Part of the fun in TV programmes like Channel 4 news bulletin is in watching the attempts by those delivering sub-titles to convey what is being said by whom and when - all in a sometimes rapid-fire environment. I 'watch' TV with sub-titling 'on' because I am hearing impaired, and there are a lot of deaf and hearing impaired people in this country [10 million some estimate] who rely on sub-titling and/or signing to be able to be up to date with news and current affairs.
The quality of sub-titling across the main TV channels is variable, especially when the programmes being watched are live. No matter, it allows deaf/hearing impaired people to be almost as well informed about current affairs as hearing people, and enables and empowers us to use that informed state to contribute to and influence the debates, a lot of which affect us.
Those of you who are keen fans of my blogging will also know I am active on Twitter. Twitter is without barriers for deaf/hearing impaired people, and enables rapid, up-to-the-minute exchanges on breaking news [of all kinds] and, in some cases, even influences and shapes national politics. An example of this is the regular flurry of comment and feedback on Prime Minister's Question Time in the House of Commons. This generates a huge volume of traffic on Twitter, and a lot of it comes from people who are watching it broadcast on parliamentary TV [in Westminster and First Minister's Questions in Holyrood].
That doesn't work for me. When I log on to parliamentary TV [in either London or Edinburgh] I can't access sub-titling. Neither parliament TV channel offers sub-titling.
When I asked why, I was offered a variety of reasons - including costs - and it was suggested that either Hansard or the Official Report provided the information I was looking for. Indeed, both documents do provide a comprehensive written record of proceedings - several days after the event.
So, if I want to follow debates in either parliament and act quickly on what might be said during debates or evidence sessions at Committees, I am prohibited from doing so - because I am hearing impaired and my parliaments are not routinely accessible to me and around 10 million other people.
If governments can cut deaf/hearing impaired people out of the heart of democratic debate, who is next?
Non-access to parliament is an direct assault on our democracy. I don't share the view lack of access on terrestrial British TV we have the most in the world, with quantity inevitably quality suffers. Twitter I find is too full of trivia, and for most deaf the prospect of wading through the sheer mountain of pointless posts is beyond them. Debates about social modia and benefits of it, I reserve judgement, so far NO campaign has achieved anything for the deaf on social media,petitions are no use since there needs to be not only 100% of ALL deaf to sign it, but another 30,000 hearing as well, the most they ever got was 5,000 or so and 58% of those were signed by people who never lived in the UK so were rejected. You need to get away from the hype of social media and face the actuality of its effectiveness in regards to the deaf. You are texting total strangers with whom you would NOT be able to communicate with face to face,and, it can be argued social media makes that interaction much harder.
ReplyDelete