Subtitles vs Signing

[Lord Camomile]

Like I said, my heart bleeds that you weren't able to watch this programme that TXed at 2am when deaf people don't have access to sign language on TV at any other time.

I know there are more serious matters under discussion, but that more than anything else gives you away as someone who works in media

For a lot of deaf people, particularly older people, their English is not good. BSL has a completely different grammar and syntax to English and subtitles are hard to follow. And as said by others, subtitles necessarily have to condense the dialogue. Parts are missed out. You're not getting the full sense of the programme.

That's interesting, why is it so different? And why do deaf people have trouble with English, surely they still read in other capacities (papers, books, manuals, etc)

 

[spliff]

Peeping Tom Friday night 2.20am

I've not seen this film for years so was pleased to see it's turned up in the schedules if slightly disappointed it's on ITV with ad breaks. But hey, I've got a box and can fast forward. Checking the listings I now see it's also gonna be signed which will make it unwatchable for me. I have hearing difficulties and use sub-titles nearly all the time, but they can be turned on and off, these waving arms can't. Couldn't they show it twice or have it on ITV1 and 3 at the same time or something? Bit pissed off to be honest.

 

[mrsfran]

I've not seen this film for years so was pleased to see it's turned up in the schedules if slightly disappointed it's on ITV with ad breaks. But hey, I've got a box and can fast forward. Checking the listings I now see it's also gonna be signed which will make it unwatchable for me. I have hearing difficulties and use sub-titles nearly all the time, but they can be turned on and off, these waving arms can't. Couldn't they show it twice or have it on ITV1 and 3 at the same time or something? Bit pissed off to be honest.

I suggest you contact ITV and ask them. When we did films we always made sure they had at least one other transmission that wasn't signed.

And those "waving arms" are a rich and beautiful language. Do you refer to English as "flapping tongues"?

 

[Lord Camomile]

Well, some French does sound a bit daft...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

What i don't get int he age of digital tv why the entire gamut of options cannot be there for all deaf people for all programs I mean why couldn't they press one of the other buttons which isn't red (seeing as this is the only button people seem to use) to access the same content with say subtitles/siging/whatever else... seems like a missed opportunity really..

 

[Lord Camomile]

It's a fair point, but I guess there's cost or practicality issues or something.

Another post of laser sharp analysis from Lord Cam there...

 

[mrsfran]

It's both a cost and bandwidth issue. Previously, this may have eventually happened. However, in 2008 Ofcom allowed several broadcasters to contribute to the making of a deaf-led deaf-presented programme which airs on the Community Channel, and by doing so they have been allowed to reduce the amount of signed programmes on their usual channels. I used to oversee the sign language on over 20 channels, now it's just one.

This is actually a positive move because, in general, what deaf people actually want is programmes made by and for them rather than having someone stuck in the corner translating. It also means people like Maltin and spliff have a lot less to complain about. Less than 1% of all programming is signed. It just so happens that this tiny amount will very occasionally mean that a programme you want to watch at 2am is going to be signed.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Ah, do you do work involved with The Community Channel? I recently got Virgin Media and I tune into Community every now and again, there's some interesting stuff on there

Out of interest, does the content differ much in programmes made for deaf people, or is it more just a case of similar stuff to 'regular' programming simply done with signing presenters?

 

[Orang Utan]

It's both a cost and bandwidth issue. Previously, this may have eventually happened. However, in 2008 Ofcom allowed several broadcasters to contribute to the making of a deaf-led deaf-presented programme which airs on the Community Channel, and by doing so they have been allowed to reduce the amount of signed programmes on their usual channels. I used to oversee the sign language on over 20 channels, now it's just one.

This is actually a positive move because, in general, what deaf people actually want is programmes made by and for them rather than having someone stuck in the corner translating. It also means people like Maltin and spliff have a lot less to complain about. Less than 1% of all programming is signed. It just so happens that this tiny amount will very occasionally mean that a programme you want to watch at 2am is going to be signed.

in my limited experience of one channel, it seems that some of the signed programmes are assigned arbitrarily, with no thought for the deaf. they are just picked cos no-one will watch them and they'll fulfill a legal quota. why would a deaf person be especially keen on watching a shite lifeswap american reality show at 4 in the morning?

 

[mrsfran]

No, I'm not involved with the community channel, although I do know the people making the deaf programmes.

Programmes made for and by deaf people tend to involve news stories relevant to deaf people (disability rights, anything topical), segments about interesting people in the community, that sort of thing. See Hear has a deaf soap opera called Switch. My Deaf Life has a cookery section. Deaf broadcasting is a small world so you tend to see the same people popping up. At one time my mum was a regular on See Hear (and I've been on it myself a fair few times). If I'm honest, most deaf-led programmes still have a long way to go before they can be considered a really riveting watch.

Back before the internet and texting, they were invaluable in bringing together the deaf community, letting people know what's going on. Now they need to evolve and be better, and that's what the community channel is trying to do.

 

[mrsfran]

in my limited experience of one channel, it seems that some of the signed programmes are assigned arbitrarily, with no thought for the deaf. they are just picked cos no-one will watch them and they'll fulfill a legal quota. why would a deaf person be especially keen on watching a shite lifeswap american reality show at 4 in the morning?

It is a major problem, and for some broadcasters the sign language was seen as a chore, a requirement that they had to fulfil but didn't care about. I got the job I did because my manager realised that they needed someone who could hear but understood deaf issues.

Unfortunately, the people who pick what is going to be signed do not generally have any control over what TXes when. Programmes are scheduled and then the person has to pick from the best of what's on offer between 12am and 6am. And as you know, progs that TX at 4am aren't usually the greatest. The schedulers stick any old shit on then and don't think about the access services who are restricted to those times.

And we're restricted to those times because people like Maltin and spliff complain if we put any signing on during peak TX hours.

 

[Lord Camomile]

See Hear has a deaf soap opera called Switch.... If I'm honest, most deaf-led programmes still have a long way to go before they can be considered a really riveting watch.

To be fair, I watched Switch for a few weeks Can't really remember that much about it but pretty sure there was some serious politics between the groups of friends about their different experiences of being deaf, and who was 'more deaf' (again, politically rather than in literal terms of hearing ability).

I think Stephen Merchant did some stuff for See Hear when he was working his way up.

 

[mrsfran]

I wouldn't be surprised, a lot of people did.

I know half the actors in Switch My mum was a deaf actress, and as I said, it's a small world. I can't watch it though, because I find it embarrassing. It should be so much better than it is! I don't want "my" community represented that way!

 

[Santino]

What i don't get int he age of digital tv why the entire gamut of options cannot be there for all deaf people for all programs I mean why couldn't they press one of the other buttons which isn't red (seeing as this is the only button people seem to use) to access the same content with say subtitles/siging/whatever else... seems like a missed opportunity really..

The blue button gives you access to the nude version of whatever you're watching.

 

[spliff]

... in 2008 Ofcom allowed several broadcasters to contribute to the making of a deaf-led deaf-presented programme which airs on the Community Channel, and by doing so they have been allowed to reduce the amount of signed programmes on their usual channels. I used to oversee the sign language on over 20 channels, now it's just one.

This is actually a positive move because, in general, what deaf people actually want is programmes made by and for them rather than having someone stuck in the corner translating.

I don't see it as a positive move, I see it as broadcasters wriggling out of their public service obligations much the way they've done with children's programming.

It also means people like Maltin and spliff have a lot less to complain about. Less than 1% of all programming is signed. It just so happens that this tiny amount will very occasionally mean that a programme you want to watch at 2am is going to be signed.

missfran please don't lump me with maltin as a complainer.
I'm not complaining about signing at all. In fact I think broadcasters who compete for franchises should fulfill the obligations that won them their contract. This usually involves a commitment to minority broadcasting.
My gripe was ... a film which gets a rare outing on a terrestrial channel will have to be viewed signed or not at all. A choice would be nice.

I suggest you contact ITV and ask them. When we did films we always made sure they had at least one other transmission that wasn't signed.

Well that's the way to go it seems

And those "waving arms" are a rich and beautiful language. Do you refer to English as "flapping tongues"?

I feel sure it is.

English as "flapping tongues"? Almost always round my way

 

[mrsfran]

I don't see it as a positive move, I see it as broadcasters wriggling out of their public service obligations much the way they've done with children's programming

No, honestly, extensive research was done and the majority of deaf people really much prefer a programme made for and by them, rather than programmes with someone signing in the corner airing at 2am. I know this to be the case from personal experience too. As much as I defend signed programming, I know that deaf-led programming is certainly preferable.

Ok, I won't lump you in with Maltin It seems that ITV haven't scheduled that particular movie very well, they really should have given it at least one other non-signed TX. Really - do email them to complain (in a reasonable way!), it's important that they get that feedback. If you request it, they might even schedule another showing of the film (although that may take a few months).

 

[Maltin]

Ok, I won't lump you in with Maltin

My complaint was the same as his!

I don't have a problem with programmes being signed or what time they are on. My complaint was that broadcasters (in particular ITV) don't care about their audience or the programme/film makers (especially in the early hours of the morning) and the film I was referring to, had, in my opinion, an overly intrusive signer superimposed over the film, making it unwatchable.

 

[mrsfran]

My complaint was the same as his!

I don't have a problem with programmes being signed or what time they are on. My complaint was that broadcasters (in particular ITV) don't care about their audience or the programme/film makers (especially in the early hours of the morning) and the film I was referring to, had, in my opinion, an overly intrusive signer superimposed over the film, making it unwatchable.

Did you check to see if it was airing at any other times? You weren't complaining that there was only one showing and that it was signed, you were complaining that it was signed at all.

 

[Maltin]

You weren't complaining that there was only one showing and that it was signed, you were complaining that it was signed at all.

No, I was complaining that the signing was obtrusive. BBC don't seem to have obtrusive signers.

 

[rhod]

It seems that ITV haven't scheduled that particular movie very well

They excelled themselves last night - a signed Christmas film; in February!

ITV clearly has a contempt for their deaf audience. As long as they put in X hours of signed programming in, they obviously don't give a shit what the actual content is.

 

[Maltin]

ITV clearly has a contempt for their deaf audience.

For their audience in general, it seems.

 

[mrsfran]

Well, I can't really comment on ITV's commitment to signing, I don't work for them.

 

[spliff]

ITV clearly has a contempt for their deaf audience. As long as they put in X hours of signed programming in, they obviously don't give a shit what the actual content is.

This ^^^^