Assembled from various Social media sites and collated to give a general overview of the BBC's decision to remove Teletext options, and then cross-relating it to TV media exposure for deaf people and their sign language.
#1 I think it (Teletext), has served it purpose really. It was wonderful years ago to be able to switch on the TV and see what other deaf people had to say. It even turned out that one of the editors was someone from my old school. Small world. That is the value of having a national platform for deaf people. Once the Internet kicked in I think that most people went straight for forums and other online groups. The problem with the BBC See Hear forum is that certain people were trying to impose their opinions on the rest of us and the BBC did not moderate the forum properly.
#2 Don’t watch TV News at all too much Waffle, plus newspapers too many advertising, both always boring or bad news, Text is good short, Sad that is going soon.
#3 I need text service for weather, travel and sport results. I don’t understand why they want to close it. Now I look on my mobile or internet instead. Teletext is the service for those don’t have access to internet or mobile phone. Why close it?
#4 What? I personally having it on so same as you, why close it? But just wonder how many people using it ?
#5 We don't know, any more than we know how many deaf watch SEE HEAR, it is irrelevant anyway as SEE HEAR is protected from removal via equality laws, it doesn't matter if a million watch it, or just 1 we cannot get rid of it. Use it or lose simply does not apply to cultural aspects although does apply to access. The 'Deaf ID' is protected even if they cannot get their rights otherwise, its a source of contention and annoyance within the deaf world as regards to what their priorities really are and screwed up the support/care and charitable systems.
#6 The BBC's 'inclusion' policies are ridiculously biased anyway. Its viewer base (SH), doesn't register on the TV listings it is too low to record. They did try to change the format to be more inclusive and sensibly refused to remove subtitles despite 'Deaf' activist allegations 'English' text discriminated against the BSL user. The BSL user, in reality, blocked HoH inclusion on cultural grounds, they and the 'Deaf' actually stopped watching, and the BBC stopped feedback after very serious rows erupted between the HoH and Deaf on their feedback site, as ATR covered, charities caught in the middle like the RNID ended up removing forums of response, after WW3 erupted there, the blame clearly identified as by aggressive BSL activists who set out to create deliberate disharmony to prevent criticism and, it succeeded forums and feedback was pulled, the onset was near every charity connected with the deaf or hearing loss removing feedback options... even on social media. They cannot cope with contention.
#7 The BBC is aware most don't want see hear, it has served its time and purpose, but although they cannot remove it from the BBC channel, they can shift it to all manner of obscure areas and times to dump it out of sight and do. The BSL lobby demanded we all fund the twilight (Sorry BSL Zone) as well. They initially tried to more inclusive but the HoH had already voted with their feet they didn't want to be classed as 'Deaf' which would be inevitable had they taken part, the image would be all sign language and Milan or something.
#8 Hard Of Hearing have little interest in 'Deaf' things even less than the BSL user is showing at times, it's as if these deaf feel obligated to defend the BSL position and media by default, despite misgivings and some dubious imaging. Sign users really don't care what a meeting or campaign is really about, it is just another excuse/reason to socialise.
#9 Disabled did it better and they got inclusion without the aggro and controversies the deaf create by default and it seems by design, they didn't present their disability as a barrier as the deaf do via sign or waved culture in people's faces, and lectured everybody on the 'right way' to talk to them. We read money is at the root of many BSL issues with hearing and deaf alike capitalising on the selling of sign language and culture as a commodity of some sort, while that exists people will support this even if it does not produce any of the real access and support these deaf need if it can produce work for deaf people and popularise sign they will go for it and defend it even if their own input is minimal and professional hearing areas organise it their way.
#10 True, but they can't sell culture, to hearing, or to their own deaf most of the time, because there is no hereditary background to 99 out of 100 of them. To most at the grassroots level, support and access/education is the main event, culture is a cross to bear because at the end of a very long day it is an area the law enables their campaigns with. It's a constant re-invented wheel and survives because of that. Although as more medical and technological advances emerge maintaining that continuity may not survive as such we are seeing signs (No pun intended), sign on TV is struggling and has been for a long time, literacy is the final frontier. It's a frontier we cannot allow misguided deaf activism to downgrade or ignore, at the expense of need and common-sense.