Blogs disclosing professional relationships earns trust
 | By Tayler Mayer Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008 |
As a moderated aggregator, DeafRead publishes a wide variety of blogs and vlogs, bringing them to a bigger audience. It provides a venue for personal and not-for-profit bloggers and vloggers. We accept in good faith that all adhere to the guidelines of DeafRead unless it is proven differently. One of the DeafRead Guidelines mandates that published entries should not promote or market a product by a blogger affiliated with the product’s provider. The exception is being that of the company sponsoring DeafRead.
To be clear, blogs can carry advertisements outside the entry. We understand the need to make ends meet. However, product promotion of any type cannot exist in the entry itself. This is different from a neutral blogger who, for example, is reviewing a product.
Recently a blog was discovered to carry undisclosed ties to a major commercial industry. This blog is part of a network whose purpose is to bring awareness about a company’s product; furthermore, the blog content fits into the network’s mission statement. Consequently it has been disqualified.
To be a responsible and ethical blogger, one must reveal any commercial affiliation. Not to do so jeopardizes the credibility of the whole blog and DeafRead. The lack of transparency also violates the trust of DeafRead viewers. See #6 Disclose professional relationships
DeafRead does not tolerate any deliberate deception by any blogs. DeafRead values its credibility and embraces impartiality by enforcing its guidelines.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
i bet its ci blog. i knew it all along
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
[sentence omitted]
ive been following the post on cochlear implant online. the irony is deafread fought to keep ci blogs and rachel lies to deafead about who she represents. cuz of that i wont trust *ALL* ci blogs. sorry she blew it for everyone. undoubtedly “cochlear awareness network” by cochlear america has other bloggers
the doors is blown open on the ci corporations as cheaters and liars
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Deafreader,
I understand your anger, and I share the same disappointment. However, I wouldn’t tar all CI blogs with the same brush as that particular blogger.
Be careful about stereotyping. Don’t make the same mistake many hearing people make about us Deaf people.
With that said, I now understand why that blogger was so staunchly closeminded about ASL, and the devastating effects of unsuccessful AVT therapy that prohibits the use of ASL.
Wow. Thank you, Tayler, for clarifying the reason for her blog’s removal. That is unfortunate.
Shelley
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
thanks shelley
melissa commented on CI online
Cochlear volunteers have the option of collecting points which we can use towards Cochlear merchandise, such as batteries, earhooks, etc., but then we have to report this as volunteer income to the IRS.
who of these people do we trust now? that’s the big question
sorry it came to this
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I was searching for an e-mail this afternoon and this exposed itself as if it was godsend. This is all dated April 20, 2008.
Hi All,
Just my two cents….Rachel and her mother Melissa are really irritating me. Do they get paid by one of the CI companies to do this blogging? I suspect there is a big connection somehow. Where do the people in the Deaf Community supporting ASL get their money or time to do regular blogs like CI Online? They don’t….. Now I am seeing even more CI blogs popping up on Deafread. Don’t they have their own blogsites to talk about being “hearing” through technology? Again the Deaf Community is being outplayed by money from the AGBell society. I hope that Deafread isn’t being sold out too. Sure would like to know what you all think. My hope is that Deafread is a place where people who support ASL feel free and comfortable to visit and blog without being attacked by industry people with other agendas.
A loyal reader…and a hearing mom too…
Never mind she wanted Cochlear Implant Online removed from DeafRead. Our reply below shows we came to the blog’s defense.
First, a human editor replied, leaving the e-mail sender out of the loop, to the DeafRead team:
I don’t see any sign of the blog being financed by a cochlear implant corporation.
After a couple more e-mails from other members of the DeafRead team, this was my reply to the e-mail sender.
We cannot prove Rachel’s blog has corporation backing. If we had proof, her blog would be removed from DeafRead.
(I have permission from the sender to publish her e-mail)
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Tayler,
Are you going to contact authorities if I respond to your blog?
Prove that Rachel’s blog is financed by Cochlear. She and others on deafread have told you of their affiliation with Cochlear’s Volunteer program. Rachel’s blog has no corporate backing. Prove otherwise. She’s said it. Others have said it. You’ve even had others come to you today and tell you that they are a volunteer for Cochlear. Are they out too?? Nope.
deafreader,
“Rachel is a shameless pig!” This is lovely. Just lovely. You truly represent the best deafread has to offer. Bless your heart!
Shelley,
Bless your heart, too.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
justamomtothreeboys, Rachel hadn’t clearly disclosed her affiliation with Cochlear Awareness Network (CAN) until yesterday.
She is employed as a volunteer managed by a paid employee of CAN, which is in turn managed by Cochlear Americas. CAN’s sole purpose is to push awareness about cochlear implants.
As with every blog on DeafRead, we would have been perfectly alright with her displaying Cochlear Americas advertisements on her blog, but not subtly pushing a product that is sold for profit in the blog entries. This has long been a guideline of DeafRead. And as my previous comment illustrates, we had come to Rachel’s defense on April 20, 2008 when she and her mother was accused of having affiliations with Cochlear Americas.
In reflection of this situation, we will need to re-evaluate how much value we put on organization membership affiliated with corporations which will be a next to impossible task.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
What’s so funny about all of this is that the following is AOK on deafread, but Rachel’s role as a CAN volunteer is not….I guess it’s because sprint is his sponsor too….maybe Rachel should get a gig with sprint then she’d be fine and dandy:
http://www.sprintrelayblog.com/2008/01/17/sprint-relay-thanks-joey-baer/
OXYMORON: She is employed as a volunteer
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
justamomtothreeboys, the blog you cite is for Sprint Relay, which is DeafRead’s sponsor.
“The exception is being that of the company sponsoring DeafRead.”
Employ definition:
VerbS: (v) hire, engage, employ (engage or hire for work)
She is engaged as a volunteer.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Rachel has never promoted the Cochlear brand on her website. She has clearly stated that she is writing in support of CIs. Because she is a volunteer for Cochlear and receives no financial compensation for her efforts, being a volunteer in no way provides her with an impetus to promote CIs. Furthermore, as she clearly stated, she first began her website when she was in 8th grade over 6 years ago. Yet, until this past December, she was not a Cochlear volunteer. Therefore, your accusations hold no weight.
You are also publishing false information about what a C.A.N. volunteer is. Have you researched exactly what a C.A.N. volunteer is or what the area manager’s relationship is to the volunteers before making statements such as the one above? The volunteers’ relationship to the manager consists of the following: We email our activities to the manager each month, and she sends out a newsletter periodically containing news such as positive stories from a recent bilateral CI recipient. Rarely is direct guidance contained in the newsletters. In fact, the only such guidance that I can specifically remember was telling us not to get into “brand wars” and telling us not to reply directly to medical questions but, instead, to refer these questions to the physicians. Our regional manager has never instructed us on what to post on blogs or listservs. That is not her function.
Any CI recipient has an affiliation with their CI manufacturer. Brand loyalty is very common among grateful recipients. Becoming a volunteer for Cochlear or Advanced Bionics is simply an extension of this. The manufacturers have given us an organized means of getting the word out.
To Deafreader – I have a friend who was raised orally in the pre-CI days and then received a CI as an adult. I once asked him several years ago why he never joined the deaf culture and, instead, preferred to remain firmly a part of the hearing world. He replied that too many in the deaf culture are immature. While I have had the good fortune to learn that this is not true of all in the deaf culture, you certainly exemplify what he was speaking about.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Melissa wrote: “Yet, until this past December, she was not a Cochlear volunteer. Therefore, your accusations hold no weight.”
These are not accusations. We are acting on what Rachel told us herself. Moreover, our database shows Rachel’s first post as being published on January 12. This is after she became a Cochlear volunteer, as stated by yourself.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Tayler,
I don’t understand your argument here. Since you say volunteer work must be disclosed then wouldn’t that mean you’d have to uphold that very standard on ASL users who does volunteer work for NAD, DBC, or Deafhood?
How about state specific organizations umbrella’d under NAD? I know some prominent bloggers out there on your blog list who were volunteers for an organization such as DeafNation, CSD, and so forth…Wouldn’t the standard you established be upheld on them as well?
How about me? Do I have to disclose all my volunteer work, my jobs, and so forth in order to remain listed?
-Ben
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Ok, so you know and I know I’m not talking just about the Sprint Relay cite (that you designed)…I’m talking about the Joey Baer sponsorship. So what you’re saying is that if sponsored by Sprint, you’re in the clear?
Tell me, have you all weeded through the masses and contacted everyone who is considered a “CI” blogger to see if they, too, are Cochlear,Bionics, or Med-El volunteers? What about volunteers for other organizations…AG Bell, NAD, DBC, AVT, etc.
Can you show us your PROOF that Rachel is “sponsored” financially by Cochlear Corp? I think she explained herself and her affiliation quite well. Unless you’re willing to kick more people who have violated the same policy you say she has violated…shame on you. (none of this she is an employed volunteer who answers to a manager who answers to another who has an agenda) I mean that Rachel’s blog is SPONSORED by Cochlear…that she if financially backed by this corporation.
The proof is in the pudding.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
der sankt, thanks for asking for clarification. Bloggers do not need to disclose affiliations to non-profit organizations.
justamomtothreeboys, we are prepared to remove from DeafRead blogs that are 1) affiliated with for-profit corporations 2) uses their blog entries to promote products and 3) does not openly disclose the purpose of or position behind their blog entries.
I never once stated Rachel’s blog is “sponsored financially by Cochlear Corp”. She is engaged as a volunteer by the Cochlear Awareness Network (CAN) which is owned by Cochlear Americas. Also, the fact that CAN can pay their volunteers is enough. Again, CAN’s sole purpose is to push awareness about a specific product.
As for the “CI bloggers” you listed, we publish their posts in good faith just as we did Rachel’s. If evidence surfaces that they are abusive of DeafRead Guidelines, appropriate action will be taken as we did Rachel’s.
There may be blogs that does not write *exclusively* about a company’s product. These entries that promote a company’s product should be marked as such, which reciprocates our good faith. These will help our Human Editors do their jobs better. Those that are not marked will be published at DeafRead, of course with other guidelines in consideration.
Judging an entry is an extremely difficult job especially with the numerous posts we receive daily. For bloggers affiliated with for-profit companies, we look to their help and cooperation in making DeafRead a fair and balanced forum.
It’s DeafRead’s job to ensure influence by corporate ties are minimized. Publishing Rachel’s blog in good faith has blew up in our faces because we are ultimately responsible — and now that this has occurred, we have to clean up after and hope to restore the DeafRead audience’s trust in us.
We thank each of you who have sent us your words of support.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Tayler,
I don’t understand how Cochlear Implants is considered a “product.” It is a device that assist in hearing, like hearing aids, manufactured by several companies which might be for-profit or not. So, I did some research…
Cochlear Americas is a cochlear implant company that manufactures and sells cochlear implants. I also checked out Bionic Ear which is another cochlear implant company that manufactures and sells cochlear implants.
Rachel mentions bionic ear–without mentioning any product of Cochlear Americas–in her entries here, here, and in this entry, here, she pointed out that BOTH companies’ cochlear implants failed to work for her. She had to get reimplantations. I find it difficult to see how she could retain her job under Cochlear Americas with these entries. Especially not if she’s on their payroll…
But, I had another question, are you speaking on behalf of all DeafRead editors? Was this an unanimous decision?
-Ben
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
der sankt, in this situation, we refer to a product as an object sold to generate profit.
Rachel will tell you herself that it is not a job with a payroll.
This decision was unanimous among the DeafRead team.
Any more questions, I will be happy to answer.
June 4th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Why can’t the other deafread editors answer for themselves?
June 4th, 2008 at 7:33 am
By allowing comment #2 have you not violated number 8 of DeafRead’s Guidelines? Afterall you moderate every entry here?
“Any more questions, I will be happy to answer.”……just waiting.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:38 am
I’m starting to be disturbed at this – McConnell over on Chronicles of A Bionic Woman was laughing at this entire thing and stating that his plan was working.
Just exactly what is this plan?
I only have my suspicions but I am starting to believe this has to do everything with Rachel’s blog and others. I suspect that McConnell and his friends saw a potential exploit in the rules, (not ironclad, legalese writing, therefore enabling them to twist it to fit their agenda) and are using it to their advantage to shutdown DeafRead.
This is really disturbing.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:50 am
justamomtothreeboys, they’re not answering for themselves because they haven’t been addressed directly.
Guidelines does not apply to comments.
aDeafPundit, plan or not, we get the feeling people are reading blogs that show only one side.
Some things I’ve seen that need to be straightened:
1) Rachel’s blog is not commercial. It fits under #6 of the DeafRead Guidelines which does not allow a blogger to push products that are sold for profit all the while the blogger is affiliated to the company. Allowing this on DeafRead will turn it into a classifieds.
2) Rachel is employed as a volunteer. Everyone is jumping on the word “employed” as if it’s a paid position. Looking up the definition, employ also means engaged.
3) We did not handpick Rachel’s blog. The evidence came to us (provided by Rachel after 5 months of publishing her posts in good faith) and in fact, we came to her defense on April 20, 2008.
4) If this were discrimination, why are there other CI blogs on DeafRead?
5) This has nothing to do with cochlear implants. It’s subtly pushing products without disclosing professional affiliations. If you will recall, the DeafRead team came to the defense of CI blogs’ right to exist on DeafRead not long ago.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:17 am
I directly emailed all deafread editors. You were the only to respond, and you replied to all. So again, maybe my question should be why AREN’T deafread editors responding for themselves?
“Are deafread editors paid to be editors or is it a volunteer position? This is not a joke, but an honest question.
“I don’t see any sign of the blog being financed by a cochlear implant corporation.
After a couple more e-mails from other members of the DeafRead team, this was my reply to the e-mail sender.
We cannot prove Rachel’s blog has corporation backing. If we had proof, her blog would be removed from DeafRead.”
So, since you do not have PROOF that Rachel’s blog has corporation backing….meaning the blog itself (her being a CAN volunteer is NOT corporate backing of her blogsite)….nor is it financed by Cochlear, what gives?
You, Tayler Mayer, approved deafreader’s slanderous comment. No getting around that one.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Tayler,
In response to your statement: “[T]hey’re not answering for themselves because they haven’t been addressed directly,” then it is my request for each and every one of the DeafRead editor team to publicly endorse this decision.
I believe the names are , Amy Cohen Efron, Carrie Gellibrand, J.J. Pourro, Jared Evans, Elizabeth Gillepsie, and Jon Savage: I’m asking you if you agree with this decision? That this was unanimous?
-Ben
June 4th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I have been keeping on top of things so I am responding to all concerns related to Rachel’s breach of DeafRead Guidelines. Also, having one person produce responses keeps the message consistent. If you would like to hear from any of them, e-mail them individually. This page makes it easy for anyone to do so.
“Corporate Backing” doesn’t necessarily mean support in monetary form. definition of Backing: the act of providing approval and support
Melissa wrote: “The only support I’ve gotten from Cochlear is online training in presenting accurate information.” Comment #37
Thus, we conclude that CAN members receive support and training. This isn’t to outrightly ban all CAN members. They are welcome as long as they 1) disclose this relationship and 2) do not write exclusively about or for the for-profit corporation, including pushing products intended for sales profit.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:46 am
The others out there (CAN and BEA volunteers) didn’t disclose these relationships until all of this came to light. So try another argument.
They all have now disclosed, including Rachel. So, I assume since Rachel has disclosed this relationship and has not written EXCLUSIVELY about or FOR the for-profit corporation, INCLUDING pushing products intended for sales profit, she is now to REINSTATED on deafread?
Now if not, I assume that you will expediently begin to ban anyone who mentions any product that they use related to their deafness. Afterall, they would be speaking of products intended for sales profit.
Now as to your email solution. I used the exact page of which you speak and link. If you would not like me to click on the boxes which allow me to choose as many or few as I like, then I suggest you disable this feature or create a new method for emails to the “human editors.” After all, I’m only human. I followed your directions.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I forgot to respond to justamomtothreeboys’s comment about deafreader’s slanderous comment. By law, it is not slanderous because it is deafreader’s opinion.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:03 am
der sankt, I already stated that the decision was unanimous.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:20 am
justamomtothreeboys, we learned two days ago of Rachel’s CAN membership. Currently, we do not know which blogger is a CAN or BEA member (except for one who privately e-mailed to disclose his membership).
I have previously wrote that Rachel’s blog did not obviously disclose her professional affiliation for 5 months, which misled DeafReaders and as a result has destroyed trust in the blog as an independent source. It is because of the abuse of good faith we unanimously decided to end her subscription.
Bloggers can mention or review products as long as they are not affiliated with the company.
The checkboxes on the e-mail page are there for you to choose whom you want the e-mail sent to. This is standard design.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Tayler,
Interesting! I observe read all debate and seeking for a miracle. Dreamers and profiteering – let alone battle for miracle (Organically Deaf vs. Mechanically-altered Deaf.)
Corporate greed by encouraging “volunteer” ambassadors to babble, parrot, garble, “AVT works”. Is it another energizier bunny in front of wrong audience?
I’m glad you are getting smarter this time. Those who are doing this, brewing silly emotion amongst us and comparing apples and oranges. Who cares!? It is about one’s credibility – judging and biasing the culturally deaf. Nothing new. Weed the one out.
I’ve seen volunteers are still getting paid and incentives in exchange. Maybe doctors will give freebies and plenty of favors for those who HAVE TO preach (educate, coughs). That’s very unlikely of you to find a proof anyway – but they can be removed at your own wish.
Anyway – you know, you have my support. It is completely disrespectful of Melissa to annoy the LARGE and DIVERSE deaf community. Many readers noticed CIonline has been barking around lately. I feel bad for that pretty face woman, but she will need to take a look at a bigger picture. It is all “set up.”
Even they know or don’t know that.
More new bloggers/vloggers are coming in. Don’t worry. Let one damage done, getting smarter next time, things go better. Let them run away from the deaf community because they are the one.
ProudlyDeaf
June 4th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
It is not really about being against CI. I know Tayler and almost all of human editor myself.
I agree with the concern about backing by corporate who said they are just making sure how information should be present and that they are accurate while being tied with seeking for profit, this is where credibility wanes. We do not want this kind of infiltration, it is not organic nor makes anyone genuinely organic in this sense. This is how Tayler and human editors interpret policy #6.
The difference I see in bloggers’ affiliations are being open about them or not really so.
Aside the issue, I have a mixed feeling about Rachel and some bloggers who had brought a wealth of information, thinking and at the same time had done damages by unnecessarily aggravate Deaf community members without really thinking, how it is very easy for dominant language/culture to overtake minority language/culture. Often they really do not care but keep on licking their own wounds of rejection they really asked for it, that is their attitude. Simple as this.
Deaf Pundit, I noticed the same thing: “his plan was working”. Ignore this, it is a repetition of old aggravation.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:09 am
I agree. It is a difficult situation. I have to understand Tayler’s standpoint. He creates new monsters in the DR. I’m glad they will be booted if guidelines were not met.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Taylor,
You’re on a slippery slope. I understand you have felt offended by her views. I don’t agree with her all the time myself. That doesn’t mean it’s OK to change your guidelines midstream because you want her off DeafRead. Doesn’t work that way. I would feel the same if you did this to a Deaf vlogger.
AnneMarie,
All day Deaf people have been defending Taylor’s actions by saying this isn’t about Rachel or people who use CI’s, and then I read messages like yours
“. . .Aside the issue, I have a mixed feeling about Rachel and some bloggers who had brought a wealth of information, thinking and at the same time had done damages by unnecessarily aggravate Deaf community members without really thinking, how it is very easy for dominant language/culture to overtake minority language/culture. Often they really do not care but keep on licking their own wounds of rejection they really asked for it, that is their attitude.. . .”
These are inflammatory, hurtful words.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Kim, where did you read that Rachel’s views offended me? She did not offend me. I defended her on April 20, 2008. Please remember DeafRead fought to defend CI blogs’ right to exist on DeafRead. Please read all the comments above. It doesn’t seem you have.
I think a lot of people don’t fully understand the circumstances under which Rachel’s blog was removed.
If a Deaf vlogger was found to have affiliations to a for-profit corporation and pushed their services and/or products, we would have removed that blog from DeafRead all the same. I’m sorry you think I have double standards.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Tayler –
You are really good at disclosing your facts when they don’t. I applaud you for that. In general, people like Rachel really don’t know what they have been talking about in the “wrong” sphere. They thought or perceive a deaf community as small to them, but it is completely otherwise. The community is very large “world” and has same views – a diversity that Gallaudet had served for many years, living together.
It is a lot of work to wreck their narrow-minded view and simply weed the one out. I learned my lesson in past, and it is simple by just letting go.
In my opinion, Rachel should know better than that, really. It is amazing how much influence from mother to her children can generate misleading ideas and judgment against their own.
Will meet a lof of International Deaf people across the world in Taipei.
Chill’ out & TGIF!
June 6th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Kim,
I am really talking about very few bloggers (not you, no no!) who use language power to aggravate and scoff, it is obviously a psychological subversion, isn’t it? It is these people who I want them to leave for good, not Valerie and others like you. We really had enough of being trampled not only in the DR but also almost at everywhere. See my point?
June 6th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Tayler I’d like to clarify something – since you consider volunteering for a group/company to be a “professional relationship” does that mean that from now on every blog that is on Deafread must include a disclaimer as to all the groups they volunteer with?
For example I’m a member of the Royal Canadian Legion, and volunteer with their Ladies Auxiliary. I help out with the local amateur radio club, and I also volunteer for several other organizations, so even though I get no financial gain from these (neither did Rachel,) by this “professional relationship” rule, I will have to mention that I belong to all of these or else my blog will be removed from the aggregator, correct? After all I don’t want to be considered “hiding” any affiliations I might have. Is this to be the way all bloggers will need to behave in the future?
June 9th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Hi neecy2k. Is Royal Canadian Legion a for-profit organization? If so, putting a disclaimer in posts in which you speak about Royal Canadian Legion will help the Human Editors identify it as so and move it to DeafRead Extra.
If your blog covers Royal Canadian Legion endlessly, we may remove it from DeafRead.
On the other hand, if Royal Canadian Legion is a non-profit organization not owned by a for-profit organization, you’ll be fine.
Rachel 1) blogged for Cochlear Americas, a for-profit organization, 2) as a volunteer, received training and support, reported monthly to a manager, and 3) blogged about cochlears, Cochlear Americas’ product, endlessly.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:31 am
[...] Posted by A Deaf Pundit under Blogging, Deafness, Musings On June 3, 2008 the DeafRead team announced that they were inactivating Rachel Chaikof’s blog, Cochlear Implant Online [CIO], from the DeafRead aggregator. [...]
June 11th, 2008 at 6:32 am
[...] the matter of the training the advocates receive from C.A.N., Melissa on June 3, 2008 stated on DeafRead’s Official Blog, regarding the job of the volunteer manager. She writes: The volunteers’ relationship to the [...]