Is it really necessary to have a 'sign language' person on Sturgeon's announcement?

It takes up too much screen real-estate and is distracting to most viewers.  I posit that the number of people using the service is very limited.  If they do need it, then why do they not have the teleprompter visible for persons with poor hearing who don't understand sign language?  I know there is text subtitles on TV's, but they rarely work properly on live speech.

I write as a person with moderate hearing loss, although the wee lassies voice is big enough for me to hear.

Update:

exactly anon! - I see this sign language stuff as just another way of being right-on.  The Americans are very keen on it, police announcements seem to have it.

Update 2:

Now Wales has it, but I doubt if Boris will bother with the guff.

Update 3:

Green Puffin - exactly true that live subtitles are hopeless - that's why I'm saying why not have proper subtitles taking from the teleprompter?  Surely that's more use than a signer playing to the crowd the way they do - some of their movements are so obviously OTT

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 month ago
    Favourite answer

    Yes it is, deaf people are not excluded from needing to know what is being said by their First Minister.  The Westminster briefings should follow suit and Wales too if they aren't already.

    The way I see it is I'm just thankful that I am not deaf but if I was I know I would be so grateful that there was an easy way I could also feel included in the broadcast.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Yes, but not for the benefit of the Scots but for none Scots as no one but the Scots understand a word she says. 

  • 1 month ago

    I fully support any sign language to accompany the First Minister's announcements!

    A raised middle finger towards Westminster and clown Bozo is well appreciated - and I'm not even Scots!

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    No. I have some BSL, but in 'live' briefings its no better than the subtitles which are often way off. Being able to watch the speaker to lip read and scan the text is challenging enough without having somebody else getting in the line of sight. The only problem with relaying the autocue is that questions from journalists and answers are not covered.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    Before you ask people to use the 'teletext subtitles', perhaps try watching any programme with them.  They aren't easy to follow.  I'm only deaf in one ear and the other, if gets blocked seriously disables me.  I don't know Sign Language, but I would like to learn it.

    I personally don't have an issue with listening to the spoken words and watching the Signer, it's interesting.  It's a shame that Sign Language can't be designed as an International Language, ie signing in every country be the same, so you could travel all over the world and have at least one language in common!

    It's not 'right on' to cater for the thousands of people that rely on sign language as a form of communication.  It's very back ward to assume that deaf people, don't watch the news.  I can only assume that you are a knuckle dragging old fart.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Necessary? - I suppose to those who need to hear what wee Sturgeon is saying, signing might be relevant.   Personally I just turn it off - mainly because I am NOT interested in what wee Sturgeon has to say!

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    I prefer the Janey Godley's dubbed version.

    Source(s): (Get the door, Frank)
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    No, but I suppose it gives the impression of ‘inclusion’, unlike the rest of the snp, Scottish football team etc 

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.