Dave Sikula wrote: > Is there a reason the sensibilities of the hard-of-hearing are more > delicate than those with no difficulties? I don't understand why, if > they're clutching their pearls over written dialogue, they don't seem > to care about the oral equivalent.
No, there's nothing inherent about the sensibilities of the hearing-impaired. I can't imagine a deaf-advocacy group going to AMC and complaining about having to read all those swear words that all the other networks put in their captions. (When closed-captioning first started, dialogue was severely edited, shortened and "dumbed down," the premise being that the deaf weren't used to having to read English quickly, particularly those whose first language was ASL. That gradually went away over the years, largely at the request of deaf-advocacy groups that argued against the editing, i.e., "if we miss the dialogue, we miss the dialogue, but at least give us a chance to read it all in the first place.") The only thing I can think of that would sort of make sense to me on AMC's part is if they thought they were going to be rerunning the shows earlier in the day with words bleeped, and they're too cheap to pay for the captions for the edited version to themselves be edited. -- Jim Ellwanger <[email protected]> <http://www.ellwanger.tv> -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
