... I have no words.

OMFG? WTF?

(can't come up with any words, either.)

great.
censorship & infantalizing deaf people.
assholes.
i have a feeling the bush administration would strike the ADA in its entirety if they could.

Actually, it looks like the Department of Education only gives grants to close-caption programs that are educational, news, or informational. It seems perfectly in keeping with the point of the Department of Education to do that. It doesn't look to me like the government was considering any of those shows objectionable, it's just that they're not really educational, so they don't qualify.

If the show is not eligible for a government grant to pay for closed-captioning, I'm guessing that the company that makes the show is free to closed-caption it themselves. In fact, I'd hope that the Americans with Disabilities Act would require such shows to be closed-captioned anyway. It's just that government money isnt' sponsoring it.

I'm sure that the company that makes the show is free to closed-caption it themselves, but I extremely strongly disagree with the notion that a show's ability to educate is measureable by whether it contains sexual content. The shows that they continue to grant the money to do not seem to be any more "educational" than the ones they're withdrawing money from; they're merely more G-rated.

Well, from the article, it looked like they weren't funding a lot of G-rated things- Power Rangers, Scooby-Doo, and Bewitched are perfectly G-rated. The stuff they're cutting is all over the scale. So I really don't see how this has any more sinister of a motive than cutting costs by narrowing the definition of 'educational'.

I added a second link to my post which provides more details.

I agree that it's valuable to closed-caption shows. I'm not supporting the government's decision, because I think the government has a responsibility to ensure that shows are closed-captioned, either by paying for closed-captioning themselves or forcing networks to pay for it (after all, the networks can certainly afford it). I certainly don't approve of their shady way of going about cutting funding for some shows without finding a way to keep them closed-captioning. I'm not supporting the decision at all.

But I'm also wary of pretending that this decision is something other than what it is- they're not censoring content they consider problematic, they're just being cheap. It's a much more banal evil than the original article would have you think.

The second link you posted is much clearer on that point, and that page also had this link to a list of shows that were approved for closed captioning, as well as a list of shows that weren't.

You can see pretty clearly that the ones that were not approved were clearly just seen as "entertainment" and of limited educational value. Hence, the G-rated PGA Golf USA was not approved, but every news show got approved. There are some very sketchy decisions, like documentaries that were probably informational but were deemed frivolous or something. But overall they seemed to be following a pretty understandable method.

I don't think it's "all over the scale". It looks to me, as the one person in the article noted, that they're trying to force puritanism on deaf people. Isn't "You're not smart enough to make your own decisions." supposed to be a Democrat trick? The fact that they refused to even reveal their criteria is even more damning. If all they can say is "We're not going to fund closed captioning for these shows anymore and we won't tell you why." then something is most definately up.

Um... can you take a look at the list of approved and unapproved shows and tell me why you think this is an instance of puritanism? Since when did Republicans find golf tournaments offensive?

Also, they did reveal the criteria- the criteria are that a show be "educational, informative, and/or news". Now, they didn't reveal the people who were on the panel, nor did they reveal how they decided whether something was educational, and there's something up with that. And, like I said, there's something up with cutting funding for important services for deaf people. But it's really not an instance of Puritanism like the writer of that article would have you believe. It's really just not.

I did.

Take, for instance, the number of shows including or talking about either the supernatural or things "frowned upon" by conservative religious groups (ie, queerness/sex/ other religious matters) in the list that's now not being supported as opposed to the lsit that is being supported - it's something like 40-50 to 10. Take that and that the actual criteria for picking shows to drop has been witheld and i just can't help but be suspicious, or a bit accusatory.

Let me clarify on the criteria part:

Firstly, this is not a new set of criteria, this is the criteria that those other shows were previously supported under. Secondly, how does "Amazing Animal Videos" fit under that criteria while... say... "Reel Radicals: The 60's Revolution in Film" does not?

Following that logic, it would also be reasonable to assume that conservatives hate sports, cartoons, and the "bed bug bible gang", all of which were disapproved. The things that dealt with queerness and sex just don't look like they're what I'd call "educational". The mainstream media does not make sex-ed shows.

Of the things that looked educational that involved things the religious right hates, the whole thing looks a lot better: they rejected two Hollywood documentaries featuring queer or muslim issues, but it looks like they just rejected all the Hollywood documentaries outright (possibly they decided Hollywood is just not worth learning about- they also rejected a sports news show, even though it technically qualifies as news). They accepted, however, a series about evolution, every single news broadcast except for one about sports (plenty of news shows deal with queerness and sex when it comes up), and so on.

Most importantly, the NAD itself isn't saying that there's a systematic right-wing bias in what gets approved, and they should know best. They're just saying that it's bad to have such limited programming available, and I agree.

The sports thing is a bit confusing to me, actually. It is in line with puritanical beliefs (no entertainment allowed) but i'm still not sure why they're there.

In any case, yes: they rejected one Biblical program and accepted one show on evolution. But like i said, the evidence is about 50 to 10 in favor of my hypothesis. One or two (or around ten, in this case) deviations do not disprove any sort of bias. Sometimes things slip through, sometimes things are thrown out to mask the true intent.

I think it's way simpler to just say that they don't like entertainment. This makes sense since they've explicitly said they're only approving of shows that are educational or news-oriented. There's really just no reason to think that that's not the case- after all, the biblical program, the sports programs, and the sex programs are all just entertainment, not 'educational'.

I mean, as far as I'm concerned, the obvious interpretation (they're cheap and only want to approve 'educational' shows) is the most plausible, and it's bothersome enough.

Why do liberal activists have this habit of finding some sort of anti-sex conspiracies in everything conservatives do? When conservatives are puritanical, they make it pretty clear that that's what they're doing- we already have enough evidence that conservatives don't like sex.

But interpreting puritanism behind everything they do is just not a good idea. If you're going to fight the religious right, at least know what it stands for- there's a puritanical aspect, sure, but conservatism has whole other platforms, like cutting government spending on social programs (which, I think, is what this issue fits under), increasing military spending in order to cement America's status as ruler of the world, cutting taxes (especially on the wealthy and private businesses), and so on. Try to explain away conservative policies by calling them puritanical, and you fundamentally misunderstand your enemy.

Also, it's important to note that this is not about what the government is 'allowing' or 'not allowing'- that's also an aspect in which the original article was misleading. This is a funding issue, and even the first article pointed out that networks that are willing to pay for closed-captioning on their own are by all means allowed to do so. So it's not that the government is actively prohibiting certain shows- they're just being stingy with their funding.

Personally, I think that the Americans with Disabilities Act clearly provides a way out here- companies are required to take any reasonable measures to ensure that their services are accessible to people with disabilities like deafness. Closed-captioning is not all that expensive compared to the profits that networks make. So exactly why the government isn't just forcing all for-profit networks to closed-caption their own damn shows, and then spending all that Department of Education money and spending it on (*gasp*) education, is beyond me. I can see the government subsidizing closed-captioning for PBS or something, but come on, CNN does not need handouts. And if networks aren't picking up the bill for closed-captioning on their own in light of these funding cuts, why aren't we yelling at them? They have money, while the Department of Education's funding has been gouged by this administration.

"Also, it's important to note that this is not about what the government is 'allowing' or 'not allowing'- that's also an aspect in which the original article was misleading. This is a funding issue, and even the first article pointed out that networks that are willing to pay for closed-captioning on their own are by all means allowed to do so. So it's not that the government is actively prohibiting certain shows- they're just being stingy with their funding."

As i understand it, the "disallowed" list is a list that was previously funded, but is now no longer being funded. If this is the case, then the question is why is funding being dropped from these shows? The "news or educational programming" criteria is not the change that provoked this- it was already the criteria. Supposedly it's just being applied more strictly now- ok, so why does Blue's Clues get funding while Samurai Jack or The Simpsons not? Blue's Clues, as much as certain people would like to assert otherwise, is not actually a show about education. As a "work of art" (ie, education gleaned from the general quality of the show itself) i would say it doesn't trump Samurai Jack or the Simpsons.

As far as other networks having money: Yes they do, yes the current administration is gouging funding to a number of groups. This is not CNN's fault. This sort of argument could be made for any sort of TV programming, but it fundamentally misses the point of being inclusive of minorities.

In reference to your other post:

"I think it's way simpler to just say that they don't like entertainment."

This is not a refutation of the "puritanism" assertion :P

"...the biblical program, the sports programs, and the sex programs are all just entertainment, not 'educational'."

And how, precisely, are these programs less educational than Blue's Clues or whatever else? I hate to keep picking on the sex issue, but just because something talks about sex does not instantly make it entertainment. I know a lot of material about sex that would quite frankly bore people to death. Sports is pretty much purely entertainment, but even there arguments could be made that it falls under "education".

"Try to explain away conservative policies by calling them puritanical, and you fundamentally misunderstand your enemy."

Thanks, but until i'm provided with evidence to the contrary it's going to be pretty damn hard to convince me that this doesn't line up with puritanical beliefs.

Have you ever watched Blue's Clues? It's clearly a show that's designed to educate kids of the relevant age group, much like Sesame Street. The difference between Sesame Street, Blue's Clues, and entertainment shows like the Simpsons is really obvious to me.

Also, while being anti-entertainment may be "puritan" in one sense of the word, it's not puritan in the way that the word was being used. It's not that anyone thinks PGA Golf tournaments are too intense, subversive, or otherwise inappropriate for people, with or without disabilities, to see. It's that they don't fit the 'educational' criteria.

Why did they fit before and not now? Probably they're just making the criteria more stringent in order to make an excuse for cutting funding. The government is cutting funding to a hell of a lot of things, and this is no exception.

And how am I missing the point of being inclusive of minorities and people with disabilities? Clearly all shows should be closed-captioned. I just don't see why the government was paying for this in the first place when networks have the money to do it themselves. The whole idea of the government paying for this is clearly a government 'kickback' to wealthy media conglomerates in the first place. Does the government pay for wheelchair ramps, elevators, and other accommodations that companies are required by law to provide to people with disabilities? No. It wasn't the government that paid me to dictate whole books onto tape so that my college could accommodate its blind students, that was paid for by the college itself, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. TV stations have the same obligations under the law that other companies do, and their whining that the government should pay for it is clearly just posturing.

If you're concerned about government spending on programs to help people with disabilities, why not take a short look at the abysmal state that our public schools are in in terms of accommodating people with disabilities? Why the hell are we spending limited tax dollars to help wealthy companies comply with the law, instead of on things that the government is actually responsible for? Come on here.

If it were up to me, the government wouldn't pay for any closed-captioning of shows run by for-profit stations. Networks would be required by law to closed-caption them at their own expense. That way, all shows would be closed-captioned, there wouldn't be this issue of "government censorship" in the first place, and the Department of Education would be able to spend that money on helping schools accommodate kids with disabilities.

"Have you ever watched Blue's Clues?"

Yes, as a matter of fact, i have. Designed to educate and actually succeeding are two different goals. On the other hand, The Simpsons is one of the most consistently relavent (and yes, educational- though that isn't the explicit goal) shows on TV but it's getting cut out.

"It's not that anyone thinks PGA Golf tournaments are too intense, subversive, or otherwise inappropriate for people, with or without disabilities, to see."

Puritanism is generally perfectly happy eliminating all forms of entertainment. Any "pleasures of the flesh" are considered sinful.

"Why did they fit before and not now? Probably they're just making the criteria more stringent in order to make an excuse for cutting funding. The government is cutting funding to a hell of a lot of things, and this is no exception."

Yet "Amazing Animal Videos" is still there while a number of (admittedly, somewhat dubious) documentaries are not. Furthermore, if that's their reasoning- why not say it?

"And how am I missing the point of being inclusive of minorities and people with disabilities?"

Because the question doesn't seem to be "Should there be funding?" but rather "What should be funded?"

"If you're concerned about government spending on programs to help people with disabilities, why not take a short look at the abysmal state that our public schools are in in terms of accommodating people with disabilities?"

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. As a side note, the "No Child Left Behind" policy alone is enough to make me suspicious of anything our government does in the name of education.

"If it were up to me, the government wouldn't pay for any closed-captioning of shows run by for-profit stations."

Sounds reasonable to me, but that's not what's happening right now.

Okay, here's where we're talking past each other:

1) Deciding that entertainment isn't worth funding may be Puritanical. But it's not the same as censoring things you deem subversive. The first article was insisting on the latter point. And since many of the shows denied funding for being pure entertainment are stereotypically "midwest conservative" interests (Nascar, anyone?), I really don't see how this is a particularly right-wing stance.

2) I certainly do think that if the government is going to fund something, they should be able to select which things should be funded. If the Department of Education is going to fund something, I'd hope that that thing would have at least something to do with education. To me, it doesn't matter, because I think that companies should be required to closed-caption everything. If the Dept. of Education decides to fund a few obviously educational things but doesn't fund others, then, the end result, on the viewers' end, would be the same- everything would be closed-captioned anyway.

3) Once you accept that the government has a right to decide which shows to fund, it's really not hard to understand that they're going to make decisions you don't agree with. Maybe you find more value in the Simpsons than in Blue's Clues- I'm an avid watcher of both, and I think it's comparing apples and oranges, and can therefore see either side of the argument.

4) You're right. The "No Child Left Behind" policy is utter bullshit. I was pissed that most Democratic candidates supported it in their platforms, except for Dean, who won't get the nomination. Grrrrr.

1. Censoring no, highly questionable funding yes.
1b. Nascar fans are generally not puritans, regardless of how the stereotypes seem to overlap.

2. Yes, but again: the methods seem to be more harmful than the end result. If they say they want to fund only purely, explicitly educational shows, fine- but then do that. They can't have it both ways and expect me to just sit by, although i doubt they really care about my personal views ^.~

3. I don't so much care what is being funded and what isn't, although i think funding closed captioning for a wide variety of TV shows is a good idea, but rather that the whole picture is not adding up.
3b. One thing about Blue's Clues is that it's explicitly aimed at little kids. I wonder if that's causing some warping of views on educational vs. not...

4. I'm with you here :/
On the other hand, it's not over until the fat lady sings.

Okay. So I don't see anymore why you were defending the first article, which was accusing the funding cuts as actively censorship-driven- as if the government really didn't want the hearing-impaired to be even allowed to watch Scooby-Doo. That was pretty ridiculous.

Is it stupid to decide only "educational" shows are worth funding? Is it silly to make decisions about which shows are educational without actually outlining their criteria? Should the government fund closed captioning for all TV shows? Maybe, maybe not. But the whole deal is certainly not "Taliban-esque", nor it is actively "censorship" in the most commonly-used sense of the word. You don't see many neoconservatives showing distress over the idea of impressionable deaf people watching golf, and to suggest that they are, and that that's the motivation behind those funding cuts, is just ridiculous. They're clearly just arbitrarily narrowing the definition of 'educational' in order to be cheap. It's bad, but it's far more mundane of an evil, you know?

"Okay. So I don't see anymore why you were defending the first article, which was accusing the funding cuts as actively censorship-driven- as if the government really didn't want the hearing-impaired to be even allowed to watch Scooby-Doo. That was pretty ridiculous."

Because there's more than one kind of censorship. My old high school censored all swearing out of all of the scripts of plays that were performed (with the classic black marker, even) but the swearing was re-inserted into the final plays. That's still censorship even though it wasn't effective. Now, i wouldn't personally use censorship in reference to this activity- but it the word can describe it.

"Is it stupid to decide only "educational" shows are worth funding?"

No, it's stupid to take a pre-existing criteria and cut out a bunch of stuff that got in under that criteria under the guise of "we're just applying it correctly now" when it's not being applied consistently anyway.

"Is it silly to make decisions about which shows are educational without actually outlining their criteria?"

In short: yes. Government should be transparent, and it had better be so if there's no good reason (ie, it would be harmful to release the information- for example, the names of our covert operatives and what they're doing) not to be. Pravin Lal's quote (from the Alpha Centauri game) is pretty appropriate here: "...Beware the man who tries to limit your knowledge, for in his heart, he thinks himself your master."

"They're clearly just arbitrarily narrowing the definition of 'educational' in order to be cheap. It's bad, but it's far more mundane of an evil, you know?"

Gee, how convenient for them that they can go back and tell their superconservative friends that they're making progress on cleansing the evil taint of Television from America. It might sound absurd, even a bit crazy- but crazy things happen. Have you read the Texas GOP's party platform lately?

...But the fact that the government funnels money into stupid educational programs doesn't mean that I don't want the government to pay for educational programs. I just want the Dept of Education to pay for worthwhile programs, not things that networks are forced by law to pay for anyway.

?

I will leave it at that!

Peace!

Pekky

I wish I could say I was surprised...But honestly! I don't think there is anything left that those bunch right wing nuts could do to surprise me!

Do you ever get the feeling that things have regressed 20 years or so in terms of social, geo-political, and environmental justice since this government came to power?

Perhaps the deaf should come to Canada under a declaration of refugee status, based on inequity and persecution by their government (I'm only being a bit sarcastic).

The political climate has been so dismal, since Bush came into power. The scary part is, I think that Sept 11 has not been as much of a reason as it has been an excuse. I travel to the US regularly for my work, and each time I'm a little bit more worried than the last. The one thing I find amazing when I travel, is that the people I meet never seem to reflect the values of their government. Sorry...Starting to ramble now

There are just no words...I mean Bush is just asshole....

Baffling. Just baffling...

From Jayelle

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

(cont'd)

no subject

?

no subject

no subject

no subject