Wednesday, 2 January 2019

Hearing Meet Deaf


I suppose the unasked question is why they didn't before?  So OK why is it a novelty deaf meet hearing kids?

More sign language on TV?

Image result for SKY News sign output
TV channels suggest they would rather not, and fund instead, alternatives online, or move signed output out of prime time TV slots to early weekday viewing (So working deaf would have to record it), or the graveyard shift.  Critics suggest it is because of the inherent nature of sign promotion not being inclusive enough.  One of deaf.read's recent blogs was a plea for the universal right to captioned access, but with no mention of extending that rule TO ASL or BSL output.  Read on:

"So far as the BBC's sign language availability goes I cannot help thinking they could so simply help those who could benefit from more access to on-screen sign language. I think we all know about how the BBC's news channel provides sign language from 1pm Monday to Friday but apart from this the only content I'm aware of is provided way into the wee small hours. 

Perhaps it might be an idea for the BBC's news channel to provide sign language access to viewers whenever they are broadcasting the same content as they are showing on BBC 1 or 2 irrespective of the time of day. For example were the BBC to be covering a Royal wedding or similar item of interest to the Country they could have the item shown without S/L on the regular channel 1 or 2 and the news channel carry the same with S/L, it would be possible wouldn't it?"

"Sky News tried sign language and had to remove it after 1,000s of hearing AND HoH/Deaf complaints for differing reasons. Television has no real system of awareness, and treats various areas to inclusion to suggest they are inclusive.  However, this hierarchy of inclusion isn't cutting it as they respond to populist media areas e.g. trans people etc, who aren't disabled as far as I know.   We will only be included when viewers see a disabled person on a TV program and not think that IS inclusion, but, the norm.  

However, some disability areas are not playing the game and using TV exposure to push own area agendas,  BSL areas ONLY adopt this approach, they use culture as a blunt tool to push the message, to me this is an instant turn off, and defeats the whole idea of inclusion and reduces deaf/hearing loss appearances to tokenistic micro-seminars on awareness where no one questions if it is the right awareness, representative, or even accurate.  

The point about BSL TV is that they ALREADY Have priority access to funding and exposure far above that of disabled people, whose dedicated TV program was removed.  BSL TV has two, both paid for by disability funding.  As a deaf person my gripe would be regardless of the format used, the content is entirely irrelevant to me, and that is a serious issue as I am concerned, the non-inclusive nature of the signed output, being used to promote issues of hearing loss.  

Deaf people of the cultural persuasion do not understand inclusion and equality in the real sense, it is all highly introspective and relevant only to themselves.  Their online social media is a virtual 'closed shop' where a discussion is pretty much not allowed that suggests all is not what it seems, and vested interests are protecting own ideas of equality...  They campaign singularly and on specific types of access.  When you have a number of areas doing the same thing, then inclusion becomes entirely relative."