SIGN OF THE TIMES
God help me,
I know I am a jaded prick. Worse than
just cranky, but I can’t help myself.
I was
watching the news conference last week about this horrible train wreck where at least 8
people lost their lives and many more were hurt, some seriously. As I am watching this what goes through my
mind besides prayers for those involved?
Why is there someone in the front signing everything the officials are saying?
Why is there someone in the front signing everything the officials are saying?
How many deaf people are watching the news on TV? There is no signing on any other stations for other shows. When I am at the gym the TV’s all have running
written commentary on the bottom of the screen for every show. Don’t all deaf people have access to this function
on their TV’s?
Do we really
have to use taxpayer money to have an interpreter for the deaf signing on TV? Do they only sign for train wrecks?
Is this
political correctness run amuck?
I hope I haven’t
offended any deaf people that read this crappy blog, but I think if I were deaf
I would be offended that these politician yahoos feel they have to have a
signer report every word from their press conference. Do they think I would be incapable of having
the same TV technology that is at every gym in the country? Do they think if I wanted to find out what was
happening in current events that I would not get my information on the internet
where I could read it?
I'm sorry deaf
people, I don’t mean to offend you, if you need these signers on TV news conferences,
I am happy to have your and my tax money pay for it. It just seems silly to me…but then I am a
prick.
And yes, as I watched this I had the image of Garret Morris from the original Saturday Night Live being the signer for the deaf on the SNL news by yelling really loud.
Garret Morris was the first thing that came into my mind!!
ReplyDeleteDeaf hubby relies on loud voices but then he doesn't know sign language. I think he'd rather stay as he is than have someone sign ,,, he moans a LOT when they do that in church.
ReplyDeleteTo your question, " Is this political correctness run amuck?", the answer is yes. I'm not offended by it, it just seems unnecessary considering today's technology, rather like having a stenographer in an a 21st Century office.
ReplyDeleteIf a deaf person were watching TV, he would probably have caption - and be reading the TV. If a deaf person were attending the meeting, he would probably use an interpreter. Since I don't really know what is going on in the photo, I would bet that there is a deaf person (s) at the conference. And yes, technology would be cheaper than an interpreter, but I would also bet that most news conferences do not consider the deaf often and are not set up with technology for the deaf, which leads me to think that this is a personal interpreter - not an official.
ReplyDeleteIt might be political correctness, or it might be a law in that city/county/state that all press conferences have an interpreter there, and the law dates back to before the technology was available, and just hasn't been changed.
ReplyDeleteAs for stenographers, i was a court reporter. Yes, anyone with a digital recording device could do that and not have to learn the shorthand machine, but the laws here demand that a licensed court reporter do more than just record (which we did anyway, as a back up). It's because the reporter is responsible for the integrity of the record, that every word is accurate.
Sorry, Joe, you picked the wrong function to eliminate for economy. The interpreter pushes your cranky button for some reason, yet there is a great deaf community relying on that interpreter. If the microphone did not work or needed turned up, you would expect that to happen. Some real economy would be to cut the salaries of the elected officials. By the way, the interpreter probably is earning minimum wage, or is some government employee who has learned sign language for the purpose of helping when necessary.
ReplyDeleteSometimes even I am shocked by my insensitivity.
DeleteThat's why you have Mrs. Cranky.
DeleteGood point!
Deletei'd not be irritated by that at all. i'd probably say more signers are needed in more instances of public news conferences.
ReplyDelete"Is this political correctness run amuck?", the answer is yes.
ReplyDeleteHave a fabulous day Cranky. ☺
Okay maybe I'm jaded back but I would rather have a deaf interpreter there than someone who speaks a different language interpreter who has been here in our country for years and never learned the English language. Lots of tax dollars go for those interpreters in California (and don't get me started on having the election ballot in a variety of languages......)
ReplyDeletebetty
Maybe they are worried that a deaf person who can see but can't read might miss the message? Why should deaf people be accommodated and not illiterates?
ReplyDeleteAnd those darn handicapped access points, why should they get special treatment??
ReplyDeleteNice one Joeh, I love it when you're so straight-faced and fool everybody. Good irony post.
Cheers
No, not irony, like I said just being a jerk. I have no issue with any handicap concessions, ramps, special parking etc. all good. I just think the signing thing gets silly. I've even seen them sign the National Anthem at functions. I'm not complaining, and don't think it is a big waste of money or anything, I just think it is silly.
DeleteAnd I know how you love to poke me.
All in fun, eh? As you know, a majority of the time I agree with at least some of what you're saying.
DeleteWho would have thought, 40 years ago, that there would be something like this to amuse us in our 'golden years'......
Since there are 1,000,000 deaf persons in the US, I am not bothered by any signing at events. Being one of those liberal sorts, It doesn't bother me if we go the extra mile to keep these folks from falling through the cracks.
ReplyDelete"God help me, I know I am a jaded prick. Worse than just cranky, but I can’t help myself."
ReplyDeleteWelcome to my world
I've seen signers here occasionally, on the news, and never even wondered why, just assumed they were necessary. but now that you mention it, if they are necessary sometimes, why not always? do deaf people only tune in to tragedies and political comments?
ReplyDeleteI would hazard a guess that the deaf interpreters are signing at a news conference and not on other programs because the stations have the closed captioned infrastructure in place for their regular programming, but not for breaking news.
ReplyDeleteWow!
ReplyDeleteI can hardly wait for your next opinion piece, wherein you take issue with those ridiculous beeper carts for folks to ride through the grocery store. If they can't walk, they don't need that many calories, right? So they can just wait for the crumbs we drop for them, which should be as good as a feast. Or drag themselves through the store, thus polishing the tile, requiring one less maintenance employee, which should reduce the prices.
I get you, Joe. I really get you. I wouldn't be surprised if you were out right now looking for a class where you can learn how to sign, so you can become an interpreter for the deaf. For free. So you could make sure they don't miss any news on Tom Brady, that cheater.
I just don't know anything anymore. I've lived in various places and I've been around a long time but when I search my memory, I've never known a deaf person. I've never even personally known someone who relied on a hearing aid. I keep getting advertisements in the mail to go into some company for a free hearing test.You bring up subjects that make me think. Oh, that's your point, huh?
ReplyDelete