[nfb-talk] [Blindtlk] HumanWare, Extreme Makeover Home Edition, here we go again

[RyanO]

Steve, your subtle swipe hasn't gone unnoticed. Don't confuse indignance 
with directed passion. None the less, I'll address your questions and you 
can tell me if I've answered them to your satisfaction.

Can I hold Humanware responsible for their ties with reality television? Of 
course I can! The power you and I wield that can impact any company is that 
of a consumer who makes a statement by choosing to spend money on products 
created and manufactured by said company. Whether we're talking about a 
niche company like Humanware, or a mainstream company like Pepsi or 
McDonald's, the end result is the same. I have a right, as an individual, to 
voice my displeasure if that company affiliates itself with a product, 
spokesman, or event that I find distasteful to my own personal beliefs. 
That's the way the marketplace works.

As a Federationist, I expect companies who deal in a certain area or 
community to be sensitive toward my philosophical views, since I am one of 
their potential or ongoing customers. Some may find this naive or 
unreasonable, but this is absolutely no different than any person choosing 
whether or not to buy a Pepsi because they chose to employ a gangster rapper 
as their spokesman. Many people will find this objectionable and won't buy 
the product, while many others will choose to overlook the symbolic 
representation of said rapper. However, if an organization devoted to 
women's rights found Pepsi's involvement with the rapper to be offensive, 
and if they were planning to take a donation from Pepsi to further their 
cause, it would be perfectly reasonable for them to choose not to accept the 
money on principle. If they did choose to take the money, they would be 
within their rights to condemn and deplore, or at least sharply criticize 
Pepsi for it's involvement with the rapper.

The same is true in the blindness community. Even though Humanware did not 
produce, star in or even have a good deal of involvement with the program, 
the fact remains that they were involved on some level, and it is not a leap 
in logic to believe that their involvement constitutes a certain level of 
agreement with or endorsement of the message of the program.

If I understand you, Steve, you seem to be saying, "So what?" Humanware 
isn't responsible for what Extreme Home Makeover does. Their money is still 
good. In one respect, that's very true. Humanware's contributions to our 
movement are perfectly valid and if we use their money to further our 
efforts in any program (The Jernigan Institute included), then so be it and 
more power to us. But we should not curb our philosophical objectives if 
they happen to conflict with the business goals of that company. We should 
not stop resolutions from coming to the floor that criticize a lack of 
quality in customer service, if we find that said practices are harming the 
blind. We should not favor one company over another if they donate more or 
less money to one of our projects. And we should not shy away from shaking a 
finger at a reality TV show and all of it's sponsors, including the niche 
company that serves the blind, because they cooperate with us on a 
partnership level. We don't have to cut off involvement with the niche 
company, but something needs to be said, pure and simple.

I have never worked for either Humanware or Freedom Scientific, and I have 
never owned my own company, but as a business owner, if I were going to 
align myself with a specific program or event, I'd want to know everything 
there was to know about that program before I made any investment. Steve, 
you seem to object to reality television for a number of reasons. I think 
your objections are reasonable. Do you think that Humanware, Freedom 
Scientific or any other company would be completely oblivious to those 
objections given their level of involvement in the blindness community? If 
they are, then that signifies incompetent business practices and they 
shouldn't be in business. If they are not and go forward with their 
involvement anyway, then we need to call them on it. If that jeopardizes our 
cash flow in their camp, so be it, but at least we've upheld our 
philosophical principles. Leaders come and go. Donors come and go. Only a 
strong philosophy stays constant.

You also say that one could make the case that if a company makes a donation 
to our organization, there must be some degree of shared vision. I agree and 
have stated this point above. So when Humanware and Freedom Scientific 
donate equipment and money to a television program like Extreme Home 
Makeover, or donate to the family who are the recipients of that television 
show, wouldn't that also indicate that they buy into Hollywood's skewed 
vision of blindness as well? Doesn't that vision run contrary to much of 
what we are fighting for in the Federation? Don't we have dozens of 
resolutions on record attesting to this fact? If these companies are just 
businesses donating to good causes, and if we follow your logic, who's 
vision holds sway in that company's view? Is it the one to whom they give 
the most money? If that's so, why would they not give even more? Why not 
channel all of their donation resources into the Jernigan Institute, or any 
NFB program? You and I both know why. Reality TV means exposure for those 
companies; a level of exposure that, like it or not, they're just not going 
to get from a few thousand people at a convention yelling, "build it now!" 
It may seem harsh to say it, but from a business standpoint, this fact is 
undeniable.

Doesn't your statement about shared vision contradict itself by it's very 
nature? I believe that this question strikes at the very heart of the issues 
I'm discussing.

Your comment about my supposed feelings on the Jernigan Institute doesn't 
bare refutation. Frankly, Steve, it was beneath you and I expected better. 
You always have a way of rising above the fray and being level-headed. I 
hope that remains another constant.

Finally, you say that you hate to see us start going after one another. 
Believe it or not, I don't relish confrontation, particularly when it breeds 
infighting. However, shying away from issues I feel are paramount and 
troublesome within our own organization is not an option. Change is a real 
buzz word this year. Sometimes it's appropriate and sometimes it is used 
merely to get a reaction for political or financial gain. Each person who 
hears and uses this word has to decide for him or herself whether it applies 
to the debate at hand. I believe that we have a problem sometimes allowing 
our financial interests to conflict with our philosophical principles. I 
believe this practice will ultimately lead to the erosion of this 
organization, no matter how many new programs we start in the name of 
progress for the betterment of the blind. I believe this mentality must 
change if we are to survive and, more importantly, thrive. If I am wrong, 
then I'll be dismissed as a practitioner of puffery and this exchange will 
be forgotten within a week's time. If I'm right, and if change must occur, 
and if enough of the membership feels strongly about it as I do, then change 
will come about and this view will fade. It may take months or even years, 
but it is inevitable.

So I hope I've answered your concerns thoroughly, Mr. Jacobsen. If not, 
please tell me where I failed and we'll go round again.



RyanO