So I’m about two weeks slow on the uptake, but I’ve been watching the reaction to a federal judge’s decision that the powers that be over at the Redskins’ home stadium must caption all “aural content.” (I’m obsessed with that phrase and am gonna abuse it as much as earthly possible. Be warned.)
Find more coverage of the decision here and here.
In a nutshell, the Redskins’ people, at one point, begrudgingly said they’d caption certain things they deem important in certain places. The plaintiffs in the case weren’t prepared to have those decisions made on their behalf and pushed for equal access, importance be damned. After what seemed like forever, the judge agreed.
The response in the blogosphere has been interesting.
There seems to be quite a big to-do over one specific part of this aural content: the song lyrics. I’m not sure why it’s so provocative.
Naysayers say the song lyrics are irrelevant, and therefore the decision is too forceful. Supporters say it’s about equality and access, not relevance, and therefore the decision is appropriate.
Wow. I’ve never seen the song “Who Let the Dogs Out” invoked so much in protest. Apparently it’s ridiculous to be informed when annoying lyrics blare out over the loudspeakers.
And the ripple effect of Marc Fisher’s rhetoric is strong. You may remember his piece on Jane Fernandes back in October of 2006. Well, October must be the deaf community’s lucky month with Fisher — he’s done it again, this time admonishing the plaintiffs for having the audacity to ask what the aforementioned lyrics were. According to him, captioning things like this is a threat:
More important, however, the court’s ruling threatens every public performance by a sports team, musical group, theatrical troupe or any other artistic endeavor.
He doesn’t say just how captioning endangers the efforts of athletes, musicians, or any other sort of entertainer, other than a fleeting suggestion that the words would be too distracting to audiences.
Moving on: Julie Feldman has already responded to Fisher on this blog, pushing the “who are you to decide?” argument, and DeafMom over at disaboom also felt compelled to invoke Fisher’s column, concluding that the captioning that the Redskins must do is not only not a nuisance, it’s an opportunity for universal access — hearing and deaf alike. She writes:
If you want to talk about the real spirit behind the Americans With Disabilities Act, we’d all share the vision to equalize the access for all people with disabilities in every public arena. If we raise a generation of people with this vision, then we wouldn’t build another building without full access for all. And there would be no more lawsuits.
Coral and Opal is pretty supportive of the plaintiffs, acknowledging that it is within the plaintiff’s right to whatever aural content is available, that it’s patronizing to decide for them what should and shouldn’t be conveyed, and adding, quite eloquently, that captioning this stuff isn’t rocket science. However, he adds:
But there are two parts to every song - music and lyrics, and both mean something. And in football stadiums, the former is much more important than the latter. The lyrics are often completely irrelevant.
For example, “The Winner Takes It All” might make more sense lyrically to a deaf person at a football game than “Welcome To The Jungle” does. But just try playing ABBA to a drunk, frenetic crowd at the two-minute warning of a close game.
Okay, so the song lyrics aren’t always irrelevant. Duly noted. Would never have known if ya hadn’t told.
And of course, this post wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t include he of the “hoity-toity” usage: Paotie calls the plaintiffs’ case “overkill:”
People like Mr. Feldman belong in the handicapped section of every sporting stadium around the world. Is life so trivial to sue over a stupid game? For Mr. Feldman and the NAD, evidently so.
So what do you think? The Redskins captioning everything that goes through their speakers: Whoo-hoo! or stupid?
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
17 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I can’t help but wonder if Mr. Feldman and his supporters (including myself) including willing NAD members backed by the NAD (as I believe is involved to such an extent) have the collective conscience (as in giving the benefit of doubt) to continue attend Redskins games at FedEx Field or watching the Redskins on television or continuing buying, maintaining and worshipping Redskins-oriented paraphilia despite what I realize is an ongoing spat? I was so enamored with the Redskins but since passage of the ADA I have been anticipating the Redskins to keep up with what’s needed to be done. Needless to say, I feel lukewarm about the Redskins and all multi-million/billion enterprising entities (i.e. Apple still doesn’t caption their keynote and product launch presentations on QuickTime) that doesn’t at all reasonably accommodate people with needs. I’m very tired about this. I’m embarrassed but I wish the best for all entities concerned here.
Hearing Person’s Opinion:
I really, really support the captioning of the announcing - especially the relevant stats of the game.
I can’t understand most of what comes over the loudspeakers anyway, and wait for the update on the board.
But I tend to agree with the quotes above about the lyrics. The songs are generally there to pump up the audience, and for their “resonance” with the crowd. Even relevant lyrics, captioned, don’t provide the intended use. And therefore become just so much clutter.
(For that matter, the music is just a lot of ear pollution, and they could pass on it and most people’s life would be ok.)
So, I would think there are more important things to push on, then captioning to the “nth” degree.
*puts arms in front of his face and waits with one eye open to see what happens*
Sigh…
I understand both perspectives here. And I emailed Marc Fisher as well to politely complain about the way he phrased some of his…phrases. :) And yes, he responded very politely to me, as well. (In case you’re wondering, he still sticks by his opinion.)
For those who think that captioning song lyrics is unnecessary, let me point out a radical idea:
This lawsuit will become precedent. There may be venues in the future in which song lyrics WILL be important, e.g., concerts at RFK stadium. So whether you’re watching a multitude of performers or a singular band perform, captioning of the song lyrics would provide that equal, relevant access to deaf and hard-of-hearing participants.
So if the judge had ruled that “all but song lyrics” constituted equal access, then that sets the precedence to NOT provide captioning of lyrics at other venues/events in which they would be important.
Here’s how I see it:
Is knowing theme songs to various TV shows relevant to what happens on the show itself? Nah. But is it relevant to social/pop culture and the ability to relate to one another? Yup. So, if you remove captioning of lyrics from TV theme songs, you remove that ease of access to social/cultural information.
For example: Mention “The Brady Bunch” to almost any hearing American, and they can start singing the theme song on cue and without preparation. Deaf people? Good luck.
So, back to my point… captioning “Who Let the Dogs Out” during a football game may not be relevant to what’s happening on the field, but it is relevant to the experience of attending the game.
Oh, and what about halftime during the Super Bowl? A solid 20-30 minutes of performances, with no game play going on. I’d like to be able to see the lyrics. Wouldn’t you?
…………………………………….
Hail to the Redskins
Hail victory
Braves on the warpath
Fight for ol’ DC!
…………………………………….
I am very happy about the decision.
I could not care less about lyrics being captioned. Like others have said, it is about precedent. If lyrics have to be captioned in football stadiums, what next? Everything will have to be captioned. This was truly a landmark case.
Paotie is being an ignorant idiot who only wanted to stir the pot.
It is time to have an overkill of captioning everywhere in public even if we have to surgically implant ticker boards on hearing people’s foreheads because the ADA says so!
Hilary’s analysis is valid and one of the better ones out there regarding this decision. She recognized that Shane Feldman and others sought a legal precedent in order to help people share everyday experiences that most of the hearing population take for granted.
I’ve also observed that too many of the responders might not recognize that this decision can have ripple effects. For example, hard of hearing people can benefit from this; so can people who are learning English as a second language.
But whatever: in this imperfect world, there will always be people who take the opposite side or try to be “trolls” in hopes of string up discontent. That is fine and I’m happy to ignore them. Likewise, I’m confident that Feldman is NOT losing any sleep over those who disagree with him. He’s left a legacy which is probably more than what most of us can say about ourselves. So, for those who enjoy proclaiming themselves as an author of their own lives, I’d suggest that they take a harder look at themselves in the mirror because running a diatribe-filled blog isn’t the right way to go at it.
Smiles. Well said. Especially your last sentence about being an author of our own lives. Touche.
I thought this over some more, and I can’t help but think about why the lyrics wouldn’t get captioned. Relative to captioning the announcers commentary, adding ♪Who let the dogs out, woof, woof♪ is relatively simple. Not hard enough to be worth arguing about.
Not even worth mentioning as an exclusion. It should just be done. Is someone just trying to be lazy? These songs are only played when nothing else is going on anyway.
And if the deaf/hard of hearing want to sing along or shout it out, they should have the right lyrics!
Caption the dang lyrics, ok Redskins? It ain’t that hard. I should know.
Glad you were willing to post your post-thoughts :-) I think it’s quite clear that the lyrics really aren’t that big a deal in terms of the game; they’re just background cultural context. No one’s arguing over that, I think.
The funny thing is, as you’re noting here, is that’s exactly beside the point.
I especially like Hilary’s explanation about cultural participation, for which lyric captioning would indeed be crucial.
Hilary’s right in that sense, I agree. And half-time shows - unquestionably. I like watching music videos with the captions on (as I do with most TV). I want to make sure I know what was “really” said. I was surprised watching captioned movies, how much I did miss of the dialogue by using hearing only.
“Aural Processing” is complex, as I’m sure those who receive hearing later in life can attest. In a football stadium, I seldom hear what referee announces, frequently can’t detect the inane dialogue of the announcer, over the din of the crowd, and the loud comments of the drunk dude behind me.
I’d like to see the captions on a wireless device in my hands though. Control the size of captions, scroll back through a few lines of content.
I remember my brother bringing a radio into the stadiums to hear the radio commentary (more of a play by play) along with what’s going on at the stadium.
As others have said,captioning benefits the hearing as well.
Thanks, Bill and Alli. :)
I reviewed some materials and want to revisit this. Groups who collectively seek “change” tends to get their way if they take drastic actions such as boycotting.
I’m just playing devil’s advocate here. Why isn’t there enough people, deaf or not, who care about this? Why isn’t there a nationwide boycott commensurate to NAD’s involvement in this case? Don’t you forget Calendar Girls from many years ago?
In middle of the Calendar Girl spat was none other than the current NAD President, Dr. Bobbie Beth Scoggins. This one was boycotted on principle!
If pursuing this case is justified why not boycott the Redskins in every way?
If some people are so hell bent about this why not organize a demonstration?
Now this begs me the question: is boycotting the Redskins a catalyst for change?
On the other hand is this situation the kind that people shouldn’t mind enjoying on one side (the weekly cliche about the Redskins) and not enjoying on the other side–the legal struggle) That was sort of a part of my overall wonderment here.
Don’t tell me about precedent. This will take care of itself. The concern here is the Redskins. If other wants to take legal action against other team then they should.
And, I wonder if the NAD will help out two fans (not at all part of the so-called Deaf Washington Establishment) if they’re screwed over by the Frederick Keys?
Ah, that’s easier said than done. Redskins: Can’t Live With Them, Can’t Live Without Them.
But, I believe the owner(s) of the team and its ancillary facilities are cheapskates!
Because you have to show a good faith effort that you’ve tried to work with the system, before taking a drastic action like boycotting, to be taken seriously.
And the result here was great. The plaintiffs walked away looking good, a precedent was set, and the Redskins are forced to do what’s right.
A boycott without trying the legal avenue first, might be successful, but not as successful as the way Feldman and the others took.
A Deaf Pundit wrote, “Because you have to show a good faith effort that you’ve tried to work with the system, before taking a drastic action like boycotting, to be taken seriously.”
This is an interesting statement. I think lots of people possess varying definition of what constitutes as “good faith and effort in working with the system.”
One’s idea of good faith may be different compared to others hence seemingly perpetual dialogue in regards to execution of whatever needed to be done.
There are certain aspects that doesn’t require us the indignity to put up with in the very first place. One drawback to putting up with the system for awhile is that it also establishes precedent for the other side to “buy time” in form of being relegated as second-class until push comes to shove in form of taking this to a venue of justice.
Within the greater Washington Metro area and beyond the Redskins are one of the wealthiest entities. They’re the first professional football franchise to net a worth of a billion dollars. Therefore, there shouldn’t be “us putting up in good faith while they buy time” slack given to the Redskins. They should be a well-established model of accommodation specifically since passage of the ADA. Based on recent developments they miserably failed us in the venue of accommodations.
In short, this went on too long.
And, don’t forget that hearing people paid bucks! They get what they pay for so why not deaf people? What’s next, really? I come down with a serious injury and a hospital (which took note of your remark) make me put up in good faith with their runaround system and I sue them.
“I think it’s quite clear that the lyrics really aren’t that big a deal in terms of the game; they’re just background cultural context. No one’s arguing over that, I think.”
Eh, not so fast.
Reduce the argument to substitutions. “The lyrics aren’t really that big of a deal in terms of the game…” or in other words “‘A’ isn’t really relevant to enjoying ‘B.’”
Without having some sort of legal (or at least logical) means for determining what is relevant and what isn’t, nothing can stop you from saying that about almost anything. To stick with music, for example, is it relevant to the overall experience of watching a baseball game if the lyrics to The Star Spangled Banner or Take Me Out To The Ballgame aren’t captioned? Is there an answer to this question that isn’t based on personal taste or on an appeal to tradition? Take Me Out To The Ballgame is traditional and therefore relevant, but the lyrics to Cheers are not traditional and therefore not relevant? To fairly decide the answer we’d have to establish some sort of criteria regarding what is traditional (and why) and what is not (and why).
The deeper we got into that, the more hopelessly complicated everything else would become, especially after we tried to apply our criteria to a broad range of experiences. The only way to avoid the whole mess is to say that anything that is already happening in the stadium (at least in terms of what is sponsored by the Redskins) during the game is relevant, including the songs being played–and their lyrics, because if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be happening in the first place.
And I think that the Redskins will realize this once they really sit down and think about which scenario would cause a bigger public backlash… captioning every song they play, or not playing songs with lyrics AT ALL. Including The Star Spangled Banner.
Picture this: On Friday, September 13, 2013: Shane Feldman, Hilary Franklin, Alison Polk Kaftan and et. al. backed by the NAD file a lawsuit against the politically correctly renamed Color-Hue-Whatever-Color-You-Want-Skins because since their worshipped hero Dr. Cornett’s little experimentation took place decades ago and since passage of the ADA decades ago the franchise miserably failed to accommodate cued speech/english whatever users especially after the Redskins provided not only captioning but also ASL translations yet they excluded cued speech/english transliterators in the equation. Tweezers galore!
Uncalled for, Robert. I thought you were a better person than that.
Hilary, this remark of yours was brought to my attention by some who knows you from places.
Good riddance!
Message for the most ficklest of people I know:
I envision this happening someday in your little Color-Me-Skins stadium seat quite replete with buttons and cups of tweezers to split hairs with, no pun intended. Please Press 1 if you think the captions (for lyrics and audibles) aren’t effective. Meanwhile the Color-Me-Skins accommodate spoken English then Spanish then French and, finally, ASL components of their fan base but hardly doing likewise for forgotten users of Cued Speech/English/Whatever.
And, for some of you, if you’re gushing as if Cued Speech/English holds superiority to point of holding political clout in the Washingtonian Political/D/deaf Establishment whatever relevant to deaf education why aren’t you people visible?
I thought it would be a no-brainer VRS would offer CuedSpeechEnglishWhateverVRS and other amenities commonly afforded toward ASL users?
Even after VRS was first tested in the 1990s this hasn’t even taken place. Not even SorensonVRS with at least 55 and fast-counting call centers.
And, the industry already … SpanishVRS. Wow!
There was Twisters Gone Wild as we know ADA was watered down. Nowadays, we seem to be watching with satire, “Entitlement Gone Wild!”