Hypocrisy when it comes to captioning vs transcript in videos?

This has been an ongoing hypocrisy for quite awhile when it comes to signed videos that do not provide any subtitles or captions but instead provide transcripts for those who do not know sign language. For years culturally deaf people have complained loudly how videos they watched were never captioned such as TV shows and movies over cable and the internet, including YouTube videos. But that has been changing slowly (or quickly depending on your perspective) while captioning and easy to use subtitling technology catches up. But imagine instead of subtitles or captions you have a transcript for each video. Why not just provide a transcript instead?

Well, it's not quite the same thing since it provides an obvious disconnect between the viewers and those in the videos because other visual cues and emotions would be entirely lost.  So, it makes good business sense is to provide captions/subtitles along with the signing in a video. This allows non-signing viewers a certain connect with signers seen in a video. It is just not those who do not know sign language but those who may be weak in sign language and having captions helps. It also makes good common sense to include captions in videos since that will help reach a wider audience regardless of who the viewing audience is.

But the hypocrisy continues. Some bray saying that putting captions in a signing video "pollutes" it. If that is their logic for an excuse then putting captions in a speaking video also "pollutes" it. Laughable on both sides.

So, if you are running a deaf/hh business or an organization and have the means and wherewithal to include captions to your videos then please do it. If you believe in communication access and inclusion your business or organization ought to be including captions/subtitles in their videos otherwise you and your organization or business  just end up as a bunch of hypocritical people with a stupid excuse not to provide captions/subtitles but tosses out a transcript instead. If you do that, then please do not complain again about the lack of captions or subtitles in movies, TV shows, news shows, internet videos, and on YouTube.  In fact, you would have no right to complain because your organization or business refuses to provide captions/subtitles in their own videos. In fact, by refusing to do so you've become just like....them.

Communication is a two way street...captioning, please!

The one thing I've learned in life is that people's perspectives are different from each other based on their life experiences, their upbringings, their interests, and the people they associate with on a daily basis. Those are the things that makes a person for who he or she it. I have met all kinds and are friends with them. Those who have mild hearing loss to those who are profoundly deaf to those who are culturally deaf to those who are hearing whether they know signing or not. And then you have those who prefer to speak/listen to those who prefer to sign only to those who prefer other methods of communicating. They have their own way of communicating and I respect that. That is not for me to judge. But the one common thing we all have in connection, especially among the 36 million people in the United States with hearing loss, is that many of us need captioning in our everyday lives.

But the funny thing is that some people do have a habit of judging others simply because they can hear a little bit better, talk a little bit better, sign a little bit better or the fact they prefer a different way of communicating. So, exactly what is the difference if deaf people on a theater stage signs in ASL but provide no captioning for the audience versus hearing people on a theater stage talking with no captioning for the audience to see what's being spoken? Both are purposefully excluding people who can't hear quite as well to understand fully the spoken words and those who know some, little or no sign language to understand fully what was signed. Both situations discriminate against the majority of people with hearing loss. Both situations do not invite people into their world because of their own ignorance.  Just because a person is deaf or hard of hearing does not mean one is fluent in sign language or knows sign language. Just because a deaf or hard of hearing person can hear some words being spoken does not mean one can hear all of the words being spoken on a theater stage, on television, in a social setting, in a movie theater, and so on.

Why is it ok to have sign language interpreters at a rock concert but not captioning to help caption the lyrics being sung and to help caption what's being said on stage for the listening audience? Why is it ok to have a signing concert but no captioning for those who may not be able to understand it all or do not know sign language? Why is it ok to have a Deaf Awareness Day at Six Flags as a way to help promote awareness about deaf and hard of hearing people but only provide sign language interpreters throughout the park when being deaf or hard of hearing does not mean people magically know sign language?  Communication is a two way street benefiting a variety of people with hearing loss and communication preferences. Providing captions help them feel they as if they are a part of a larger family.  

David Armand in "Where I Lay my Hat"

David Armand, an English comedian who is known for his visual sight gags using mime movements and gestures to "interpret" a song. He is especially well known for a song he mimed called "Torn" a few years back that propelled him to comedic status. Here are two videos with subtitles that capture his funny comedy style of miming a song. Here he plays as "Johann Lippowitz" an interpretive mime to a song for "Where I lay my hat" by Paul Young and "Torn" by Natalie Imbrulia.




TORN by Natalie Imbruglia.




UPDATE: There's a bit of a debate in one forum over David Armand's mime skit on "Torn" where some forum members think it's a snark against the Deaf community making fun of sign language (which is not the case) and some objection over the use of the words "deaf karaoke".