CNN.com Refuses to Caption U.S. Presidential Debate
By Shane Feldman on Tue 24 Jul 2007 |
Email This Post
I am upset. Last night I tried to watch the Democratic Presidential Debates on CNN.com via their new “Live Video from CNN.com” feed and it was not captioned. CNN.com cannot claim ignorance; they are familiar with the technical requirements. They’ve been dragging their feet on this issue for too long and now I have been cheated out of the opportunity to follow a critical part of the U.S. presidential campaign.
It’s my turn to ask the candidates a question:
What changes will you make to ensure that companies like CNN.com can no longer deny access to deaf and hard of hearing Americans – which coldly leaves deaf and hard of hearing people in the dark?
All of the candidates including the leading democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards can also show their commitment to civil rights by refusing to participate in any live web streaming debates or web video appearances unless the corporation captions them. They have taken the initiative to have their own web videos captioned, and I applaud them for that. CNN.com has more resources and funds than the presidential candidates. Their only excuse is to hide behind the law. As a result, CNN.com has consistently refused to provide web video captioning for years.
This isn’t the first time I’ve been concerned about this issue. I’ve sent CNN emails since 1999 asking them to caption their web videos only to receive automated replies similar to the following:
Thank you for the e-mail you sent CNN.com about our Free Video service! This auto reply is your notification that we have received it.
Your inquiry will be reviewed in the order it was received. In the interim, please visit our “Frequently Asked Questions” page at http://www.cnn.com/help/video for possible resolution to your issue. Technical questions submitted through this area will receive a response. Other feedback will be included in the response report that is prepared and made available each day to our producers and senior management.
Again, thank you for contacting us, and please visit the attached links for more information on our anchors, programs and schedules:
(And the email goes on and on touting CNN.com’s features)
I’m fed up with CNN.com. For people like me, CNN.com has been my primary source of news in the last few years — often providing valuable information that impacts the quality my life — even more so now that I don’t have cable TV.
If there’s one thing that deaf and hard of hearing adults can find common ground on, it’s the lack of captioning via vital news websites like CNN.com. We need to step up now and take CNN.com to task for lack of captioning, especially during a live national presidential debate. It’s time to flood them with complaints, demanding a response.
Please send a brief email to the following people and urge them to caption all of their web videos and live video feeds:
Richard D. Parsons
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Time Warner
(CNN is a subsidiary of Time Warner)
richard.d.parsons@timewarner.com
CNN.com Product complaint form (select “video”)
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form9d.html
And contact the following Democratic presidential candidates informing them that you were unable to follow their debate via the Internet and you expect them to address this issue in their campaign and in future web videos:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/help/contact/
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2
http://johnedwards.com/about/contact/form/
You can also contact the Republican Presidential candidates asking them to demand that CNN.com caption the live video feed during the upcoming Republican Presidential Debate.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/
webteam@joinrudy2008.com
https://www.mittromney.com/CommentForm
http://www.imwithfred.com/contact.aspx
Here’s a sample email:
Dear Mr. Parsons,
As a deaf person, I was unable to watch the CNN.com Democratic Presidential Debate through the “Live Video from CNN.com” due to the lack of captioning. As a proud American, I could not participate in an important discourse on national issues that could have helped me determine which candidate I want to vote for during the Democratic primaries and the 2008 election. I urge you to immediately require that all videos from your subsidiary, CNN.com, be captioned.
Please issue a response to the entire deaf and hard of hearing community on this matter.
Sincerely yours,
(YOUR NAME HERE)
© 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.
Got a response from CNN.com:
Live Video does not offer closed captioning due to the constraints of content.
CNN.com Support
“Constraints of content”?
I think it’s time for NAD to start suing people. :P
NAD has been filing lots of lawsuits in the last 2 years. NAD needs to do that to a big company like CNN.
Imagine the free publicity for NAD if they sue CNN!
r-
It’s not about free publicity, Ridor. It’s about doing the right thing.
DP:
What’s wrong with hitting two birds with one stone? While doing the right thing should be our primary goal, along the way it does help bring publicity to NAD. The more publicity NAD has in order for the hearing world to become aware, the better protected we are when NAD fights the other causes on our behalf.
Deaf Pundit,
Agreed! There are 25+ million deaf Americans whom politicans cannot and should not ignore!
Thank you for the info about CNN.. I always like to watch video not include Debate just general but always had no CC on it like not fair for deaf people… Thank you Karla
hey shane–
i love reading CNN.com every morning and i share your frustration. its really disappointing that none of their videos are captioned or subtitled. so about a year ago, i emailed them asking them to provide either captions, subtitles, or at least a transcript. but their response was basically that it wasn’t technologically possible. i was really disappointed with their response.
it is possible to provide text for videos posted on-line. i know this because google has added captions to one of their videos.
click on this link to see the captioned video: https://checkout.google.com/buyer/tour.html
press “watch the demo” and then click on the grey text “captions”
it would be so great if CNN did this for their videos, and hopefully for their live videos as well.
tamara,
Google appears to understand that captioning is the right thing to do. Ken Harrenstein, a deaf man who works for Google, created a captioning function for Google videos:
http://googlevideo.blogspot.co.....yback.html
This supports the argument that captioning web videos IS technologically possible.
I’ve been having a similar fight with the NY Times - which also has online video. Nobody seems to be willing to discuss the issue.
A great way to email people would be similar to the following:
“I would like to know if there is a schedule for adding closed captioning or subtitles to your online content.”
This makes it less of a yes/no answer….
joseph rainmound,
And if they say “we don’t offer captioning” or do not respond what will you do? It’s time to step up our efforts and contact everyone (especially our representatives which Ed and moi suggest below).
I, too, filed with the DOJ about non-captioning of Internet video streaming news by major players (CNN and such) and they, too, referred me to some organizations from Georgia. I think Congress prob best likely resource to rectify this blatant discrimination.
I also have been sending them emails and letters last year like at least 4-5 times and they came up just exact what they told Tamara that it is not technologically possible.
Even I asked for a transcript or at least a link for an article provided along with the video so what “it wasn’t technologically possible” have to do with transcript?
Hmm….
It’s just an excuse. I’m sure it’s just about money and time issue.
-SG
Seek Geo,
It’s technologically possible, just look at Project readOn (http://www.projectreadon.com/) which has a pittance of resources compared to the behemoths. CNN.com simply refuses to do the right thing.
FYI…
There is a website called ProjectReadOn.com where you can submit online videos you want captioned. Granted, you do have to wait a while for them to caption it, the captions appear in a different window and they’re not always timed perfectly. Sometimes the captions run outside of the window and the other minus is that if you want to stop the video, you also have to stop the window displaying the captions immediately after, and start them both about the same time to make sure the captions stay in sync with the video. Still, it’s the best option there is at this point until all the websites showing videos consent to captioning them as well.
Sure do wish ABC.com would caption their shows online as well!
I do believe that many of us are aware of this fact, I suspect a copy of the debate will end up at Project readOn sooner or later.
But I don’t think that’s the point here. The point is that the live debates in and of themselves should be captioned. The deaf and hard of hearing community shouldn’t be forced to have to deal with “second-hand news” simply because the powers that be don’t want to be bothered.
Yes, I am thankful for Project readOn, but in this case, it’s a poor substitution for news networks taking the responsibility for providing that Equal Communication Access.
[…] Clark Link to Article barack obama CNN.com Refuses to Caption U.S. Presidential Debate » Posted at […]
Hm. Why don’t we, in addition to writing to the people Shane listed above, also contact our representatives in Congress? If our reps got a flood of e-mails, they might pay attention to the issue, especially since ADA is now on the table again for amendments or whatever.
You will need to enter your zip code + 4 to find your representative on the top left of this page: http://www.house.gov/
There is a drop-down list to find your senators/contact info at the very top right of this page:
http://www.senate.gov/
Let’z flood ‘em.
moi,
You’re right, it’s time to galvanize our representatives. I’ll contact them. Thanks for the link.
Hey everyone, we are indeed providing captions for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Tom Harkin. Interestingly enough, we have contacted but have not received any response from any of the republican candidates to provide captioning for their videos.
Also, we have a new version of our player being built right now that addresses the sync issues as well as the pop up window, the new version will have a embedded player which fits nicely right underneath the video itself. A demo of this new iteration will hopefully be available on our site in the next couple of weeks, however, in order for this to work across the board we have to work hand in hand with the video host site. To date, only Revver.com has expressed interest. Please help us help you by contacting video host sites such as YouTube and let them know that there is a viable solution out there.
Wow! I wonder how you found out about this blog? Great to hear you’re improving your website, and now we can use this website to counter anyone’s argument that there is no viable way to add captions to their videos, we can just refer them to this website.
Moebius,
I wrote about Project readOn several days after their website launched:
http://www.deafdc.com/blog/sha.....aptioning/
They’ve been doing a fantastic job and we’re fortunate that their website was created just in time for the 2008 Presidential campaigns.
As most of you know, Barack Obama is from Illinois. I myself live in Springfield, Illinois - where Obama announced his candidacy for presidency earlier this year.
I personally put in a call to the Obama campaign headquarters here in Illinois and informed them of this situation. The individual I talked to was shocked to discover that the debate was not captioned, and when he searched the internet to try and find a captioned version of the debate, discovered for himself what we have known all along. This individual promised to pass the information along to Obama and his campaign team, that they might be aware of this fact.
I don’t know if anything will come out of it, but at least I have done what I can to make one presidential candidate aware of this fact, and intend to follow up by leaving a comment on Obama’s blog. Perhaps those readers living in the home states of presidential candidates from both political parties might want to consider doing the same.
It is my sincere hope that if we can get the candidates aware of this harsh fact, that perhaps they will take a role in advocating for such access. While admittedly this might be “unrealistic expectation,” at the same time I would like to see these candidates walk their talk. If you want to talk about serving the American people, here’s a chance to show us that you really mean what you say!
Virginia L. Beach,
Thanks for calling the Obama headquarters. Someone else sent them an email and received a canned response explaining that Obama now offers captioning for his online videos thanks to Project readOn, then provides a NYTimes link to the debate transcript:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07.....cript.html
How do all of you feel about this answer? The presidential candidate’s response to this type of question could reveal their position on access to the Internet for people with disabilities. The AAPD sent all of the presidential candidates questions about their position on several issues, including “technology and telecommunications”. To see their responses, look at question #8 for all of the candidates at:
http://www.aapd-dc.org/News/election/peac2008.php
Will they practice what they preach?
I remember in the earliest days when CNN went on the internet. I recall they provided two Quicktime movie versions, one with Open Caption and another one didn’t. I received the same Shane’s response from CNN when requesting caption on flicks a while ago. Hope this thread impact CNN.
jason K,
I don’t recall CNN.com offering open captions, maybe you saw the website before I started regularly using it. Can anyone else confirm this?
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/PO.....ranscript/
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/PO.....index.html
Mike,
It’s not 100% the same as LIVE video. Where’s body language in the transcript? I do not accept the transcript as a substitute for lack of live captioning.
http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....pert-says/
I never said that transcripts are the same as live video. At least the information is there to begin with on who said what. Perhaps having no transcript is much more desirable then?
No need to get defensive and snippy, Mike.
All that WAD is saying - and I happen to agree with her - is that we don’t want CNN or any other news corporation to get the impression that we will be happy with their throwing out transcripts a day or so later as a satisfactory substitute. It’s not.
But I fear that unless we start making it clear that we are not content to accept such crumbs as CNN and others might want us to be appreciative of, they aren’t going to put the time, money, or effort into doing anything better.
Is having no transcript much more desirable? Perhaps not.
But why should I settle for hamburger when I know there’s a steak on the menu, if the chef was just willing to cook it?
Mike,
Tongue-in-cheek: Why not turn the sound off and turn CC on? No oral interpreters. It would make hearing people read a transcript.
Perhaps you are misconstruing my posted links as satisfactory and they replace the preferred live captioning instead?
I happen to agree with Shane. It’s only a matter of time until we get automated captioning via speech to text software. I accentuate towards the positive and it is certainly better to have a transcript than none at all. Or perhaps having no transcript is much more desirable then (note to VLB, and that’s not being snippy either)?
I am amazed that you expect us to just bear with it and grin until speech to text software becomes available. CNN and others can’t just decide to inconvenience us until something cheaper or easier comes along. Captions can happen before and without the speech to text software is accessible.
It is easier for you to say that because you understand what is said on TV without captions. Please show respect for those who do not have access.
Uh, Katherine. Let’s not make mountains out of molehills here by twisting everything out of context just to slight me. I have always been an advocate on closing the communication gap, including the use of live captioning wherever possible. Of course CNN has the $$ to do this and not doing so at this day age with the technology we hae is inexcuseable. How many times do I have to say that I agree with what Shane wrote???
And for you say I have no respect to those who don’t have access? Why do you think I physically add subtittles/captions to my Bubblyply videos via YouTube vids so that all of my readers, whether hearing, hoh or deaf, of Kokonut Pundits can view my vids???
Like I said, Katherine. Lets not make mountains out of molehills here by slaming me for all the wrong reasons.
I am a big advocate on technology and since I worked at AT&T as a programmer working on their early Speech to Text software development back in 1990 I am keenly aware that once speech recognition software is able to successfully recognize spoken words and put them into text will live captioning be available cheaply and readily. Even for late breaking live news and so on. And that every shows on tv and over the internet can be easily captioned. The problem has been with processing speed to quickly analyze speech patterns and process the words into the correct grammatical form by recognizing correct grammar. This requires tons of processing and analyzing spoken words every second. We are now approaching real possibility of that happening because we are entering the era of core chips which will quickly add processing speed. This piece of technology alone will undoubtedly ensure that we will see speech recognition software for captioning be implemented much sooner rather than later.
I suggest you read my blog on this subject which includes the real possibility of ASL recognition to text/speech because of the core chips which acts as mini-parallel processing computers.
http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.....rsity.html
Corrected for clarity:
Perhaps you are misconstruing my posted links to CNN transcripts as satisfactory and are much better to have than the preferred live captioning instead?
Mike,
Please re-read Virginia Beach’s
and WAD’s comments (vide supra).
I already said that I happened to agree with Shane’s blog on the subject of live captioning. Nothing on what you are saying about captioning is lost on me.
I would also strongly recommend (for DC-area folks) to write letters to the editor of the Washington Post.
letters@washpost.com
You can also e-mail the National news desk at:
national@washpost.com
The more letters they get, the more likely they are to print at least one of them. And the more letters they get, the more likely they are to write an editorial.
I just fired off a personal e-mail to the bigwigs at the Post:
Leonard Downie, Jr. Executive Editor. downiel@washpost.com
Philip Bennett, Managing Editor. bennettp@washpost.com
Milton Coleman, Deputy Managing Editor. colemanm@washpost.com
Send your own e-mails their way! Make sure you highlight that the Post has never captioned any streaming videos either. They’re just as guilty as CNN, Newsweek, and all news web sites that provide online streaming content.
ETA: Oh, and make sure your subject is something that pops out. I put “Alert! CNN/YouTube debate not captioned!”
Would filing complaint with FCC make any difference? I wonder…..
Deb,
I’m not sure. I am aware of people who filed a complaint with the DOJ about CNN.com’s refusal to caption their videos (see Ed’s comment above). The DOJ decided not to act on their complaints.
More times than not, a government agency (such as the EEOC) will find cause *not* to act upon an individually filed complaint. I speak from prior experience. They usually side with the larger entity - not necessarily because they’re “right”, but because the law just happens to be written “that way”.
Do you know the reason why DOJ have decided not to investigate these complaints?
I remember, many years ago when the ADA first came out, a representative of DOJ came to my agency to do a presentation to the Deaf Community.
One of the things he mentioned was that as a general rule, DOJ isn’t interested in putting the time and manpower into pursuing cases it does not feel it can win.
I think there is a common misconception that if you file a complaint with DOJ, it automatically means you’ve been discriminated against, you’ve got a case, and DOJ is going to come running after “the bad guy” clobbering them over the head and demanding that they have to follow the law, or else!
First of all, the law isn’t as simple as “you’ve got to provide captions” or “you’ve got to provide interpreters” or “you’ve got to hire deaf people.” In fact, the law does not explicitly say that you’ve got to do any of the above. What it basically says is that you’ve got to provide reasonable accomodations, and assure that nobody is denied access on the grounds of disability.
This leaves the definition of “reasonable accomodations” open to interpretation. Yes, DOJ does offer up its guidelines as to how it defines such, which does include the provision of such services as interpreters and captioning.
But unfortunately, people can and do find “loopholes” and use them to their advantage. As Jt says, it is not always a matter of their being right, but rather a matter of that’s the way the law is written.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that in reality, only around 15% of all complaints filed with DOJ will actually see any action taken.
It’s sad, but not too surprising. There is only so much they can do with the resources they have, and with the law consistently being watered down and stripped of its power, in many cases it just isn’t worth it.
And the DOJ has been so politicized by the Bush administration that it’d only be natural that they’d look the other way when it comes to civil rights issues, given the history of the Bush administration.
Christopher Brown,
To view the July 16, 2007 letter from the DOJ in response to Ed’s complaint about CNN.com not captioning its web videos (see comment #85796) click on this link:
http://www.deafdc.com/images/DOJletter.jpg
Let me know if you have trouble viewing it.
Just read the letter. I wish I could offer some explanations on why the complaint won’t be investigated, but I think we both already know it wouldn’t be wise :)
Thanks.
Christopher Brown,
Smile. It’s a long road ahead of us.
And why exactly, wouldn’t it be wise, Christopher?
I am not a member of the deaf community; however, I just sent an e-mail to EVERYONE listed on this site about how thoroughly disgusted I am that they refuse to offer closed captioning to the deaf community. I am a court reporter, and there is absolutely NO reason CNN can provide to justify their reasoning for not providing it. Shame on you, CNN, for depriving such a large portion of the voting population from “hearing” what the candidates have to say!!
Chris A. Sherman,
Thanks for your comment. It’s possible that CNN.com will justify their refusal to caption the Democratic Presidential debate by explaining that they are not required by law to caption Internet videos. Whether their argument will hold in court remains to be seen.
In any case, see my comment below about an organization that is currently pushing for new rules to ensure Internet video captioning among other issues.
I couldn’t watch the live debate since I was stuck in class that night, but I read the transcript the next day. I don’t know about all of you, but the transcript seems to be accurate - since it included pauses and interruptions made by the candidates - and it made me feel like that I was actually watching the debate. But, I know that does not solve the issue.
So, it made me judge on the quality of captioning. I’m also a CNN junkie, but I have to admit that the captioning tends to lag and then skip frequently to keep up with what the anchors and reporters are saying. Frustrates me all the time, but I can’t help but wondering if it’s generally difficult for the captioners to keep up with everything that is being said on television and on the Internet and, like Deb said above, how does the FCC monitor & enforce the captioning activities?
On a different issue - Congress is trying to introduce a bill today to strengthen the ADA with the ADA Restoration Act, but it mainly focuses on easing the narrow definition of the term “disability” by the Supreme Court. Wish it could focus on the captioning in the Internet/wireless sphere. Yes, I’m talking about iPhones!
Christopher Brown,
While the transcript was nice, some critical information is lost that can factor into one’s decision on the candidate they want to support. This information could include body language, appearance, reactions (especially to difficult questions), and so forth (also the YouTube clips were pretty creative, which we missed out on).
It’s possible that one presidential candidate performs better than another on transcript rather than on television. In a May 2003 research journal article, University of Minnesota political scientist James N. Druckman conducted a rigorous experiment in which he showed the audio and video of the first John F. Kennedy/Richard Nixon Presidential debate of 1960 to different test subjects. His results showed that Kennedy won among TV viewers but lost among radio listeners.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/.....2/art00015
Finally there is a group working on legislation to require captioning for the Internet. Check out their website at:
http://coataccess.civicspaceondemand.org/
True, we would be missing the body language/appearance of the candidates, but I think most of us already know that these candidates are expected to present themselves well during a debate, right? Composure, diction, relevance, and all that.
So, I believe it’s how these candidates choose their words that is more important and, like Jt below said, the transcripts provide much more information than the captions do.
Thanks for the links, Shane. Will be sure to look into the policy dynamics on this one.
Let me ask you to make sure I understand you. Are you saying it is perfect okay for hearing people to be ahead of deaf people in receiving information? Are you saying it is fine for hearing people to view all body language, reaction, and etc. while deaf people to miss the entire visual show? Are you saying that transcript is far better than live video with captioning? If you say yes to all of the above, then you seem to support non-equal communication/visual/information receiving access wholeheartedly. *scratching my head* p.s. Please clarify if you think I misunderstood you big time.
I apologize if anyone looks at this as harsh words. It is not my intent. I am only trying to say there’s no excuse like the blogger said.
WAD - uhhhh, nowhere in my post mentioned that I was opposed captioning of web videos. So, I think you went way overboard with your accusations here.
I read CNN, NY Times, and the Washington Post online every morning and I share everyone’s disappointment that many web videos are not accessible to deaf & HH people here.
What I was trying to explain that even though I support live captioning, the quality of captioning needs to be greatly improved.
I was questioning on which I would receive more accurate information - from reading the transcripts or watching the debate with shoddy captioning. That was my point and hope that clarifies your question.
So, take it easy next time, pal, all right? :)
For the benefit of everybody reading this post and its comments… let it be made clear:
Transcripts do NOT equate captions.
Right, the problem with transcripts is that it cannot replicate the visual cues you can get from watching the video. Nor can it replicate the experience of watching the video, which is why captioned videos are more effective in getting the message across.
I definitely agree with captioning at that time, no questions. However I sometimes wonder if we actually get all the message that come across? Remember, hearing people use oral-auditory modality, not manual-visual and with some (not all) captioning technicians fail to incorporate the tone/pitch/etc into the captions. Interesting. However, yes, the first top priority is having captioning in every public video, either TV, recorded medium, or Internet please!
Shane:
While this discussion is certainly important, and while I hope the community succeeds in its efforts to get CNN etc to start captioning more often, I have an issue to take up with you:
You say that you are “upset,” and immediately sound a call to arms throughout the community. Yet in your last few articles on the protest (taking place today I believe) at AG Bell, you listed a major fear of yours–you don’t want hearing parents, hearing people, etc to conclude that the protesters had grown up to be “angry deaf people.”
You put them down when you said that (the protesters). When they are angry about something, that’s how you choose to treat their feelings/issues. When YOU are angry, however, note how you’re not facing even remotely the same kind of treatment from that section of our community.
The point I’m trying to make here is that we lose a lot of intra-community cooperation because certain individuals bash away not only at tactics used, but also at emotions… anger being one of them. Well Shane, tell me something, how do you feel? Still mad? You should be. Since 1999 you’ve been sending emails all to no avail and now what do you want to do? Send in more letters! Fine, great, try. If it works, more power to us, and I’ll even help you. But the fact of the matter is that you felt the same emotions so many others feel on different issues, and I want you to pause here and take note of the fact that right now in your anger you are not so very different from them.
If the letters to all of these people don’t work, what will you do then? If you’re dismissed as a trouble maker and a radical and a militant, what will you do then? Have you thought about that? Yes, you’re working towards a good cause. Yes, your tactics are honorable. But that’s just for now. And I for one am going to call you on it if/when they end up not working. I’m going to call you on it when we all get another collective dismissive email like the one you posted above in your article. I’m going to call you on it because you and people like you continue to call for action and then use tactics that will drag the whole situation out for years and years, and then turn right around and mock those who want a little bit more than yet another letter-writing campaign as “angry deaf people.”
Congratulations–you just joined their ranks.
I’ll be clicking on all the links above and sending my own letters tonight in support of this cause.
Shame on your for your past posts on the AG Bell protest, because you did your part to further divide this community, and I for one am sick of people who think their own anger–and nobody else’s–is the only anger that is justified.
With respect, hope, and disgust, I bid you good luck.
The difference between AG Bell and CNN is that AG Bell has every right to exist and run their organization in whatever manner they please to. They have an ideology that most of us disagree with, but it’s not illegal, and it’s not a clear-cut issue for everyone. It’s a complicated issue in reality. That’s why many of us, including Shane are hesitant on this protest thing.
CNN, on the other hand, IS a clear cut issue. They aren’t providing the general deaf/hoh community with equal communication access. There is a HUGE difference there.
No, there isn’t a difference, because you’re talking about politics and I’m talking about anger. If a person feels angry, there’s nothing “wrong” with him. This isn’t “bad.” It’s natural. You were given the ability to feel angry for a reason. It doesn’t matter what the issue is. You’re never going to see an issue where everyone agrees, adn that’s what you seem to be implying whether you like it or not–and Shane seems to be on the same page with you–that everyone has to agree before anger is justified. But AG Bell has caused enormous damage over the decades, and being angry about this doesn’t automatically put you into that category Shane created (”Angry Deaf People”). His use of that category disempowers people because it simply makes you feel ashamed of being mad. If you want to escape that shame, you have to stay away from “that” group (guess which group that is). Result? Division.
We’ll start seeing real unity when we stop trying to make people feel bad about how they feel. If Shane wants unity he’s going to have to learn to accept that. Otherwise he comes across as a hypocrite, and while this may be hard for you to accept, so at times do you.
Start changing your attitudes a little bit.
Honestly.. I really admire Shane for bravely sticking his neck out and daring to speak up about what he perceives to be an injustice.
Shane also has never, at least to the best of my memory, openly criticized nor denied the right of the Deaf to feel angry. He just strongly disagrees with some of their tactics. No matter how honorable the intentions are… if done incorrectly… can actually cause even greater harm to the deaf community in the longer run due to the public forming misguided perceptions (i.e., “oh, those angry deaf people!”). Which, of course, is pretty counterproductive if you want the public on your side, no?
And now, I’m seeing Shane being attacked by the faceless who accuse him of dividing, not uniting. Can we please remember which country we reside in… America, the land where diversity (of thinking) equates strength? Shane has raised some valid points hereto, and they really should be addressed instead of dismissed as insults by those too angry to step outside the box.
Please remember, Shane *is* on your side. He is using his full, real name to publicly declare what he feels may backfire on or harm the deaf community, of which he is ALSO every bit of a member as you are.
So, this is entirely separate from telling deaf people they shouldn’t feel angry (which was NOT the case in Shane’s recent blog); it’s more about getting the public to view them as rational beings.
At the risk of distracting people from the important issue of CNN.com refusing to caption web videos here goes:
There is nothing wrong with feeling or being angry. Everyone (or almost everyone) is passionate about different issues and may support different strategies to reach their objectives. I may not agree with the strategy of the AGBell protesters. We seem to agree that CNN.com needs captioning. And so it goes.
I absolutely loved the Vonnegut reference, “And so it goes”.
After countless unsuccessful diplomatic attempts to get the French government to grant freedom to the Vietnamese people, Ho Chi Minh realized it was time to go the next stage.
“You have forced us to take arms” was what he told the French.
Are you suggesting we take arms against CNN because they’re refusing to caption? :P
Where’s the outrage regarding other countries where live captioning is hardly available or none at all in news, sports events, and live debates seen on television?
Why the obfuscation? We’re Americans. We can’t fight every battle. Let’s stick to Shane’s battle.
Thank You.