There’s a message on stopeugenics.org about yesterday’s show about deafness and blindness. “To the BBC: shame on yourselves, your a multi million pound organisation, so where’s the access for the very people you are talking about?”
Their point is that we talked about deaf people but they couldn’t hear the show and we should have provided a transcript. I can see what they’re getting at, but we simply have no resources to do that. Fortunately, stopeugenics.org does. Here is a transcript of the 1800GMT edition.
@1700 GMT
RSS feed
My Precious Ros. They wrote your name ‘Ross’ in the transcript. Can that be corrected, please ?! :). With my love. Yours forever, Lubna.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic, that after a long drawn out debate about whether or not being deaf/blind should be considered a disability, WHYS is then yelled at for not providing a written transcript to their radio program?
Ros - “we simply have no resources” - isn’t really that acceptable - just get your secretary to do it or something like that. The Stop Eugenics website have even less resources - it’s all done by volunteers with less time and the transcript was done by a nice person that took the time to create it and passed it onto us.
At the end of the day, BBC is a multi-million organisation, they should be ashamed at themselves that they are unable with all of their resources to create a transcript where a single person in spare time did so.
Finally - BBC is all about having *no bias* - this is the core value of BBC, yet when they talk about deaf people, you are creating a bias if you cannot provide a transcript.
Hi JG. I didn’t mean the BBC doesn’t have the resources, I mean WHYS does not. The issue of trascription goes well beyond this programme, but I have already said I can see that stopeugenics.org has a point about yesterday’s show.
I think that the most important part is that there is now a transcript available. Why does it matter who it came from? There is one available. “Just getting your secretary to do it” is not always as easy as it is to point the finger.
Perhaps it was not thoroughly thought through that BBC should provide a transcript of the debate, but who had the forethought on behalf of stopeugenics.org to request a transcript before the debate, or make arrangements to have one done up either on their part or BBC’s?
It is quite easy to place blame after the fact, isn’t it?
Regards,
Brett ~ Richmond, Va.