The number of programmes that the BBC subtitle across all their TV channels is very high. The statistics from regulator Ofcom show that they subtitled almost 100% of their television output last year and they deserve credit for that. Their on-demand service, iPlayer, is also leading the way. There are subtitles all over that too.
But there is still a problem for deaf people with the BBC and it is at the heart of their offering. It’s the complete failure of BBC’s News website to provide subtitles for their video news reports.
Nowhere else is the inequality of access to information for deaf people demonstrated so regularly, so blatantly and so disappointingly than on the BBC News website.
Put simply, almost nothing is subtitled. It’s embarrassing.
I’m ashamed that in the year 2013, this beacon for accessibility on TV and our beloved national broadcaster, lets deaf people down so badly. So regularly.
My son asked me the other day why a video story about Chelsea Football Club that we were watching had no subtitles. I couldn’t answer his question. I really couldn’t figure it out.
“Well, er, Son, you know it’s er, hard to subtitle short clips because they’re er … on the internet?” Tosh.
The fact is that most of the BBC on-line news clips come from news reports that will have been subtitled when they went out on TV.
Subtitles exist somewhere for that content but it’s not being used. The BBC already use video players that can support subtitles, like iPlayer, so that’s not an excuse either.
It’s not like the BBC don’t appreciate the problem. Last week, the BBC did a story about hearing loop systems on Breakfast TV, which went out with the normal TV subtitles. The video then went on-line without any subtitles. Following a complaint from one of our readers, they realised their error and fixed it.
But do the BBC really think that the only news videos deaf people want to watch, and therefore warrant accessibility, are about deaf issues? Deaf people have exactly the same right to know what is being said in every last one of their online videos, and they know it.
I have no doubt some Beeb tech-wizard would have a few excuses up his sleeve about why subtitles can’t be added to these news clips but really, we all know that the reason isn’t actually a technical one. The real reason is money and obviously the BBC don’t think you’re worth it because lets face it, they have enough money.
The BBC’s annual budget is £3.5 billion. Yes, it’s that much and this year, the BBC has come under fire for handing enormous pay-offs to failing executives and for pouring £100m into a failed IT project. So much money has been wasted but can they allocate a little bit to making on-line videos accessible to deaf people? Nope, not this year. Not last year and not for any of the previous 16 years the news website has been operational.
This problem doesn’t only apply to the news or sport sections. It’s exists across many other parts of the BBC’s vast website too.
I say its time that the BBC did something about this problem. Yes, I applaud them for their TV subtitling but this on-line issue must now be addressed.
I say the BBC should invest in a subtitling unit, specifically for the website, and then change their on-line video players to show those subtitles.
It’s time the leadership at the BBC no longer accepted this inequality; no longer accept the blatant and unnecessary barrier to news and information that exists for deaf people and did something proactive about it.
The BBC have had since 1997 – when they established their news website – to find a solution. They have had a super-sized budget every year and have wasted hundreds of millions. For all that time, deaf people dutifully paid the full licence fee, on pain of imprisonment, for content that they couldn’t access.
It is a situation that should stand no longer. The BBC have the technology; they have the money; they just don’t have the motivation and the time has come to give them some.
The time has come to complain. All of us. Today.
By Andy Palmer, Deputy Editor
Andy volunteers for the Peterborough and District Deaf Children’s Society on their website, deaf football coaching and other events as well as working for a hearing loss charity. Contact him on twitter @LC_AndyP (all views expressed are his own).
The Limping Chicken’s supporters provide: sign language interpreting and communications support (Deaf Umbrella), captioning and speech-to-text services (121 Captions), online BSL learning and teaching materials (Signworld), theatre captioning (STAGETEXT), Remote Captioning (Bee Communications), visual theatre with BSL (Krazy Kat) , healthcare support for Deaf people (SignHealth), theatre from a Deaf perspective (Deafinitely Theatre ), specialist lipspeaking support (Lipspeaker UK), Deaf television programmes online (SDHH), language and learning (Sign Solutions), BSL interpreting and communication services (Lexicon Signstream), sign language and Red Dot online video interpreting (Action Deafness Communications) education for Deaf children (Hamilton Lodge School in Brighton), and legal advice for Deaf people (RAD Deaf Law Centre).
Andy. Not him, me.
September 23, 2013
I really don’t know if you will get anywhere with this. The BBC seems to be yet another example of “jobs for the boys”. If your face fits, you’re in. And of course the Deaf face never fits, does it?
I personally don’t think the BBC should be running such a huge website. It is unfeasibly complicated. They have got it to such a condition now that only a few experts know how to run it. I don’t see why they need such an elaborate setup seeing they are a broadcaster not a web service provider.
They used to have an online disability forum called Ouch which was supposed to cater for disabled people. It was run by BBC disabled staff, very badly. The deaf area was called See Hear after the TV programme. The moderators of both forums were arrogant, ignorant and patronising. That just about sums up the BBC’s attitude to the public in general. They have a problem.
The result of this has been an antagonistic attitude towards the BBC from deaf people. We know all about arrogant patronising people, don’t we? There were some huge rows over on Ouch as people complained to the BBC, getting no result and then complained again on the forum. Most of these messages were removed by the Admin. The See Hear forum was abruptly closed, allegedly because the BBC could not afford to keep it running. The really strange thing is that the See Hear forum is still there, complete. You just can’t post to it. So much for the lack of money.
Many of the people posting in the See Hear forum complained about the lack subtitles to the BBC Complaints dept. What happened was they all got the same, clearly standard reply to the effect that
1. The BBC does this that and the other for disabled people
2. They provide as many subtitles as they are able given apparemtly limited resources.
3. They will raise the matter at the next meeting of BBC bigwigs.
They employ an army of professional excuse makers who are trained to inform us that the BBC can do no wrong, can walk on water and we should be grateful to have them. Trust me… nothing will happen. They have been doing this for at least a decade that I know of and there is no sign of it stopping.
Fighting the BBC is like attacking a mattress. It absorbs all your blows until you are tired out but it stays exactly the same.
Albert Einstein said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result”.
We’ve been doing this over and over since 1997. Time for new tactics. I think we should ask for root and branch reform of the BBC’s attitude to disability.
Editor
September 23, 2013
Hi Andy
Thanks for the comment. Being focused on the deaf arena, I don’t know enough about the BBC’s general approach but I can’t see why this situation should continue. It’s worth making that complaint.
Liz Thomas
September 23, 2013
Brilliant article, Andy. Seventeen years are there’s still no subtitles? That is appalling. Is there some way we can bombard the BBC with copies of your article?
Editor
September 23, 2013
Thanks Liz. Share it with your friends and ask them to complain too.
Liz Thomas
September 23, 2013
I have just made an online complaint to the BBC. I used part of the text of Andy’s article to do this. It took a little while (boxes to complete etc) but worth the effort. Let’s inundate them!
Go to: https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?reset=#anchor
MWILLIAMS
September 23, 2013
Why just the BBC its applies to all channels does it?….
I still feel the quality of subtitle is still very poor – it is the quality that matters not quantity that OFCOM feels is most important. We need to bring back to life the group Deaf Broadcasting Council to get the issue back on the agenda?
iheartsubtitles
September 23, 2013
OFCOM are looking at ways to measure the quality of subtitles to report on in the future. See: http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2013/05/17/improving-the-quality-of-live-tv-subtitles/ I am looking forward to the next stage of this process to find out how they intended to do this and get broadcasters to supply such info.
MWILLIAMS
September 23, 2013
It is good that OFCOM is looking into improvisation but they have a long way to go to implement it much more strongly than they currently do. When is the deadline for all the issues to be sorted? It does sounds like – how long is a piece of string in all this.
Michelle
September 23, 2013
I totally agree with this article! Its not just the BBC though, all the channels do this with their websites. Recently, like the hearing loop article it was ironic that Big Brother showed most of their news updates as video with no subtitles! This also applies to the internet sites. I was stupid enough to buy an internet tv 5 years ago as I was sold on the idea of accessing all the various online players on my tv. What I hadnt realised was that there were no subtitles available 🙁
We need a clear direction in how and where to lobby for a change.
Cathy Heffernan
September 23, 2013
Too bloody right. Complaint sent!
Euan
September 24, 2013
There is no technical reason a bbc wizzkid could tell you- there is literally no excuse or technical barrier to stop them adding subtitles. Either they do a tiny bit of coding to enable the user to view/not view subtitles, or they just add subtitles to everything with an option to disable.
Basic television sets can do this from a movie saved on USB. Subtitle files for feature length movies are under 1mb. It would not affect bandwidth, the player, the coding or anything. It is simply another small task for someone to do. This is plain Lazyness by all accounts, unacceptable. All the TV companies/online streaming services are refusing to do this to save themselves a small bit of profit. They will keep refusing to do this until people take action against them and boycott their services. Deaf people should refuse to pay the license fee until the content is accessible to them. The license fee also covers watching BBC content live from websites.
Ash
December 3, 2013
Thanks for writing this – I’ve just followed your advice and filled in the complaint form online.
I hadn’t previously been aware of this problem as I’m not hearing-impaired myself but tonight when I tried to put the news on silently with subtitles while I played a game on the other screen I discovered it wasn’t possible. I assumed I was just being dim – it never occurred to me the functionality simply wasn’t there as it seemed so trivial to include them given they’re on TV. I could maybe understand the limitation of including them on the live news feed, but there’s simply no excuse on the ‘single-story’ videos posted to the website.
For me, this was nothing more than a minor inconvenience. For thousands of people with hearing issues this is a far more exclusionary practice and one for which their can be very little justification given the relative ease with which it could be addressed.
Hopefully your post and the complaints it generates achieve some kind of success.
Editor
December 4, 2013
Thanks Ash.
All the best
Andy (Deputy Ed)