Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dingbat on February 20, 2004, 10:06:58 AM
-
For those who don't know, I'm deaf as is my brother... Bush and his staff have got to GO!
Another reason I'm voting for Kerry...
FCC website on this issue. Yes, Bush Censors the deaf.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/headlines.html
and
http://www.nad.org/openhouse/action/alerts/captioningcensorship/pr.html
NAD’s responses:
http://www.nad.org/infocenter/newsroom/advocacy/ankerberg.html
http://www.nad.org/openhouse/action/alerts/captioningcensorship/ncdsupport.html
http://www.nad.org/openhouse/action/alerts/captioningcensorship/pr.html
This link shows which shows are cut and which are kept… read on please
http://www.nad.org/openhouse/action/alerts/captioningcensorship/list.html
A letter to a senator…
http://www.nad.org/infocenter/newsroom/nadnews/EdSecretaryRileyRespon.html
Letter to Bush from NAD president Andy Lange…
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5103501&content_dir=ua_congressorg
Another letter
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/correspondence/paige_12-15-03.html
NAD call to action… looks like we were a bit too late??
http://www.nad.org/openhouse/action/alerts/idea/IDEAalert2003june.html
-
Why not post a summary for those of us with ADD?
-
here here!!!
-
I'd consider someone other than Bush. Sorry, Kerry ain't him.
Democrats wanted a hardcore liberal and they picked one. Will cost 'em the election though. Will be sure to say I told ya so when the smoke clears.
-
Television Captioning Censorship Hurts Family Values
Approved and Disapproved Television Programs
NCD Opposes Captioning Censorship
Supportive Comments Published
Members Only Area
Discuss the Television Captioning Censorship
Posted October 2, 2003
The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) urged President Bush to overturn a recent decision by the U.S. Department of Education to declare almost 200 television shows inappropriate for captioning by the Department’s Technology and Media Services for Individuals with Disabilities program, effective October 1, 2003. According to NAD President, Andrew J. Lange, the Department's action is government censorship and contradicts President Bush’s promotion of family values and parental accountability.
Under the current guidelines, applicants for captioning grants take into account the preferences of consumers, through grantee Consumer Advisory Boards (CABs) and other feedback mechanisms, when selecting “educational, news, or informational” programs for captioning. The recent decision deeming almost 200 television shows inappropriate for captioning apparently was based entirely on additional descriptive categories and actions of an external panel of five unnamed individuals.
Required federal rulemaking processes were completely disregarded, thus the public was not provided with the opportunity to provide written opinions, data, or arguments on the recently narrowed definition of “educational, news, or informational” programs for captioning.
Nancy J. Bloch, NAD Executive Director, said, “This secretive process amounts to censorship, which runs counter to the principles of the First Amendment freedom of speech. This action also segregates over 28 million deaf and hard of hearing individuals from access to the same shows as everyone else in America." In addition, Bloch added, families of persons with a hearing loss (parents, siblings, and grandparents in particular) bring the number of persons adversely impacted to many millions more.
Most if not all of the censored shows are in fact educational and informative. These include reruns of family favorites such as “Bewitched” and modern shows such as “Law & Order.” “Disney Monthly Original Children’s Movies” and “Pokemon” cartoons, fixtures in today’s youth culture, are also being censored. Virtually all sports programming has been censored, isolating deaf and hard of hearing students of all ages, not only in the classroom, but within the family, at the school lunch table, and on the playground. The censorship of these shows not only prevents deaf and hard of hearing children from watching shows that help them learn about the trends, culture, and society around them, censorship also prevents deaf and hard of hearing parents from making informed decisions on appropriate programming for their children.
“Without captioning, millions of deaf and hard of hearing parents, such as myself, are unable to preview shows for appropriate content for their children, to watch television programming with their families, or to engage in dialogue with their children in response to televised programs. Education does not stop at the schoolhouse door. My duties and responsibilities as a parent to pass on our family values to my children have been undermined by a few government officials," said Lange who called upon the President to practice what he preaches and restore parental authority by overturning the recent censorship decision.
Similar efforts to censor captioning in 1998 were met by a massive, nationwide outcry of consumer protest. These censorship efforts failed, in part, because then-Department of Education Secretary Richard W. Riley affirmed that the government should not “supersede the individual judgment of millions of deaf Americans” nor should the Department single out particular television programs resulting in a denial of access for deaf and hard of hearing individuals. See Riley’s letter at: http://www.nad.org/infocenter/newsroom/nadnews/EdSecretaryRileyRespon.html
“We’ve always enjoyed a close relationship with the Department in promoting education and family values. This rehashing of the 1998 issue is very disappointing,” Bloch said. Consumers are encouraged to share their views and opinions with Congressional members and Department of Education officials; contact information is available at:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
For a list of recently approved and disapproved television programs for U.S. Department of Education captioning support, click on:
http://www.nad.org/openhouse/action/alerts/captioningcensorship/list.html
-
The department of education made the decision on what to provide captioning for. Bush only failed to overturn their decision. Hardly what I'd call "book burning". I do have sympathy for the deaf. Both my father's sister and my oldest grandson are deaf. IMO, my grandson is better off not watching any television.
-
Why couldn't you see it as virtual book burning. It's keeping entertainment and education out of peoples hands. I grew up when virtually no one captioned TV and the biggest step in the right direction was Papa Bush requiring all TV's over 13 inches to have built in CC. With that said why would you cease funding for selected show...
Oh so no deaf person should be allowed the right to watch a documetary on Hollywood and the Muslim community.
Kerry has the best chance to win this Election in my opinion. I've heard the good and the bad, but Bush continues to scare me in ways that I'd never thought of...
Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom (Scatterbrain)
-
The department of education refused to provide captioning (at tax payers expense) for those programs it deemed not educational. Do you think the tax payers should foot the bill to provide captioning for everything broadcast? Sorry, I don't buy it.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The department of education refused to provide captioning (at tax payers expense) for those programs it deemed not educational. Do you think the tax payers should foot the bill to provide captioning for everything broadcast? Sorry, I don't buy it.
How can you say that!
As both a deaf and blind person, quadraplegic...
I want to see subtitles on pornography.... I deserve to know
what they are saying!
-
Okay, Lets compare some... Amazing animal videos is education in comparison to Emergency vets which has the potential to impression people to learn about a career in the veternary field.
Maybe I'm an extremist but since there is no bill requiring the use of closed captioning by companies, then yes I think the government (supported by the taxpayer dollars) should pay for it.
Approved:
Amazing Animal Videos
Chalkzone
Classic Hallmark Titles
Connie the Cow - Noggin
Dragon Tales - PBS
Girls Vs. Boys - Noggin
Glass With Vicki Payne
Masterpiece Theatre - PBS
Pinocchio, VCI Entertainment
Rubbadubbers
Sherlock Holmes Series
Not Approved:
5 BET Classic Movies (Titles TBD)
Emergency Vets
Forensic Files
In the Life - PBS
Reel Radicals: The 60's Revolution in Film
Documentary: Gay Hollywood
Documentary: Hell Up in Hollywood: Soul Cinema & the 1970's
Documentary: Hollywood & the Holocaust
Documentary: Hollywood & the Muslim World
Documentary: Reality People
Documentary: The Wrong Coast
Documentary: Young Hollywood Awards
CNN en ESPANOL Deportes CNN
-
another govt grant? why does the govt (taxpayer) have to pay for everything. how much is the govt grant, maybe the 28 million deaf people can pay for it so our children and grand children won't have to.
-
I have no problem with a bill requiring captioning for anything broadcast. But the producer and/or broadcaster should foot the bill and pass that on to the consumer, not the tax payer.
Anything produced by the government should and likely does provide captioning.
-
Does the Dept of Education pay for all closed captioning?
Why don't the broadcasters, or the show's producers, foot the bill and put CC in themselves?
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
How can you say that!
As both a deaf and blind person, quadraplegic...
I want to see subtitles on pornography.... I deserve to know
what they are saying!
I surely hope this was a feeble attempt at a joke.
-
Your pissed about the Gay Hollywood thing, aren't you?;)
-
Originally posted by john9001
another govt grant? why does the govt (taxpayer) have to pay for everything. how much is the govt grant, maybe the 28 million deaf people can pay for it so our children and grand children won't have to.
How easily you say that... Using your thinking : Why not have the parapalegics pay for wheel chair accessable building ?
Heaven forbid that we make people in wheel chairs pay for their access...
Why doesn't the Government require equal access to all indiviuals, including the deaf?
Why is it that very few crosswalks are enabled for the blind to cross safely?
Why is it government contractors can tear up Sidewalks, do a chitty job putting it back and not be held accountable?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Your pissed about the Gay Hollywood thing, aren't you?;)
I knew that was coming from someone...
Why don't you ask my Wife? She'll tell ya I don't own any barbara striesand albums :) Though in this day and age of liars that might not be sufficent proof :)
-
Liars are nothing new.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Liars are nothing new.
:lol So insightful
-
Since you seem intent on berating Bush for a supposed slight, how old are these shows you want captioned? Bewitched was on the list wasn't it? Wonder why Clinton didn't caption it for you. Did you berate him about it? That isn't a rhetorical question.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Since you seem intent on berating Bush for a supposed slight, how old are these shows you want captioned? Bewitched was on the list wasn't it? Wonder why Clinton didn't caption it for you. Did you berate him about it? That isn't a rhetorical question.
As a matter of fact, Clinton tried the same thing and failed too... And yes I was upset then too...
"Similar efforts to censor captioning in 1998 were met by a massive, nationwide outcry of consumer protest. (There are 28 million deaf Americans. Go figure.) These censorship efforts failed, in part, because then-Department of Education Secretary Richard W. Riley affirmed that the government should not “supercede the individual judgment of millions of deaf Americans” nor should the Department single out particular television programs resulting in a denial of access for deaf and hard of hearing individuals. "
The age of the shows are irrelevant because you are implying the older shows aren't worth CC'ing. Fine, don't caption the History Of the Bismark, or D-Day, Fuggit don't caption anything older than 2003. How about them apples.
Caption them all or REQUIRE the companies to caption them... That is all that I ask.
-
You assume too much. I only brought up age to ask why now?
I did enjoy Bewitched when I was younger, and yes, I'm old enough to have watched it before reruns. However, I don't recall it having any educational value at all.
-
BTW, both my aunt (now deceased) and my grandson, now 8, read/read lips quite well. I know that you don't always see the person speaking on television but it seems you usually do on sitcoms like Bewitched.
-
I for one am quite willing to stop funding for the department of education... where do I sign up to vote on it?
lazs
-
So FOX news should get a government grant to caption their shows because its educational? Aren't they a for profit company? I just would like to see equal access for everyone. One could argue that bewitched is educational. It teaches imagination, yeah I'm probably grasping here but how is an episode of Jerry Springer more educational than Forensic Files?
-
Who said anything about government grants besides you Dingbat? I am most definitely against paying anything towards everything broadcast. Let the consumers pay.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Who said anything about government grants besides you Dingbat? I am most definitely against paying anything towards everything broadcast. Let the consumers pay.
Umm...
Originally posted by john9001
another govt grant? why does the govt (taxpayer) have to pay for everything. how much is the govt grant, maybe the 28 million deaf people can pay for it so our children and grand children won't have to.
-
What I mean is, who is advocating a government grant besides you?