Failure to Communicate

So the Senate Committee Report into captioning reform in Australia has been squeezed out. To the surprise only of those who think the world is comprised of caring and fundamentally good people trying to do the right thing, the report is a snivelling apologia for the broadcast industry, the committee politely rolling over, licking their pointy boots, thanking them for its beatings (how else will it learn?) and asking polite permission to be allowed to please put the lotion on its skin.

Right away, Rupert.

It breezes right the fuck past all submissions from consumer groups. Weirdly it quotes them, provides no particular counter-arguments, then decrees whatever free ride the broadcasters were going to get anyway. I’m not going to go through it in detail, because honestly it’s too inane and that’s an exercise that would endumben us both. But for a sampler, the Minister (a man more renowned for Not Being Leader and for an admittedly fabulous leather jacket than for any particular intellect) concludes that:

I want to make it quite clear that broadcasting licensees will still be required to meet the same specified level of captioning for television programs to assist viewers with hearing impairment.

Now I don’t want to give you a sense of déjà vu, learned reader, but I went into some detail about how that was not actually, in the tangible world to which we are confined, the case. As a random sample, the ability to average the captioning output across linked sports channels (a measure which in overseas markets has led to reduced output), a get-out-of-jail clause for technical faults (news flash – the regulated free market can incentivise really clever measures to reduce those technical faults), the expanded exemptions for new channels (such a missed opportunity to build captions into the foundations) and the reduced standards for live captions (keep me honest, ffs!), ALL represent a drop in the Minister’s “specified level of captioning”.

Ah, but in your coat pocket...your card!

…But I don’t want to retread old ground. Indeed, here would be the point, in a well-conducted public debate, where I look at the rebuttals to points such as mine*, develop my defences for that which remains defensible, and abandon that which is not. But there’s very little scope for it. The views of the deaf fell on deaf ears, while erstwhile bastions of fairness among the ranks of broadcasters, like ABC and SBS, proved fair-weather friends. Arguments such as mine were raised in the same way that a budgie smuggled into a coal mine squawks about climate change – unheard, disregarded, directly inactive and dead on arrival. They were not engaged with, but instead placed side-by-side with the submissions of the Grown-Ups and talked past, as if tacitly admonished to run along and play outside.

* In fact, not only were my arguments mirrored in many submissions to the committee, my own words were quoted as part of one group’s submission, so the debate is discombobulatingly direct.

If there is one new argument to be made, it is this. The requirement for consumers to report, rather than broadcasters to annually self-report, was justified on the basis that between 6:00am and midnight, primary channels require 100% captioning, so it’s “easy” for consumers to see when it’s erroneously missing. That argument holds some water. Not enough, but some. But that exact reasoning constitutes a really good reason why averaging of captioning quotas on sport channels is a bad idea. The committee effectively acknowledges that reliable captioning quotas are the easiest kind for consumers to help enforce. Fair enough. Well, then the committee specifically endorses making it harder to report captioning problems on sport channels, because there that reliability gives way to “flexibility” (to offer less, of course – Murdoch’s sport networks already have the flexibility to exceed requirements).

He’s a flexible guy.

We also apparently have “no evidence” that viewers will be less effective at enforcing compliance than comprehensive industry record-keeping. Whereas, you see, we have lots of evidence from broadcasters that it will reduce the regulatory burden. That sound you can hear is a captioner screaming something about unequal consultation, in the darkness, after finding himself tragically unable to shake shake shake it off.

Must highlight this little gem:

The committee agrees that the breadth of consultation in relation to this bill has been insufficient. As a consequence, the effect of some proposed amendments appear to have been misunderstood…

Catch that? Consultation was too short. Not, however, because of any shortcoming in gathering the views of stakeholders and forming a broad consensus model for the legislation. No, “consultation” here means unilaterally talking, and too little consultation means they haven’t browbeaten people sufficiently into submission. For the record, my colleagues, my viewers and I understand. We do. We can’t help but notice it’s just a bit shithouse, is all.

It should be noted the committee represented the depressing bipartisanship for which our Senate is of course so celebrated. Which is to say, weak-as-piss Labor rubber stamping. The committee consists of three Coalition Senators, two Labor and one Green, along with two further Greens listed as “participating members for this inquiry”. The Greens issued a strong dissenting report, calling for a host of sensible amendments and rejecting large parts of what must, therefore, have otherwise been a consensus view (between Rupert Murdoch and his navel).

Bipartisanship.

So what do we do now? Well, unless I’m misreading it, the marginally amended bill still needs to pass the Senate, so if you hear of any Labor Senators ambling in the direction of Damascus, consider rigging up some extra-flashy pyrotechnics and a generous supply of peyote. And if and when we lose, keep on fighting in the form of complaints. Whether you’re a viewer or even a captioner (why not?), complain officially about every error you see, every loss, every time we cover up important information, every program or channel or instant without comprehensive captions. If it falls to you to enforce compliance, do it mercilessly. Don’t ask yourself whether it was a reasonable live error, whether it was a show which maybe didn’t require captions, if it was a technical hiccup at the network. Register every complaint. Don’t feel sorry for captioners. Keeping us honest makes us do better work, and more importantly makes our clients and employers provide us the resources to do better work. We’re on your side, so punish us good.

---

Disclaimer.