Tuesday, January 6, 2009

"Non-Objective and Self-Promote" Washington Post article on Bilateral CI

After reading today's Washington Post print edition, 1/6/08 on the special article submitted by Anne Dooley on the issue of bilateral cochlear implants (CIs). "At the Rim" deaf blogger also do the similar blog piece on very same newspaper article.

This Washington Post article is one of "self-promote and non-objective" journalism ever seen on the issue of CIs. Anne Dooley is not a trained journalist herself. She actually write and edit several psychic-related and spirituality books.

Here is an enclosure -

The Washington Post should not let Anne Dooley to do this special article or publish it in the first place. Any journalistic publication like the reputable Washington Post newspaper know better than letting someone writing out the self-promotion and non-objective piece without being objective or let someone do the investigative reporting by independent collaboration and inquires.

I once approached the Washington Post newspaper back in summer 2005 for writing the special coverage of the Deaf Way II Conference in exchange of paying my Deaf Way II conference registration package. The Washington Post coldly replied "We do not hire any freelance writers to do the specials, only the staff journalists!".

In the end, the Washington Post assigned someone hearing, who knew NOTHING about the enrichment and beauty of the Deaf Culture and Way of Life. The Post published only an article about the Deaf Way II Conference on the issue of noise level bothered hotel guests in the surrounding area and described how the real loud music vibrations shook the Washington Convention Center.

Anne Dooley is a classic audist herself which she assumed the best for her own deaf daughter to be refitted with single cochlear implant, then explored the idea for bilateral cochlear implant. She said "rather have her daughter the ability to hear" in despite of acquiring the American Sign Language (ASL) at Columbia School of the Deaf (MD).

Did Anne Dooley frankly ask her own deaf daughter what and how Ruthie really feel about having the cochlear implant? Nope!

Have Ruthie been previously consulted if she was for getting the cochlear implant surgery?

How the cochlear implant surgery for Ruthie being paid by?

Most important of all is the journalism ethics which they clearly forbade any "conflict of interest"
and "subtle advertising".



This article is originally going to be published on 1/6/09, but put it on hold

ASLize yours,
Robert L. Mason (RLM)


  1. Yes you are right that woman is just columnist, not professional journalist. It is sad that the newspaper has rejected Deaf journalists.

    That person has promoted audism. That reminds me of early 20th century, many newspaper companies were racists. Now it appears that they are audists...

    Thanks for alerting us...


  2. Deafchip,

    Yep, too many parents of deaf baby or child often think that they know better. Those people often get blindsided and hoodwinked by the cochlear implant industry and surgeons.

    I still wait for the Washington Post whether they publish my letter to editor on this article.

    You are absolutely right about such trends and fashions within the eugenics and Darwinism theories about the lesser human evolution like African Americans in the 1920s.

    Ever Margaret Singer (msp), the founder of the Planned Parenthood, had a misguided and racist agenda of hers greatly discouraged the "lesser desire" human race from having more babies.

    Thanks for your comment, Deafchip.


  3. I meant "they think best for their own children..."