hello,

Fernando Botelho wondered aloud yesterday:

< My impression though, and I'd like to hear your take on this, is
that < neither ACB nor NFB are doing a particularly good job as
advocates of < the blind.  Because of this I am not surprised that the
great < majority of blind individuals don't belong to either
organization.

this leads one to think about the changing nature of the advocacy
groups in the age of computer telecommunications.   what impact of
almost instant ready access to information via the internet will there
be concerning the way the advocacy groups conduct their business and
the direction advocacy will take?  a recent instance of an attempt at
information manipulation and control will serve to illustrate what are
the central themes of this question.   as many might now know, the nfb
mailing list blind-talk is now  a restricted subscription by
permission only list.  what happened preceding this event illustrates
the weakening of old ways of external and internal information
management the nfb enjoyed, as a part of it's top down command and
control political structure.  some nfb members on the list began to
discuss an alleged rigged election at a state convention last winter.
75 members from that state wrote requesting an investigation into the
situation.   to make the story short, they were told to forget it and
resume being good soldiers and get on with business as usual.   as
this situation was discussed on the list, ernest requests for those
holding other views of what happened were solicited, to a thunderous
silence.   a few members criticized and even personally attacked
others for even bringing this up.   as questions arose about what
happened and the non-response to the request, one person announced
that the letters of correspondence would be posted on the list for all
to consider.   there had been questions which arose wondering if the
non-response from the nfb leadership reflected that it had been a
party to the election rigging and/or was now trying to cover it up to
maintain the election outcomes.   before the letters could be posted,
the list was shut down and all re-subscriptions were to be at the
discretion of the nfb leadership.   when many of those who were
discussing the election asked to subscribe, they were rejected with
the information mark maurer and ken jurnigan had made the decision and
that it should be taken up with mark.  ken's role in this debacle
lends support to the view that he retains the power behind the throne,
holding final decision and veto power over issues he wishes. when
letters were sent to mark, one of his responses was that he didn't
want nfb business discussed publicly. what better way could he devise
that it spread over more of the internet then to take the ham handed
actions he and ken did?  here we are now discussing it on a list with
many more members then blind-talk ever had. some of those restricted
were nfb members of long standing, even state office holders.  not a
few list members were surprised to hear such things ever existed as
practices of nfb leadership. the state affair was only one of many
skeletons which were beginning to fall out of nfb leadership closets,
from among knowledgeable members of the list.

in the good old days before telecommunications, the nfb leadership was
accustomed to almost total control of information, what it contained,
and to whom and how it was presented.   any occurrence such as the
state election would be an isolated event about which few were aware
because of the leadership's strict control of information. most
information flow was under control by way of newsletters and letters
read aloud at local meetings.   it was mostly top down and almost
exclusively from the perspective of what the leadership wanted members
to know and expound.   conscious attempts were made to manufacture
information for external consumption, which didn't reflect the true
broad range of opinions of the membership.  members were expected to
expound those leadership originated notions any way.   the nfb
constitution even has provisions for enforcing such actions and for
squashing any opposition which the nfb leadership deemed a danger to
themselves.

a central part of what was under nfb leadership information
manipulation was severe spin control of how the leadership wanted it's
advocacy efforts known.  what was scorned as fringe advocacy activity
in the larger blind community was trumpeted as life or death issues.
fanfares met nfb leadership actions which were deemed successes.
failures were almost never known by the membership at large.
employment, access to computers, and other such central widely held
concerns of most of the blind community was paid only lip service. for
example, with a "let's wait to see what happens stance", microsoft was
left almost free reign to decide and demand for itself how access
would be approached, on it's terms and time schedule, as it deemed fit
for it's own ends.   the "wait and see" non-strategy was quickly and
skillfully exploited when the nfb's head computer person was co-opted
into a very embarrassing public role as one of microsoft's players in
a transparent attempt to forestall department of justice anti monopoly
actions.   making it even worse, that same nfb computer person was
individually and publicly told on the blind-talk list that such things
were likely and they should9 be wary of becoming a microsoft dupe  and
snookered by it.  if only this had been taken to heart, oh well, we
can now see the results with a 20 20 hindsight cane; so to speak.
being wined and dined by microsoft was thought a more important
advocacy effort then publicly taking it to task.  the price of free
room, board, and travel from microsoft was very high indeed.

how will such old methods of information control and advocacy image
manufacture fair in the future?   there doesn't seem to be very much
of a future for those old political power plays.   information
management is quickly becoming closer to extinction, as surly as the
dodo.  hand waving and foot stomping in place of real effective
advocacy efforts will be impossible to disguise and dress up in false
colors.  public bombast of "leading the charge" will be the subject of
snickering in the face of vacillation and weak kneed advocacy.
leadership malpractice will be under a microscope.  wide and free
access to internet based information will become an effective
mechanism in finally creating a check and balance against leadership
excesses. the dependency on nfb leaders heretofore fostered when
asking for unquestioning adherence will be something to scorn.  no
longer will they get away with saying they know what is best for blind
folk, be quiete, and follow what the leadership wants. appeals to
rationalizations "the means justify the ends" now used will be laughed
off the stage when apologists cry that the nfb has done good things so
we should forgive the misdeeds of the leaders. it can't be avoided.
anyone can start a mailing list, web page, newsgroup, and other such
ways of information broadcasting; completely aside from the wishes and
self centered personal agendas of those who would like to continue in
roles of the top down autocrats of old.  information is power, there
will only be truly free participation in self help and advocacy when
information is also free.  it is coming, change or move aside and let
those who will embrace free information and personal choice, lead the
way to obtaining full civil rights.