Tuesday, 30 July 2019
An area doing the online rounds in the UK regarding a signed TV channel, but not everyone agrees with that.
Ergo: #1 We will be producing content in sign languages around the world. Yes all the languages make it more challenging, but it is something we've been considering
#2 "Our countries have different sign language. The English wouldn't share it when the Americans came to visit. They considered it a money maker. So we went to France and have developed a hybrid. You are explaining nothing in your ads.
#3 We are launching a full television network which will have shows in many sign languages of the world. There are so many talented deaf entertainers around the world who deserve a platform.
#4 You need to explain when you advertise. Captioning? In English and the language of the signer? Most people know nothing so u must start from scratch.
ATR: We would not support signed output without proper access and item inclusion. I don't watch SEE HEAR or the BSL Zone in the UK for those reasons. That's for deaf minorities and I don't view myself as one of those but part of a deaf and HoH MAJORITY who does not see any inclusion of our issues or content on these signed things, also, there appears a lot of 'indoctrination' bias, and distortion under the banner of 'equality' I am not happy with.
I understand areas of business who rely on signers for a living have to toe the line of culture, but cultural deaf (And sign users), are a minority and there is a lot of concern of others with deafness and hearing loss not included at all by access, or by item inclusion. The drive for 'equality' is top-heavy and many are uncomfortable it is being viewed as 'image promotion'. This is what kills SEE HEAR in the UK, the non-inclusion and endless plugs for BSL and culture. BSL Zone started off being more 'with it' but soon fell back to tried and tested cultural demands losing viewers in the process. as many as 76% of deaf did not know they even existed let alone watched it.
Many feel very excluded and angry at BSL bias and frustrated they aren't being allowed to air that frustration. It got very heavy indeed and e.g. the BBC ended up banning all feedback to its SEE HEAR and disability program after those with hearing loss swamped the BBC site with complaints about SH being allowed to get funds and TV access via anti-inclusive formats. The BBC responded by offering work only to those who don't challenge their status quo. Their recent demands to force over 75yr olds to pay to watch them has created a furore especially as they promptly assigned £75m to build a TV set for a failed soap opera. Would anyone in America put up with that?
I do wonder if there is conflict in that commercial areas are using charitable/disability status and its people to get funds and TV access too. Equal rights and access laws were not designed to bolster minority causes this way, they are about including everyone and what formats they all use.
Why would I watch a Ukrainian deaf juggler e.g. BECAUSE they sign ?? Why is access, campaigning, and funding being spent on ONE area of hearing loss to the detriment of others? Apparently, because BSL people are able to use the 'trump' card of culture forcing TV areas to back off. Abuse of the law in our view.
There are 10m with hearing loss, less than 70K alleged (And as yet unproven), daily or reliant BSL users, and the audience viewing figures for signed output is not registering at all, so they are existing on 'rights', not demand. Those 'rights' however do not seem to include anyone else, and online output is very much against captions, subtitling, alleviation, research, English grammar, and education. None of that is inclusive.
The actual and recorded viewer count was unable to register how many deaf actually watched their own dedicated programs, it was too low to register, IF there are 75-150K BSL people, they aren't watching signed TV at all. The OFCOM ruling re the BBC is that those programs that fall below a minimum figure face being axed. Deaf stepped in with cultural rights and now, if just ONE deaf person watched signed output it would be enough to justify. Leaving near 10m other out of it is unfathomable. Disabled people DON'T have a right to a program for them. TV Inequality and bias are rife.
If this Deaflix area did a series of programs challenging that cultural approach with, those who are being excluded (Via abuse of the 'Deaf & HoH' remit etc), it might well get an audience for that. There is nothing stopping them doing it online. Personally, I am against ANYONE making a living at the expense of my deafness, even other deaf people. I'm a person, not a 'commodity' to be sold. Ask us all DO we want to watch deaf in other countries? most do not. Politically the USA/UK and Europe would block a lot of them! I gather the USA is very edgy as regards to deaf posters including Islamic deaf e.g. When did anyone last see that? Or Israel including Palestinian deaf?
All deaf do not sign and all deaf do not belong to a culture or a deaf community either, a recent survey suggested deaf still cannot accept own diversity. When will the disinformation be addressed? You can be sure any commercial TV channel dedicated to sign will not operate for signed areas with zilch viewers or very low figures without a subsidy. Only the western world has the potential for such a channel to operate. As stated, we don't have the proof of audience need for more signed TV output that is all about the 'Deaf' and nobody else.
ATR is against the commercialisation of what is, a very serious sensory disability for profit. Or, 'jobs for the deaf boys and girls' too. The UK already has its own luvvie network as it is and they all chant the same mantras and doing very nicely thank you.....