so he happened to fake illness to go into a random classroom where a random student was sitting. hmmm.
usually when this sor tof thing happens i cant help but picture-- kid gets bullied by popular crowd, takes revenge scenario. im hoping thats not the case cos that would be truly tragic.
Well, he does mention the Vietnamese youths claimed to have suffered racial absue, so it was justifiable (If he hadn't mentioned the brothers were vietnamese he'd have had trouble to indicate the attack was supposedly in revenge for racial abuse).
The stabbing though seems awfully premeditated and determined. Speaking as myself I can't usually hold on to anger for more than 5 or 6 seconds, and even then provoking me into any kind of really angered state is a near impossible trick I can only think of ever happening once or twice (And I was bullied pretty much daily all through secondary school, I just tended to go limp and let myself be beaten because it was easier than fighting back and getting beaten twice as hard).
This is of course just my perspective, not that it's impossible other people may react more violently.
"autism is a fact" could be construed to mean that people who have autism are more prone to violence.
"autism is a fact" could be also mean autism as a fact he considered necessary to mension as part of the story sense the kid is autistc.
I replied to Ms. Boyd's post this morning, with my apology for my assumption that she was a male reporter. I included the information on guidelines for reporting disability and more clearly stated what I think was wrong with her depiction of the autistic youth.
If you could give me the contact information for the news studio I will send a post to them also.
I've sent my post to them all.
Thank you for your reply.
Actually, as an African-American I am very sensitive to discrimination
of any kind. Race was mentioned with the Vietnamese brothers because as stated in the next sentence they were retaliating after being teased and harassed because of their ethnicity.
Autism is a fact and is used to give a description of the boy. It is
very relevant to the way in which the boy's investigation will be
handled. It also could've helped some readers have more empathy and compassion they otherwise might not have.
I have spoken with school officials today and received compliments on
my article. I also received a positive e-mail from a mother whose son is
autistic as well.
Oseye T. Boyd
Education Reporter
The Star Press
P.O. Box 2408
Muncie, IN 47307-0408
Hmmm... rather disingenuous if you ask me. Despite her/his awareness of discrimination and prejudice issues in relation to ethnicity, he can't see his own bigotry and prejudice when it comes to autism.
Substitute "autistic" for "African-American" in the original article, and would the journalist feel that the description would be helpful in garnering empathy and compassion for the assailant? Or would s/he be crying out that linking a description of "African-American" with an knife-wielding assailant carrying out an act of violence, was irrelevant, and unduly discriminatory and prejudicial?
I'm guessing that 'African-American = violent' would be an offensive link to make and such a 'helpful' description would only be justified where the motivation was self-defence or retaliation against racist attack or where the assailant was unknown and providing a visual description could help identify the perpetrator.
The article does, in some ways, *imply* a link between the violent behaviour and the perpetrator's autism and as such I think that it would not be allowed if the description referred to the assailant's ethnicity.
Again, it would not help the readers have more compassion and empathy, it simply serves to compund negative stereotypes and reinforce prejudice and discrimination. Again, I'm sure the journalist would not write a crime report where the alleged perpetrator was African-American and describe them as such in order to garner compassion and empathy, s/he must know that such descriptions would likewise reinforce negative and damaging stereotypes.
P.S. In order to influence editorial policy (especially where the journalist continues to be ignorant of the issues or to attempt to justify them after they are raised), it's probably best to complain to the editor of the news organisation, as well as, or instead of, the individual journalist concerned.
The editors can create an awareness as it relates to editorial policy in terms of future reporting and ensure that duty editors pay particular attention to autism-related articles in the future in order to try to avoid giving offence or promoting prejudice and discrimination.
English, that is great analysis in your list of points. Of course another point, that I'm sure many others here who've faced discrimination will already have noted, is that the writer uses her own African-American status as an argument that she is not discriminatory due to her sensitivity in such matters as a result of her own difference. That is not correct. All people can show discrimination toward all others of difference. Just to use some random examples, gay people can be homophobic, African-Americans can be racist even toward other African-Americans, and dare I say it, Aspies could be discriminatory even toward other Aspies.
I just wanted to give you all an update on this story;
... this morning... I watched the news on TV ... [o]n the channel 8 news, they made mention of the story BUT did not mention autism in the report at all! I did not have the time to watch the other two stations but will let you know what I find out.
I know this seems like such a small thing, but for me it's monumental. To make these reporters aware of autism and for them to listen to us - this is an important step in educating the media. Even if they don't agree with our views, at least they respected us enough to honor our request.
To be fair to the editors/reporters, this kind of ignorance is commonplace. I'm not saying that excuses it, just pointing out that there's a lack of intent to offend or be prejudicial or discriminatory. There's more of an awareness of disability issues in terms of general 'political correctness', but as to the specifics, a lot of journalists won't know that something is offensive or discriminatory unless we tell them. And again, to be fair, once they know, they should be pretty good and pretty quick at correcting things.
You *may* find that the same station will make the same or a similar mistake again in future, because different reporters and editors are involved in different stories, so don't be surprised or doubly offended if this happens, there are lots of people in a newsroom, working different shifts, information like that doesn't always get passed on or filter through to everyone. Sometimes a notice will go up on a wall with reporting restrictions or an email will be sent, or the editors will be made aware of such things, but it might still slip through the net again, in which case, contact them again and make the same point again.
It might be helpful to ask if note could be made in the 'producer guidelines/editorial policy' and this should lessen the chance of such mistakes happening again in the future.
I will continue to look for these type of misguided misinformed articles and will do my best to let writers, reporters, editors and the like know that I do not approve of distorted and prejudice views against autistics. I am happy to know that many of you will do the same.
That's very good. And you have my thanks. But bear in mind, as someone pointed out, that it's important if issues are highlighted on boards such as these, it's important if people are going to mail to complain that such complaints should be personalised from you own point of view and tailored to your circumstances and the nature of what you're complaining about, it is very counterproductive to get involved in 'cut and paste' complaint making campaigns, they just get a standard response and written off. 
You're more likely to be taken seriously if you keep it short and sweet, and make your points without ranting. Not saying you were monastic, I don't think you were, but it's just a general point for everyone, for future reference. HTH.
I just wanted to give you all an update on this story;
As you know, a few AFF members wrote to Indiana Newpapers and the local News Stations about their misguided wording in a story. It seemed as if they were trying to establish a connection between autism and violence. The reporters/newcasters had mentioned that one of the students were Autistic when it was not relevant to the story. We asked that they omit the fact that the student was autistic as it created negative connations equating autism with violent actions.
Although I only received the one reply, when I got up this morning to get ready for work, I watched the news on TV (my usual routine). On the channel 8 news, they made mention of the story BUT did not mention autism in the report at all! I did not have the time to watch the other two stations but will let you know what I find out.
I know this seems like such a small thing, but for me it's monumental. To make these reporters aware of autism and for them to listen to us - this is an important step in educating the media. Even if they don't agree with our views, at least they respected us enough to honor our request.
I will continue to look for these type of misguided misinformed articles and will do my best to let writers, reporters, editors and the like know that I do not approve of distorted and prejudice views against autistics. I am happy to know that many of you will do the same.
Thta's great news Monastic, I have not received a reply to any of my posts, not from the original reporter either. They are strangely silent. I don't know about the human rights legislation in other areas, but I believe that in my area this kind of reportage could be grounds for a human rights complaint. This is what keeps reporters in line with ethical codes.
.... and dare I say it, Aspies could be discriminatory even toward other Aspies.
All you need to do is go to the en.wikipedia.org and see that for yourself.
This is of course, complete nonsense. None of the editors at wikipedia have been "discriminatory" to you or any autistic. You, on the other hand, have personally attacked nearly every other editor of the autism-related pages, claimed "censorship" by us, equated some of us to Nazis, and continually push an agenda without regard for making articles better. Please stop this FUD.
.... and dare I say it, Aspies could be discriminatory even toward other Aspies.
All you need to do is go to the en.wikipedia.org and see that for yourself.
This is of course, complete nonsense. None of the editors at wikipedia have been "discriminatory" to you or any autistic. You, on the other hand, have personally attacked nearly every other editor of the autism-related pages, claimed "censorship" by us, equated some of us to Nazis, and continually push an agenda without regard for making articles better. Please stop this FUD.
I wasn't going to comment, but just for the record, in case anyone is confused, I was not referring to any specific individuals or AFF in my post on discrimination. I'm sure most people know that, but I felt the need to state this anyway. I have no clue what TheASman refers to in his post. Just wanted to make that clear.
Just to explain to members who may be confused, RN is a wikipedian and works on the autism articles, along with others, including TheASman.
There have been some heated discussion on wikipedia lately.
In one way its better than the autism articles being ignored, and being of poor quality and contect, on the other hand people will have strong opinions on what they feel is best, and disagreements will happen.
I'm sorry but that's simplifying it way too much. It's been a constant battle with Joe to even get a single good edit out of him. He's constantly edit warring for no good reason, refusing to discuss things in a coherant way, and refusing to edit in a NPOV manner. I've got the Autism article featured, in addition to the Asperger syndrome with help from others - what has Joe done? Nothing substantial. I'm sorry but it's the truth - I'd really like to see a worthwhile major edit from Joe, but instead its ridiculous edit wars like continually reinserting the link to AFF when it was already in a seperate section in an article.
EDIT: And, I hope you take this as criticism rather than a personal attack from me. Last time you said you would start over - I hope that we can try to discuss things in a calm manner. I still think you can become a great editor if you try to follow our example.
.... and dare I say it, Aspies could be discriminatory even toward other Aspies.
All you need to do is go to the en.wikipedia.org and see that for yourself.
This is of course, complete nonsense. None of the editors at wikipedia have been "discriminatory" to you or any autistic. You, on the other hand, have personally attacked nearly every other editor of the autism-related pages, claimed "censorship" by us, equated some of us to Nazis, and continually push an agenda without regard for making articles better. Please stop this FUD.
Only if you stop first!!
I am making a VfD for RN post. too POV
Don't you understand? It's not a personal attack - it's criticism. There's a huge difference. We don't want to get into a useless argument with you over this, we just want you to have better edits!
.... and dare I say it, Aspies could be discriminatory even toward other Aspies.
All you need to do is go to the en.wikipedia.org and see that for yourself.
This is of course, complete nonsense. None of the editors at wikipedia have been "discriminatory" to you or any autistic. You, on the other hand, have personally attacked nearly every other editor of the autism-related pages, claimed "censorship" by us, equated some of us to Nazis, and continually push an agenda without regard for making articles better. Please stop this FUD.
Can't you both just let it go. One thread was already locked because if this.