The closed captioning fuss
Feb. 17th, 2004 01:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tanaiseSo far this evening I've seen this in Neil's journal, on Boingboing and on a mailing list, and it's irritating me so much I'm kicking up a fuss.
While I do agree that it's not nice of the department of Education, I wanted to point out a couple things that are being overlooked by everyone who complains about this--the government isn't refusing to let these shows be closed-captioned, just not chipping in, which is a different thing. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.html spells out the details of close captioning requirements. And the thing is, the government presumably couldn't afford to close caption everything, so they have to make choices, and *any* choices they made would upset someone. Furthermore, looking at the list, I wouldn't be surprised if some decisions were made based on the likelihood of someone else stepping in to pay for the captioning. We usually have close captioning on (not so much for hard of hearing reasons as for paying attention to the TV when others are talking), and I can tell you that all the contemporary shows I see on the list are closed captioned already, so I assume it's a renewal of a grant that's being turned down? or an attempt by the network to spread the cost around. Personally, if I fuss at anything on that list, it's about the older movies and TV shows that got turned down, as there's much less commercial incentive there for a company to sponsor them.
This isn't to say that I agree with the choices made, it's just, well, we don't know who these people were on the committee, or what the requirements for being approved or rejected, or even what question they were asked to answer, so I don't know how we can say if they did a good job or not. I fully agree that it is a crack-headed way to do it, but that doesn't mean it's censorship. I mean, for all we know the panel said something that translated to, "give the money to programs that aren't likely to have the comercial support that the others were given.' To start assuming an evil motive behind all this smacks of a witch hunt, and it bothers me to think of people chasing shadows when there are so many things that are quite obviously problematic out there that don't get the attention they deserve. Yes, I'd like to see this explained, but in the grand scheme of things, I'd rather see the WMD explained first.
ANd the whole "witchcraft" angle seems to be completely original to the Palm Beach Post, which is, I should point out, the only attention this thing seem to have gotten, despite being around since early October. So I find the whole things really...well, hard to believe until I start seeing some people with proof that this is what they say it is. And instead, all I see is this one editorial with no real support and despite that, a sudden witch hunt popping out of nowhere.
While I do agree that it's not nice of the department of Education, I wanted to point out a couple things that are being overlooked by everyone who complains about this--the government isn't refusing to let these shows be closed-captioned, just not chipping in, which is a different thing. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.html spells out the details of close captioning requirements. And the thing is, the government presumably couldn't afford to close caption everything, so they have to make choices, and *any* choices they made would upset someone. Furthermore, looking at the list, I wouldn't be surprised if some decisions were made based on the likelihood of someone else stepping in to pay for the captioning. We usually have close captioning on (not so much for hard of hearing reasons as for paying attention to the TV when others are talking), and I can tell you that all the contemporary shows I see on the list are closed captioned already, so I assume it's a renewal of a grant that's being turned down? or an attempt by the network to spread the cost around. Personally, if I fuss at anything on that list, it's about the older movies and TV shows that got turned down, as there's much less commercial incentive there for a company to sponsor them.
This isn't to say that I agree with the choices made, it's just, well, we don't know who these people were on the committee, or what the requirements for being approved or rejected, or even what question they were asked to answer, so I don't know how we can say if they did a good job or not. I fully agree that it is a crack-headed way to do it, but that doesn't mean it's censorship. I mean, for all we know the panel said something that translated to, "give the money to programs that aren't likely to have the comercial support that the others were given.' To start assuming an evil motive behind all this smacks of a witch hunt, and it bothers me to think of people chasing shadows when there are so many things that are quite obviously problematic out there that don't get the attention they deserve. Yes, I'd like to see this explained, but in the grand scheme of things, I'd rather see the WMD explained first.
ANd the whole "witchcraft" angle seems to be completely original to the Palm Beach Post, which is, I should point out, the only attention this thing seem to have gotten, despite being around since early October. So I find the whole things really...well, hard to believe until I start seeing some people with proof that this is what they say it is. And instead, all I see is this one editorial with no real support and despite that, a sudden witch hunt popping out of nowhere.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-17 09:20 am (UTC)If any one of us were on that panel and made our selections based on our sincerest and best attempt to be objective and fair, we'd be vulnerable to charges of insincerity and censorship. For example, excluding any criteria based on ratings, I'd exclude "Father Knows Best" from close captioning: Not because I want to censor the show, but because if I have to cut something, there are many other, better, more constructive shows, according to my personal list of critera (which clearly indicates "Father Knows Best" is post WW II propaganda, numbingly stupid, as well as mysogenist fantasy crap. Among other things.). One can see how someone might accuse me of censorship.
Anywaym from this point of view, there are no right choices. Any selection supports someone's agenda, and undercuts another: there is no way around it. All art is propaganda. The best you can do is dispense with the notion of objectivity, reveal your biases, and list your criteria and the process you followed to determine a selection so everyone has a chance to understand how you are skewed.
Of course, making these selections in secret is a mistake that is in keeping with the Bush administration's (Cheney's) way of doing things, and is anti-democratic. However, I wouldn't want my name connected to these selections. No way. People would find where I lived, block my driveway, send me hate faxes accusing me of covert fascism, and chant all night so I couldn't sleep. And all I was trying to do was make hard choices in the harsh environment a tight budget causes.
Bottom line: if we don't like the selections the Dept of Education made, if we find the fact that the names of the panelists and the process they used to reach their selections are kept secret, Vote The Bush Administration Out Of Office.