How long has the jib (pole cam) been in use? I saw it used today during several news conferences today after the decision came down. I must say that it was interesting and dynamic to see during conferences. It was much better than the usual boring single shot. Any other opinions?
I did not say they were second class citizens, noggin, it is just common sense.
No, not common sense, Tom, just your opinion.
Quote:
I don't give a sh-t what liberal, public-service claptrap you or the rest of the Beeb want to throw, noggin, it's common sense just to get rid of it, upset all 4 viewers who probably found it useful and delight a few hundred thousand who found it irritating and distracting.
What a shame, in that case, that the BBC is a
public service broadcaster
.
You don't like it. Fine. You are more than welcome to your opinion. Just bear in mind that others may well disagree with you.
Didn't realise we were on a first name basis.
I am well aware that other people are entitled to an opinion, and indeed I am interested in yours... though you argue that people are entitled to an opinion on this matter, you do not appear to have one of your own. How odd.
How long has the jib (pole cam) been in use? I saw it used today during several news conferences today after the decision came down. I must say that it was interesting and dynamic to see during conferences. It was much better than the usual boring single shot. Any other opinions?
Sky have started using their's fairly recently, when they started using it in the studio as well. The BBC have used a polecam "in the field" for quite a while.
It was fairly amusing this afternoon seeing ITV News scurring around trying to find good camera positions while the cameras were active, while BBC and Sky had polecams to provide an overhead view while their standard cameras got into view.
So, on those grounds, Kat, it should be there constantly.
Don't be ridiculous, please.
It's no wonder you're after a career at the Beeb.
Yes, I wouldn't mind at all if the signer was there constantly! I am more than happy to see the signer there. It means my friends at Boston Deaf Club and the Boston Disability Forum can see stuff like that with me, at the same time as me and on the same equal footing as me. It's not a ridiculous concept.
So, on those grounds, Kat, it should be there constantly.
Don't be ridiculous, please.
It's no wonder you're after a career at the Beeb.
Yes, I wouldn't mind at all if the signer was there constantly! I am more than happy to see the signer there. It means my friends at Boston Deaf Club and the Boston Disability Forum can see stuff like that with me, at the same time as me and on the same equal footing as me. It's not a ridiculous concept.
I think it would be a good idea for the BBC to provide a feed of News 24 with constant signing, which could be accessed through the interactive service, or even just by turning subtitles on. That would please everyone.
Surely deaf people can get the general gist of what's going on in the news by:
a) reading the huge intrusive astons (and tickers) which now appear on all news channels
b) lip reading
c) reading Teletext or digital text, or using the subtitles available on analogue and digital
Is it not patronising to suggest they need a sign language woman on the screen on top of all this?
So, on those grounds, Kat, it should be there constantly.
Don't be ridiculous, please.
It's no wonder you're after a career at the Beeb.
Yes, I wouldn't mind at all if the signer was there constantly! I am more than happy to see the signer there. It means my friends at Boston Deaf Club and the Boston Disability Forum can see stuff like that with me, at the same time as me and on the same equal footing as me. It's not a ridiculous concept.
I think it would be a good idea for the BBC to provide a feed of News 24 with constant signing, which could be accessed through the interactive service, or even just by turning subtitles on. That would please everyone.
Not wanting to be controversial, but I've always wondered what the point is in having someone doing signing on screen when viewers can access subtitles. Surely there aren't any deaf / hard of hearing people who can read sign language, but not read subtitles? Is it just a case of tokenism by the broadcasters trying to show they're doing their bit for a minority?
Why is Sky News showing an aston saying that "Ian Huntley guilty of murdering Holly and Jessica" is still breaking news? It was a fair few hours ago now, it's not really breaking news anymore is it?
Funny that, seeing as it was in a chat on MSN messenger in August that you told me your name.
<shrugs>
If you'd rather I returned to calling you c@t from now on, just say. Of course, you'll have to call me Mr Green.
Quote:
I am well aware that other people are entitled to an opinion, and indeed I am interested in yours... though you argue that people are entitled to an opinion on this matter, you do not appear to have one of your own. How odd.
I was disagreeing with your blanket statement that it was 'common sense', when it was actually an opinion.
However my opinion is that I agree with signing being included, but personally, think it's time that a method was devised to include signing as an optional extra in a separate broadcast stream. As far as I am concerned, it's a compromise position that will annoy some deaf and some hearing people in different ways, but it's better than not making the effort at all.
By the way, Paul, my deaf friend, says he finds it useful from time to time. He's not keen on subtitles, because he says they're not always the same as what people are saying (and also, because of the syntax of BSL, that the meaning of what's being said, including people's attitudes can sometimes be more accurately reflected in BSL - for him).
I think that is because the BBC showed the original material in an incorrect aspect ratio - but with the DOG burned in. If the material is converted back to the correct aspect ratio the DOG will be cropped.
Now they've completely obscured the whole graphic, using another part of the wall to make it look like it's not there. They're also using a properly cropped version which was more recently shown on News 24.
ITV News' earlier efforts made me laugh - they zoomed in so the BBC News caption couldn't be seen at all, and stuck a huge ITV News logo at the bottom left (bigger than the usual DOG), which only worked to obscure Ian Huntley's face! Now they've just blurred out the BBC News caption.
Surely it's not right for ITV and Sky to re-broadcast footage which is clearly not theirs - the BBC have obviously made an effort to stop this by using that caption?!
