I’m sorry there are absolutely no transcripts, anywhere on the Internet, available for people to read, so that you are compelled to provide the second-rate, tiresome, timeconsuming, less-accessible videos instead.

Videos make a useful add-on extra, but nothing beats transcripts.

Jesurgislac, that’s what The Google is for.  It ain’t Pam’s job to give it to you in your preferred format for your personal convenience.

Oh, and the Meet the Press thing was just an hour ago or less.

Comedy sketches are kind of fuunier when they are being performed.

Later SNL had a lousy sketch—I guess in an attempt to be fair ‘n’ balanced—about the bailout plan, aimed at the Democrats.  It prominently featured George Soros.  Do people really know who Soros is?  I know he’s an all-purpose bogeyman for the talk-radio right, but basing a sketch on George Soros seems about like basing a sketch on the way Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit likes to write “Heh.  Indeed.”  _Way_ too inside.

Jesurgislac, that’s what The Google is for.  It ain’t Pam’s job to give it to you in your preferred format for your personal convenience.

Yeah, fuck all us hearing-impaired readers.  Access for handicapped people is for pinko liberal pansies.  I guess it’s my own fault for not being born with perfect hearing.

Godless Heathen,

When does Pam have to provide internet access to the millions who can’t afford or otherwise access it?  The performance is on video and that’s how it’s best available.  Those who need accomodation will sometimes have to wait.

Or you could have actually watched the television last night, turned on the closed captioning, and read it yourself.  There were also these things introduced a year or so ago: VCR, I think the name is.  They allow for someone to not be there when something is on TV and then watch it later, but it’s kind of tricky technology so you might want to wait and see if something replaces it.

Damn I hate all non-cacheing streaming videos.  WTF, YouTube figured out how to do it, why can’t NBC.com???  (Of course, it’s mostly my crap DSL, but still.)

++++++++
As to transcripts:  for comedy?  Yeahhhhhhh, THAT’S effective and funny.  ::eyeroll:: Jesurgislac, maybe Pam should refund your money.

“I’m sorry there are absolutely no transcripts, anywhere on the Internet, available for people to read, so that you are compelled to provide the second-rate, tiresome, timeconsuming, less-accessible videos instead.

Videos make a useful add-on extra, but nothing beats transcripts.”

This brings up a real effn’ sore point: why the hell aren’t videos on YouTube and the like ever closed-captioned, especially when said videos are from television programs or films that actually have closed-captioning?!? Is there something i don’t know about, that is, is there some magic computer cheat code or hack or something that can bring up the closed-captioning?? Are those of us who might just happen to be deaf or hard-of-hearing simply SOL?!?
  It gets mighty damn exasperating when blogsites post nothing but embedded YouTube videos thereby leaving some of us out in the cold. Geez.
  BTW, i even tried the SNL website itself where you’d think they’d have an easy time of it with captioning what with them having already dealt with copyright issues & whatnot but no such luck.
  Any input or advice out there? Thanx.

Youtube added support for close captioning during the summer.  It’s up to the person uploading video to take advantage of this, though.

Here’s the technical details:

http://help.youtube.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=100079

Nice to know that are people here on Pandagon that think us hearing impaired people should just suck it and suffer.

Seriously, you guys,  if you can’t find a transcript, a summary would do, or at the very least, a link or two to where the transcript could be posted when it is available.

And to the guy about captions on you tube - how many people do you think actually take the time to caption their videos? They pretty much have the same attitude as everyone else, that deaf people should just put up with it and suck it.

I’m sorry, all this really hit a nerve.  The reek of privilege in this room is astounding.

go ahead, turn off the sound on your computers, your tv, and see if you can go a damn week without understanding what is being said.  See if you enjoy the hunt for transcripts and googling and putdowns from over privileged jerks who slam you for “whining”

grr.

Now, I’m gonna shut up and go.  But seriously, check your privilege, people!

Wow, this comment thread became tiresome quickly.

It’s not privilege to post a video of something in the expectation that it will be available to most people, nor is it privilege to suggest that there are alternative means of getting information.  Accomodations are available for most things, but not everything is going to be available for everyone at their convenience even in a fast-paced digital age.  Being left out sucks, but life isn’t fair.

I may or may not have been a jerk in my response, but there really are more important issues than a couple of hours of delay to get a transcript of some of last night’s entertainment television.  For news, I can understand the frustration (and the captions on my local networks are laughable to me but must be horrific for those who actually rely upon them,) but for a program like SNL being rebroadcast on another medium I don’t see the immediate need.  Which isn’t to say they could certainly use such a feature on their website, but I don’t think bitching to a completely different website is the best course of action.

Though I’m going to go back to the SNL site and see if there’s a comment section to request captions.

No, I’m not speaking of privilege when I am referring to time lag, etc.  I’m speaking of privilege, and jerky behavior.

Let’s look at some examples below.

“Quick!  Get the wahhhhmbulance to melaka, stat!”

“Jesurgislac, that’s what The Google is for.  It ain’t Pam’s job to give it to you in your preferred format for your personal convenience. “

“As to transcripts:  for comedy?  Yeahhhhhhh, THAT’S effective and funny.  ::eyeroll:: Jesurgislac, maybe Pam should refund your money. “

NOW. that’s the privilege I was referring to.  Those people have no clue how frustrating it is, and the types of attitude that you run up against on the internets from people who don’t need transcripts or alternative ways of viewing media.

Now, let’s reread what I said about this situation -

“Seriously, you guys, if you can’t find a transcript, a summary would do, or at the very least, a link or two to where the transcript could be posted when it is available.”

Now, how is this a problem for you guys?  What, it’s such a pain that it takes about 3 more seconds to get a link at the very least?  Why are you whining about getting a link or at least referring to some alternative sources?  I really don’t get it. 

I also don’t understand why it’s necessary to insult me and others just because we expressed concerns that alternative methods were not made available.  And I also don’t understand why we are supposed to tolerate such comments as those were made as acceptable.  It was disrespectful and reeked of privilege.

A small concession is all I have ever asked for, and it’s unbelievable it’s just too much effort for bloggers in general to:  1. post a transcript, 2. post a summary, 3. post a link to a transcript when available, or 4.  any of the above, or 5. any combination of the above.

I"m sorry you guys find it so hard to take an extra three seconds to find this information.  I apologize for wasting your very valuable time.

But seriously, check your privilege, people!

Privilege is to Pandagonites, as thetans are to Scientologists.

Jon,

I also wanted to thank you for your reasonable, well thought out response.  That previous entry was directed towards you.  Thank you for engaging with me in a respectful manner.

I think my prior post either is in moderation or it got sent to the hinterlands for use of the <A> tag. Let me try this again.

Transcripts to SNL skits are at <http://snltranscripts.jt.org>. However, there seems to be a lag time of about a week. Enjoy!

I went to NBC.com, wrote a brief letter to some technical folks, and will tell you all once I get a response.  I expect a combination of “we take your concerns seriously” and “(legal mumble legal mumble)”, but from me it’s nothing but “I’ll get back to ya on that!”

1- Queen Latifa should get a MSM news anchor job. I’d totally watch.

2- Tina Fey is Teh Awesome.

3- The reek of privilege in this room is astounding.
Way to marginalize the smelling impaired.

4- Anyone should feel free to write transcripts for all the videos available on the internet. Pitch in, it’s a big job.

This American Life is usually broadcast on Sunday afternoon. I do not plan to listen to the radio version; I usually wait for the podcast available on Monday evening.
I swear to God, there had better be a video version this week, or I am SO complaining to the clerk at the Apple store.

I’m not a troll. I’ve read panagon for the past three years.  Heck, I even was one of those who didn’t buy the wmd excuses in the first place.

Just saying.

And again, what’s so difficult with proving a link to transcripts or such material that will complement the videos? Just because its “not done” or because it’s not “legally required” or some such nonsense, doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea or isn’t the right thing to do.

I mean, seriously. Im asking for three extra seconds to post links at the very least where a transcript may or will be posted. Even if nbc or whatnot did include this information, i would still expect for bloggers to include that link when typing their entries.  It should be an automatic thing, not an afterthought.

And richard? Sketch comedy doesnt work well in transcript form. True. But it doesnt work at all when you can’t hear it.  Something is better than nothing.

Also, in the Louvre, they provide audio-media guides with a full description of the art. No, it’s not the same as viewing it with your own eyes, but it does provide information that a blind person can access.

Melaka, I’m still waiting for you to post that blindingly obvious 3-second-search link to the transcripts that you say exist.

pisco already posted it.

I know it will take a while to be up on the internet. That’s fine. I can wait.

Thanks, pisco.

Wow, lay off Melaka people.  It’s not a hideous right-wing-trolling to suggest that Pandagon might do something differently or might have done something wrong.

I think Melaka has a bit of a point. Namely that it must be very frustrating not to be able to read the transcript when you have no other options. I personally find reading transcripts* to be quicker than time spent on a video because I have a very fast reading pace, but I do, a hearing person, have the option to listen to the video if’n I want. (* I didn’t watch the debates on TV—not having television enabled at our house or a VCR. I listened on NPR for part of the time, and read the transcripts afterwards. Assuming that everybody has access to close-captioned televisions is a flaw on both sides of this argument.) I do understand a tinge of the frustration you must feel though because it always annoys me when CNN puts up a video link to a news story but no readable link.

Also, since this site occasionally touches on issues of ableism, it might behoove the site to put up transcripts where possible, just to be ideologically consistent, as well being considerate. But the “where possible” is something I tend to take as a given. If I don’t see a link to a video transcript, I assume it’s not easily found.

That said, this site is not a public service, but the work of private persons, who may have limitations in resources or time. I’ve often posted stuff on the run to my own website, sometimes without explanation at all. I tend to give the mods the benefit of a doubt and email them if I have concerns.

Wow, this comment thread became tiresome quickly.

yeah, shame Pam didn’t think about posting something more than just the videos.

Then we could all have discussed the topic, rather than access to videos.

That said, this site is not a public service, but the work of private persons, who may have limitations in resources or time.

True. And yet, if Pam wanted discussion of the topic, she could have taken the time to post about the topic, rather than just linking to videos that people may or may not be able to watch, with no bloody explanation of what the hell is going on in the videos that we should be discussing.

I watched most of the SNL skit last night on TV with the captions, and then again on hulu.com this morning with the sound cranked way up. It worked pretty well, but then my hearing aids meet most of my need. Hulu.com claims that some content is captioned:

You’ll know closed captioning is available if you see the cc button to the left of the volume control in the video player window. Click the button and select the language to turn closed captioning on. We’re working to add it for more of our catalog all the time. The closed-captioning data that’s used for broadcast TV isn’t easily translated for online use, so we’re investigating alternative solutions to boost our closed-captioning coverage.

There are no captions in the hulu video of the debate sketch, however.

I think it makes more sense to target angry comments and requests for transcripts and captioning to the providers of online video content rather than to the bloggers who link to or embed said videos.

SNL does seem to release transcripts, as I’ve seen them included with the video in Chicago Tribune blog posts. Here’s a post with the highlights of last night’s debate sketch.

As a blogger, I know that digging around looking for the right links to include/embed takes time, and here, Pam wrote all of five sentences supplemented by two videos. You know what? Maybe that’s all she had time for. Maybe she didn’t want to spend another 15 minutes looking for transcripts and linking to them or copying them and fixing up the formatting. Maybe she figured the small percentage of readers who can’t hear well enough are better equipped to dig up those links themselves. Hey, I can take care of myself, and it involves a lot less whining than demanding that others do the work for me. Whoops, there I go again with my overweening privilege as a hard-of-hearing person who has been adapting to the world for 42 years.

You know what’s next, of course—Amanda will be asked to provide written lyrics for every song in her Friday 10, and of course there’ll be comments left on every single YouTube video saying “this vid sux y dont u provide closed captioning u rly suck.” (I think the law states that YouTube comments must be semi-literate at best.)

I was also about to point out that the Think Progress page linked by Pam sums up what Gwen Ifill said. (Which wasn’t much—the clip wasn’t long.) She merely said that Palin ignored her and blew her off. (Oh, and that she likes being played by Queen Latifah.)

OR maybe this comment thread wouldn’t have gone to shit if people didn’t expect her to pull fucking transcripts out of her fucking ass.

Get the fuck out if you’re just going to make trouble,.  Just get the fuck out and never come back.  You’re not welcome here.

Seriously, you guys, if you can’t find a transcript, a summary would do

This seems like a summary to me:
And Queen Latifah sits in as Gwen Ifill. And they take on the same-sex marriage question. Sarah Palin again provides a large chunk of the script. (SNL):

BTW, on Meet the Press today, Gwen Ifill acknowledged that Palin got away with ignoring her or changing the subject.

And here is the Meet the Press transcript, page 3. The video excerpt is what’s in the middle of the page. The video clip ended with Ifill saying “The understanding was that we were going to have a debate,” though she continued on as seen in the transcript.

Maybe if the first hearing-impaired commenter had asked nicely if someone could point to written transcripts that include the same material, this could all have been accomplished without the angst and recriminations. It was easy for me to know which written material matched up with the video since I could hear the video—but that wouldn’t be so easy for someone whose hearing is much worse than mine. So how about it: polite requests and friendly people willing to help out when someone asks nicely?

I’m very disappointed in a lot of you. Not all of us have the options to crank up our hearing aids or check the tv or whatever. Not everybody has a computer with dsl, not everybody can *see* videos, and not everybody can *hear* the videos, even with extra assistance.

All i ever asked from pam was an extra 3 seconds to post a link at the most, and its astounding how a request for common courtesy has gotten this response. I’ve never asked anybody to *type* transcripts or do a lot of extra work other posting a link or a summary. That is really easy to do.

Pam, i love you girl, and i read your blog often. Its nothing personal at all.  I was responding to the comments on this thread.  But, yes, it would be wonderful, a common courtesy to post links or at least a summary.  Liss at shakesville does it all the time, and she has a nice formula down pat, real easy.

Thank to all of you who lent a note of support.

Im not getting the fuck out. I have the same right as anybody to be here, and request for common courtesy.

Good point. Jesurgilac, try to ask nicely next time.

I’ll be behind you to give support.

You keep saying it takes “3 seconds.”  It does not.  It takes longer.  Quite a bit longer.

Pam does include transcripts for nearly every video she posts.  She didn’t do it this one time, and what you all take away is “Pam says fuck the deaf!”  Are you fucking serious?

You want to talk privilege?  How about the privilege you feel you have for everything on the internet to be catered specifically for you?  You do realize that when videos are brand new, they don’t always come with attached transcripts, right?  Is Pam never allowed to post a video without first spending an hour transcribing it?  Is Pam’s time that much less valuable than yours?  Obviously you’re unwilling to spend the 3 seconds hitting Google yourself, but you’re angry because Pam didn’t spend an hour making transcripts?  It’s disgusting.

What next, will you complain when Amanda posts a music video because she doesn’t provide a link to the sheet music and lyrics?  Should every post be spoken and recorded by its writer because not doing so is hateful toward the blind?  At what point has someone who works for no pay for hours to provide you with entertainment and insight done enough?

And here I thought that Jesurgilac was complaining AGAIN that Pandagon had linked to Hulu.com where people outside the US can’t access it.  I had no idea that she had a second, completely different complaint about the video, especially since it looks like Pam made a point of not linking to Hulu.com because of the previous complaints.

It would help if people would be clear about what their complaint is in the first place—things might not get quite so nasty so fast.

Sheesh! Calm down, everyone. Yes, it would be nice if there were accommodation here for certain disabilities. And perhaps it is a unfortunate that there is not equal access everywhere to all video. But give Pam—who entertains and informs so many of us so well, and all for FREE—a break.

And here I thought that Jesurgilac was complaining AGAIN that Pandagon had linked to Hulu.com where people outside the US can’t access it.  I had no idea that she had a second, completely different complaint about the video, especially since it looks like Pam made a point of not linking to Hulu.com because of the previous complaints.

because it’s of course everyone’s fault Jes doesn’t know how to set up a proxy.

now, I do understand part of this. When I’m at work, my computer has no sound, and can’t access most streaming video sites. So I say “wow, this might be interesting to look at when I get home” or “oh well, here’s a conversation I can’t really participate in.” I don’t go and blame Pam or anyone else for this. Hell, I frequently can’t access Pandagon at all due to word filters (kos, atrios, sadlyno and similar sites are fine, but apparently witty feminism sets contains “weighted phrases” in excess of the limit the system sets) Also not Pam’s fault.

Transcripts are a nice add-on for quotations and such, but nothing beats the actual performance of a comedy sketch.

As someone who’s spent more than their fair share doing online publishing, I can vouch for the fact that it is impossible to make a website accessible to every viewer.  You can try and someone will always be left out.  The hearing impaired can’t hear the video or the audio.  The color blind can’t even use the website because of a bad color scheme.  The otherwise visually impaired can’t see it because the code doesn’t work with their software.  That’s not even covering the technology hurdles, like bandwidth or lack of support.  So lay off Pam and, yeah, suck it.  I feel for the hearing impaired among us.  I’m not myself, but I am visually impaired and pretty much have to suck it up.  It’s called life. 

As far as what started this debacle, a reminder to those with special needs or complaints:  It’s not what you say, but how you say it.  Simply asking nicely for transcripts, summaries, or links to such would have been great.  The minute snark was introduced, it all went down hill.  Granted, there’s a certain bit of frustration that comes with any sort of disability or impairment, so responding to snark with more snark will only reinforce everyone’s idea about how the person on the other side is whiny, inconsiderate, etc.  Snark is (I know it’s getting tired) a part of life, suck it up and be the person.

Flies with honey, so to speak.

“special needs” in the second paragraph should have been “specific requests.”  Apologies for the implication with the original wording.  Whenever I type while having a conversation, they run together.

You’re right, pam, its not personal. Like i said, my comments weren’t directed towards you. I have no issue with you.

My issue was with the comments that were disrespectful.

The Screenwriters’ Guild should offer Sarah Palin an honorary membership!!!!

Personally, I’m horribly offended with all of you people ‘writing’ things! Do you have any idea how inconsiderate that is? Some people are illiterate, you know! And it’s your job to make sure this website is available to everyone, at all times. Hey, why don’t we sue Pam and Pandagon-I’m sure there’s legislation we can use to force her to provide transcripts of every video, and video of every post. Up here in Ontario, that kind of legislation has been used to shut down historic movie theatres, because they couldn’t afford to put in wheelchair ramps etc. I mean, sure, there was inevitably a fully-accessible theatre just blocks away, but getting there would require effort, like looking up transcripts your own damned self. Maybe we can shut down Pandagon, for not posting transcripts! Better that no one can use it, if everybody can’t use it, right?

Okay, reading my comment again I realize it was a bit harsh. I’m just annoyed that the lack of transcript was presented as a deliberate affront to the hearing-impaired, like it was Pam’s fault that no transcript existed. I’m sure, if Pam were Grand High Empress of the World, transcripts would be instantly available for all video, but she isn’t, so there is going to be a time-delay while the transcripts get created. Should she have left her dog to suffer in order to transcribe the videos herself, or should she have waited until the transcripts were available, and the story was old before posting?

I know, Melaka, that you weren’t blaming Pam, but Jesurgislac certainly was.

I know, Melaka, that you weren’t blaming Pam, but Jesurgislac certainly was.

Not surprising.

Wow, this comment thread became tiresome quickly.

Heh.  That’s for sure.

Yeah, Pam and Melaka make some excellent points; my earlier comment was the result of a bit of spontaneous venting of frustration and certainly not directed at anyone personally. Admittedly this might not necessarily have been the best place to gripe about the dearth of accessibility for hearing-impaired people but it was implusive on my part and it was also in the context of me knowing how people here at this blog and at Pam’s House Blend tend to have a goodly amount of empathy so i was hoping for some input as to some solutions (thanks for all the advice from those who responded to me and the others on this thread, BTW)
  As for those who in effect told us to suck it when they complained that we were in need of the putative waaaahhmblance, that is, they were complaining about us complaining about privilege, that’s your privilege to say so; just bear in mind that you’re the ones with the luxury of having the privilege of functioning in a hearing-based culture. When Helen Keller was asked what she’d choose if she had a choice between being deaf and being blind she immediately said that she’d choose being blind because blindness was more of a physical handicap whereas deafness was a communication handicap.  IOW, the visually impaired can at least carry on a highly viable and communicative relationship with the society in which they function whereas the hearing impaired can become pretty damn isolated from the society in which they function since it’s not always practical or easily viable for communicative relationships to occur in said society. 
  Technology can be a real boon and a real bane; the internet was actually pretty damn liberating until YouTube came along, as per all the comments above.  Alexander Graham Bell actually developed the telephone ostensibly to help deaf people by teaching them speech; technology’s come a long way since then, though, so the telephone’s not as big of a deal in terms of barriers to the hearing impaired as it once was.  So i daresay that sooner or later, preferably sooner, technology’ll catch up to the point where captioning’s universal, more or less, on the intertubes as it is on the TeeVee now (does anyone remember the early days of televison captioning when pretty much the only TV shows that were captioned were Three’s Company and The Love Boat??)
    Again, Pam & the other fine folks who run this blogsite and other blogsites, nothing personal was intended; you all do a real bang-up job of blogging

Cat, seconded.

Flies with honey, got it.  My frustration got the best of me this time. I’ll try to be more gentle in the future.

Pam, you’re doing great. I never had an issue with you.

For the rest of you, do check your privilege. I was serious when I challenged you to try a whole week without the sound on, to experience what it is like to have to hunt down transcripts or find information for nearly every blog entry you encounter with video. It gets tired fast. 

After a while, you start wondering why can’t bloggers just put a link at the very least….  It’s only common courtesy.  I never asked for more than that.  I don’t expect anybody to actually type transcripts or go beyond what is reasonable to provide a little extra information.

The ironic thing is all those commenters telling me to take those three seconds to google it myself, when they don’t realize that I have to do that for nearly *every* entry with video, on a daily basis.  I already do all the legwork as it is! To me, it sounds like Republicans whining about how women only get 77 cents to the dollar because they don’t work hard enough, or whining about how people of color would have better lives if they would just stop being born in the wrong neighborhood.  Own your privilege, people.

Now, I apologize for hijacking the thread, and I’m out for the day.  Thank you all again for your note of support.

melaka, if it’s any consolation, people were reacting to the two bomb-throwers who jumped in, made one hostile comment apiece, and then vanished from the thread, leaving you behind to try and explain.  I’ll be interested to see if Godless Heathen comes back to see what a mess s/he left behind.

thanks, Mnem.

I’m hopefully about to go to bed, so I don’t have time to read all the comments.

If it hasn’t already been posted, there is an SNL transcript here:

http://www.thewebdish.com/2008/10/snl-vice-presidential-debate-transcript.html

Seriously, you guys, if you can’t find a transcript, a summary would do, or at the very least, a link or two to where the transcript could be posted when it is available.

Summary: SNL is a little funny, Tina Fey talks like an idiot and looks like Sarah Palin (but I repeat myself); Gwen Ifil says “Palin got away with ignoring [me] or changing the subject” or words to that effect.

Incidentally I was able to provide these summaries without watching either video. Not sure why you weren’t able to.

That was all, indeed that I had time for - I actually had to tend to my aging, sick Lab mix - somehow that falls under the header of “higher priority.” That said, I did want to get the video up for those who could enjoy it, might do so.

Yeah, fair enough. I got angrier when I came back and discovered an array of people claiming the problem was the complainers, not the lack of transcript or links or explanation. But I should have directed my ire to them.

Still, FWIW: I do think that blogging-at-speed is not the best way to blog. Speaking from and to my own experience, I find that while a fast post may drive up traffic, I do better (and I think you do too with time to think about what’s being posted.

Ruby: If it hasn’t already been posted, there is an SNL transcript here:

Thank you so much.

God love him, but he’s a raging maniac, and a dear, dear friend

LOL, that’s awesome.

God, guys.  I have to say, piling onto Mel for asking for a transcript is a little shitty.

Why don’t those lazy people in wheelchairs just get out and walk up the stairs if there’s no ramp?  What’s up with those stupid blind people requiring their dirty braille all over everything?

I mean, really.  People have disabilities, and yes, you can’t cover all of them, but if you can help with some, what’s the big deal?  And what’s wrong with someone asking?  Sheesh.  I’m embarrassed to be here with you guys.

My issue was with the comments that were disrespectful.
melaka on 10/05 at 06:38 PM

Oh yes, melaka.

I’m severely hearing-impaired too. I have good hearing aids, but a pretty old, rickety computer set-up, and I’m always pretty much left out when a thread relies entirely on video (or worse yet, audio). I’ve been mentioning I have a problem with it for years.

And because I trust the intentions of Pam, Amanda, Jesse, and the rest of the lot here I tend to assume that if there is no written form, there’s a good reason, and that’s that, I and apparently a lot more Pandagonians are just SOL.

So, that’s unfortunate, but what is really showing up in this thread is that a lot of you guys really don’t care.

Look, video/audio isn’t just hard for us deafened types to follow—it’s inherently greedy of bandwidth, and more likely to be incompatible, and presented by hosts that limit access, or pulled off the net as happens so often with YouTube for instance. It makes a nice addition, but by itself it isn’t really blogging.

As for you, Mr Goblin—I recognized melaka’s name and didn’t have her mentally tagged as one of our stable of right-wing yahoos. You on the other hand are new to me, and you act like a classic troll. You know—mean, and gloating.

Glass houses. Stones. Screw you, and it will be easy for me to remember—Goblin=Troll.

Not quite accurate mythologically speaking but then they are traditionally on the same side, aren’t they?

I’m also shocked at some of the rest of y’all, some of whom I expected better from. OK, captioning just doesn’t magically happen, check. That’s why I don’t expect it and assume when it is not there, it isn’t a blow aimed at me. But remarks like yours help explain why it isn’t happening, and remind us all what shallow waters are still navigating.

Wow, what an eye-opening thread!  I guess a progressive understanding of issues comes only one at a time to a lot of people.  How else to explain the generally decent folks around here so eager to jump down melaka’s throat for what would in any other thread be considered a perfectly appropriate gripe?  (And one that has validity even to those of us with perfectly fine hearing who just happen to be behind firewalls at work that block video sites.)

Sad to see so many tell melaka to stop being so damn uppity.

Still, FWIW: I do think that blogging-at-speed is not the best way to blog. Speaking from and to my own experience, I find that while a fast post may drive up traffic, I do better (and I think you do too with time to think about what’s being posted.

Jesurgislac, I do both - blogs at speed and ones where I have the leisure to add more commentary and thought - there is no one way to blog. Feel free to skip over the ones you don’t meet your standards. 

Seriously, the irony is that when I speak with or email reps from non-profits, media outlets and other bloggers who ask for my advice when they plan to post video (or are just getting into blogging) , I always make a point to tell them that linking to a transcript or providing one (or even an essential quote from a video to give a gist of the content) is an essential element. Not just to accommodate ADA compliance, but to enable Google to crawl the post and thus bring more traffic to the video, and for other bloggers to pick up the post by including part of the transcript. It helps spread things virally.

It’s odd that you chose to jump all over this blog entry given it was the exception, not the rule.

Wow, what an eye-opening thread!

I resent your assumption that all of us have eyes that open, elitist privileged jerk.  Go buy another house, McCain!!

Since I *can* hear, I don’t usually jump in on such threads to beg for the transcript, even though I can’t do audio at work and never have time to watch a video at home. I just ignore the entire post and end up being left out of whatever discussion, because it’s a lot of effort for me to watch the video with audio on.

I appreciate that someone did, in fact, come along and provide a transcript. I also suspect that part of the reason Jesurgislac was so snarky about it in the first place is that Pandagon is hardly the only site, or even the only site in the feminist blogosphere, that does “You need to watch this video! (video embed here)” without much of a description as to what is in the video. Now, in this case, I think it was actually over the top. Anyone who has been paying attention recently probably knows that Tina Fey has been playing Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live and that Joe Biden and Sarah Palin recently had a debate, so “SNL does a take on the vice presidential debate” is pretty self-explanatory. But I *have* seen more than plenty of videos that are posted with no description other than “You gotta watch this.” Feministing in particular is awful about it, with things like videos posted with the description “I have no words”, which doesn’t even indicate whether we’re supposed to be outraged or overjoyed by the video. But I have seen the phenomenon on Pandagon as well.

I think that Pam unfairly got hit with a lot of pent-up resentment over the fact that this has now become kind of standard practice in the blogosphere (and a lot of people—again, Feministing comes to mind—do video blogs with *no transcript*, where presumably they worked off a script and it would not have killed them to post the damn script they were reading off of when they did their vblog), and it is not just monstrously unfair to the deaf and hearing impaired, it is also unfair to people who cannot get audio on the computer they view the blogs on (anyone at work who hasn’t got headphones, for example), and people whose bandwidth can’t support streaming media (anyone on dialup). Pam didn’t deserve the kind of snark she got… but the people who wanted transcripts *certainly* did not deserve the backlash *they* got. Yes, do check your privilege. You aren’t just people who can hear, you’re people who can hear, have a high-speed internet connection, and have the freedom to let audio play when you’re surfing blogs. A simple “Sorry, there may not be a transcript yet because this is a brand new video” would have done a better job than calling people who want transcripts trolls or accusing them of being mean.

Oh, and BTW, to those who are all like “It’s stand up comedy! It doesn’t work in writing!”—I just read the transcript, and it was effin’ hilarious.

Yeah, I’m sure I missed a nuance or two. But for all of you who are playing a drinking game at home—Maverick.

Pam,

Thank you for not just doing what you do as a blogger, but for being an advocate as well.

It’s much appreciated.  We all need to be allies for each other.

How else to explain the generally decent folks around here so eager to jump down melaka’s throat for what would in any other thread be considered a perfectly appropriate gripe?

As I said before, I think melaka got a lot of the heat that Godless Heathen deserved because melaka was the one who stuck around to discuss it instead of making a hit-and-run nasty comment that came out of nowhere.  Unless we were all supposed to magically know that this time in particular Jesurgislac’s complaint was not about the format of the video (as it has been in all of the other SNL threads) but that it was video at all, I’m not sure where GH’s comment came from.

I suppose that we can always give Pam a pay cut for not providing appropriately accessible everything to everybody.  How selfish!

Right, because no one who does anything for free actually *wants* to include deaf or blind people in the discourse. Free internet posts are just for the abled!

If those deaf people really wanted to understand what was going on, they would have their own personal private blogosphere with only deaf people in it, and not bother the hearing people by asking for a transcript! Who wants to talk to deaf people anyway?

I thought the transcript was pretty boring to read, actually.  YMMV.  But I haven’t watched it yet, so I don’t know if it’s funnier in live action or not.

Yes, it’s great to provide links to transcripts, if they exist (which they do in this case, now, at least for the SNL sketch).  Does anyone really object to that?  But they don’t always exist and it’s not the job of bloggers to transcribe them.  Does anyone dispute that? “Does anyone know where a transcript could be found?” is and should be a non-inflammatory question, although not the one that was originally asked.

Thank you, melaka and Alara Rogers. I’m another hearing-impaired person, and yes, it does get very tiring and very old really quick to have bloggers and news sites just throw out “Watch this vid!” Okay, I’m used to it, and I know my way around Google. But it still sucks. I don’t blame Pam here, and I appreciate it very much when she or the folks at Shakesville put up transcripts. But holy cow, being told I should just suck it up when I’m cut out of the conversation entirely because I can’t *hear*—please, would those of you who made such comments stop and think a minute? Thanks.

Also, thanks, Orange and Ruby, for the transcripts. The one I found earlier for the SNL skit only had half of the content.

And back on Pam’s post’s topic: I <3 Queen Latifah as Gwen Ifill. :D

“But they don’t always exist and it’s not the job of bloggers to transcribe them.  Does anyone dispute that? “

Of course not. It’s not their job to actually transcribe vids.  Unless, of course, they made the vid themselves, and I assume they would have a script that they could post as well.

I’ve never asked for more than a link or two, maybe a summary.

Thanks everyone.

Kate,  to go with your analogy - there *are* several people, right here, with wheelchairs, who *do* need that ramp.  Even then, working with your analogy, we have never asked for a ramp.  Perhaps a little lift over the steps, someone to pull up the wheelchair a bit.

Don’t you get it? this isn’t some abstract situation that might or might not happen to some people out there who you don’t know of. There are Pandagonians right here who have revealed that they have trouble with the audio portion of the blogs.  What, we don’t merit a second thought, despite being dedicated readers for years?

If you would walk one week in my shoes, you’d be ashamed of the attitude you’ve shown towards me and others.