’m going to skip down a bit…
I agree with you– bad public relations is a recipe for disaster. That’s why damage control is important; I view Amy’s vlog that you pointed out for me to read as an example of damage control. Could she have gone behind the scenes and contacted Brian Riley? Sure. Would that have been a better move? Possibly.
I like what you said below:
“Maybe we need to look into creating the same tools for all of our non-profit organizations like NAD that will allow us to voice our concerns (open forums?), vote and make proposals from a distance? Let’s move our discussions and energy to the right places — get more involved in NAD, CAD and other deaf non-profit organizations even if you don’t agree with what they are doing right now (Hello, Ben Vess?). Pay more attention to their motions, get involved in their voting process and speak up first before we express our “beefs” with them on the internet.”
Excellent idea. DO share this with the organizations you mentioned. I’m willing to back you up.
Thanks again for stopping by– you’ve given me quite a bit to think about!
Amy, thanks for joining in this conversation! I think Anon brought up an interesting set of questions and concerns. I don’t know if you’re coming back to check the comments (I know sometimes it gets overwhelming keeping track of where we’ve all commented, and following the back and forth of it all!), but I’d like to ask this:
One of Anon’s concerns is that you criticized DBC during their conference. Do you think that a public vlog/blog is an effective means of constructive criticism? Are there times when going behind the scenes and contacting people privately is better (I think the answer is “yes” to both, and probably no-brainers). NOW– if the answer is “yes,” what should be the criteria for both? How can we as a community effectively support and at the same time improve our institutions and organizations?
Your thoughts?
DT– wonderful comment! I plan to use it in a post. Stay tuned!
Anonymous– try using a different alias. “Anonymous” is not a unique fake name, and is way too common. I understand not all of us are willing to reveal our identities, but consistency is important. Brenster isn’t using their real name, but has consistently used “Brenster.” Same is true for “moi”. Could you try picking something unique? “Anonymous” can and has been used by dozens of people, and I’m leery of interacting with “anonymous” when it could be anyone. Even if I don’t know the face behind the mask, it’d be nice to know on a regular basis who I’m interacting with.
Because of the use of “anonymous,” I may take steps to ensure there aren’t problems with this.
Also, what is “Deafhood Foundation”? You’re making arguments and assumptions based on no evidence I can see, and none that you are presenting.
Deaf Pundit, welcome back!
I agree with you 100%, and will follow up shortly.
ATTENTION!
Watch out for Charles B. Downing under The Rogue or rogue1668.wordpress.com. He is manipulating deaf people. It came to my attention that his blog weren’t honest and truthful. I cannot find any source to support his facts. Be careful.