And About Bloody Time

Ofcom propose to improve the standard of subtitling. Good, but what took them so long?

My last comment on subs was how they had improved. I typed too soon. Over the past three weeks the standard has been abysmal, achieving new lows. I’m certain those involved with putting words on screens for deaf viewers have reasonable reasons why the standard has been so poor – the comments box below is the place for any ‘subtitlers’ to reply or contact Hearing Link in an official capacity.

But, to be blunt, I don’t see why subtitles are offered if they can’t be correct, accurate and consistent.

Obviously it can’t be an easy task and I feel awkward about what I’m going to type next, but the fact is that subtitling should be done to the best standard possible and what we’ve seen recently should be classified as unacceptable.  I’m confident in saying that Sue can’t be the  only deaf viewer who’s given up in disgust after trying to watch a programme that was listed as being subbed – even with recorded programmes.

If broadcasters can’t do it properly then don’t list it as subbed thereby saving viewers frustration and anger – not to mention feeling that deaf viewers aren’t worth bothering with.

Examples have been: programmes only being half subbed ignoring large chunks of  dialogue, inaccurate subs, stuck subs and entire sentences being reworded which has occasionally changed the original meaning of what was said.

Live news broadcasts have been impossible to understand as the onscreen words bear no relation to the moving pictures. I realise that live transmissions must be very demanding, but Ofcom has suggested transmission delays to make it possible – good for them. But I’m still puzzled when live local news summaries have subs in advance of what’s being said.

I found some readers comments underneath a report about Ofcom’s intentions on a national newspaper’s web site, I gave up reading after being angered by remarks about how annoying it is to have someone in the corner of the frame flapping their arms around. Apparently that was distracting, especially when trying to watch TV in the pub with the sound turned down.

Well, try living without sound and you may find out how important visual interpretation is. Many comments were about how funny some of the miss-subs were – yes it is amusing, but relying on those words reduces the humour.

At last something will be done and I suggest you all visit their website at http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2013/05/improving-the-quality-of-live-tv-subtitles/ and  see how to comment about what you find unacceptable. Why put up with poor service? And another thought – do deaf viewers really want song’s lyrics included? How about a national vote from deaf viewers, majority rule on that question.