19 March 2006
Funeral of Tara Rose McAvoy -
Even though it was a bit upsetting, we all knew the media would be there at the service... and they were, too, in full force. I saw at least 5 camera crews, meaning there would eventually be a closure story on such a tragedy. I have here 2 closure stories... I feel they are important to point out the instant gratification our society expects, but, in a rare time when emotions run high in America culture, perhaps the news crews' 'getting their story' is not appropriate. In any case, their persistence leaves us with two stories (as of right now). The Austin American Statesman story sometimes asks for subscriber info... try it again if it does, since the article here is much better than the first from News 8 Austin.
One last point I want to make is an extension from 17 March 2006 where I discussed the specific inclusion of the fact that the deaf interviewee is signing through an interpreter. I have, again, emailed ther author of the article to find out why they do this.
*** Interestingly enough, I just received an email from the first author (the author of the deaf protest against the doctor article) about why he included it. It follows below:
---
-----Original Message-----
From: HARLAN SPECTOR
To: Michael Shepard
Subject: Re: Deaf need interpreters article
Michael
The fact that people at this event communicated through an interpreter I think is not irrelevant considering that is what the protest was about. I would also add that when I interview someone who speaks a foreign language and the words are translated by a third party I also note that the person "said through an interpreter." Why? Because it's worth noting, in my opinion, that I did not hear the person's words directly.
Thanks for writing.
Regards,
Harlan Spector
>>> Michael Shepard >>>
I am not upset, but I was really curious about a trend in the media that
I have noticed. Why did you, in this article, point out that Sarah
Messina spoke through an interpreter? Here are the some conclusions
that a reader can draw from that statement:
1) the reporter doesn't know sign and wanted to specifically express
that lack of knowledge
2) the reporter unconsciously is patronizing the deaf through their
'inability' to communicate in spoken english
These are radical conclusions and I don't infer that they apply to you,
but they do logically follow from the inclusion of such an irrelevant
fact. So, my question is, again, why did you, in particular, and, more
generally, why do other reporters, specifically mention that the deaf
interviewee utilized an interpreter?
---
[Well clearly... I was just wondering if there was some other reason, but I guess it is just something to think they should do.] - TS
---
News 8 Austin. "Miss Deaf Texas remembered at funeral." news8austin.com 19 March 206. < http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=157612 >
Plohestki, Tony. "Family and friends mourn death of Miss Deaf Texas." Austin American Statesman, statesman.com 19 March 2006. < http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/03/19funeral.html >
Even though it was a bit upsetting, we all knew the media would be there at the service... and they were, too, in full force. I saw at least 5 camera crews, meaning there would eventually be a closure story on such a tragedy. I have here 2 closure stories... I feel they are important to point out the instant gratification our society expects, but, in a rare time when emotions run high in America culture, perhaps the news crews' 'getting their story' is not appropriate. In any case, their persistence leaves us with two stories (as of right now). The Austin American Statesman story sometimes asks for subscriber info... try it again if it does, since the article here is much better than the first from News 8 Austin.
One last point I want to make is an extension from 17 March 2006 where I discussed the specific inclusion of the fact that the deaf interviewee is signing through an interpreter. I have, again, emailed ther author of the article to find out why they do this.
*** Interestingly enough, I just received an email from the first author (the author of the deaf protest against the doctor article) about why he included it. It follows below:
---
-----Original Message-----
From: HARLAN SPECTOR
To: Michael Shepard
Subject: Re: Deaf need interpreters article
Michael
The fact that people at this event communicated through an interpreter I think is not irrelevant considering that is what the protest was about. I would also add that when I interview someone who speaks a foreign language and the words are translated by a third party I also note that the person "said through an interpreter." Why? Because it's worth noting, in my opinion, that I did not hear the person's words directly.
Thanks for writing.
Regards,
Harlan Spector
>>> Michael Shepard >>>
I am not upset, but I was really curious about a trend in the media that
I have noticed. Why did you, in this article, point out that Sarah
Messina spoke through an interpreter? Here are the some conclusions
that a reader can draw from that statement:
1) the reporter doesn't know sign and wanted to specifically express
that lack of knowledge
2) the reporter unconsciously is patronizing the deaf through their
'inability' to communicate in spoken english
These are radical conclusions and I don't infer that they apply to you,
but they do logically follow from the inclusion of such an irrelevant
fact. So, my question is, again, why did you, in particular, and, more
generally, why do other reporters, specifically mention that the deaf
interviewee utilized an interpreter?
---
[Well clearly... I was just wondering if there was some other reason, but I guess it is just something to think they should do.] - TS
---
News 8 Austin. "Miss Deaf Texas remembered at funeral." news8austin.com 19 March 206. < http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=157612 >
Plohestki, Tony. "Family and friends mourn death of Miss Deaf Texas." Austin American Statesman, statesman.com 19 March 2006. < http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/03/19funeral.html >