Jessell at Large

If TV's Far-Sighted, It Will Serve The Blind

Congress wants to require stations to provide video description service for the blind on a rolling schedule based on network affiliation and market size. This is one case where broadcasters should not fight a government mandate; rather they should embrace the service and provide descriptions on as many of their shows as they can as quickly as they can. They should go way beyond what Congress and the FCC are asking because it underscores broadcast television as the unique and democratic medium that serves everybody and because it is the right thing to do.
TVNewsCheck,

If you have your sight and you’ve never listened to video description service for the blind, you ought to. You soon realize what a wonderful enhancement it is to TV programming for the millions of Americans with little or no sight. They can follow the plots, “see” the characters and get all the jokes.

As we reported earlier this week, when Congress gets back from its summer recess, it is expected to send legislation to the president directing the FCC to impose rules requiring broadcasters to provide a video description service.

Story continues after the ad

The proposed rules are modest, initially requiring only network O&Os and affiliates in the top 25 markets to provide four hours a week of described programming. Stations in smaller markets will have to provide some level of service over 10 years.

But broadcasters and the Hollywood producers that work for them shouldn’t wait for the FCC and they shouldn’t take their time in rolling out the service. They should embrace the service and provide descriptions on as many of their shows as they can as quickly as they can. They should go way beyond what Congress and the FCC are asking.

They should do it because it elevates their status as good corporate citizens, because it underscores broadcast television as the unique and democratic medium that serves everybody and because it is the right thing to do.

Besides, broadcasters sort of promised to 10 years ago.

In 2000, the FCC adopted description requirements similar to those in the current legislation. Broadcasters in league with cable operators and program producers challenged them. In 2002, a court of appeals struck down the rules saying the FCC had overreached its authority.

In one of its FCC filings, the NAB said that the requirements should be postponed until after the digital transition.

Well, guess what folks, it’s after the digital transition, 15 months after. It’s time to step up.

There are costs involved, which is the big reason nobody really wants to bother with the descriptions.

First, we’re told, it costs between $2,000 and $4,000 per hour to produce the extra audio channel with descriptions. That hardly registers on the budgets of scripted network programs that can run to $2 million or more per episode. When I first got on this soap box in 2000 as editor of B&C, I suggested that, if $4,000 were a problem, the producers simply cut back on the caterer and let Geena Davis bag her lunch on Tuesdays. I amend that today to Tim Roth.

The hit on the broadcasters would be more significant. Many will have to spend up to $25,000 to buy and install the necessary encoder to pass through the description channel. Some may have to spend tens of thousands more for infrastructure upgrades.

This can be serious money to strapped broadcasters, particularly in smaller markets, where owners and managers are watching every dime and balancing payroll with capital expenses.

But the legislation is aimed initially at only the networks and their affiliates in the top 25 markets. Surely, they can still afford to make the necessary upgrades without undue suffering. And broadcasters in markets below DMA 25 could take their time.

Look, I don’t like government regulations of this sort. They’re intrusive, and often unconstitutional. Readers of this column know that I believe that the typical station already does plenty to justify its existence and its continued use of the spectrum.

However, the legislation and implementing FCC rules are likely going to happen. Broadcasters should make the best of the situation and demonstrate that they are the good guys by doing more than is required. It will pay dividends when the FCC refocuses on its plan to shift spectrum from broadcast to broadband.

Remember, we are only talking about pass through of network programming with descriptions. The legislation recognizes the inherent difficulties involved in describing news and other live productions, and doesn’t expect any station to do it. (Congress does want stations to figure out a way to provide emergency alerts with audio.)

NBCU is trying to win brownie points in Washington to grease its merger with Comcast. What better way than for NBC to announce next week that it will be providing descriptions of all its shows this season. Advocates for the blind would happily stage the press conference.

Hollywood should pick up the tab for the producing the extra audio channel with the descriptions. Starting this fall, no new drama or sitcom should be shipped off to a network without the descriptions. Four hours a week? By the end of the season, each network should be able to boast of doing three times that.

What’s Hollywood incentive? Well, how about money.

TV shows with descriptions can be monetized. Believe it or not, the blind are just like everybody else. They go to the movies and theater, subscribe to cable and surf the Web (with the help of software that reads all the text on the screen). And they are an economic force.

Continued on page 2…
Edit Article

Comments (5) -

PSIPthing Nickname posted a year ago
|
Most blind people are that way due to diabetes, and most have steady incomes and no expense of owning a car. They certainly buy things. What is so odd to me is that the companies that sell blood-glucose meters have yet to come out with a "talking" (audio readout) blood-glucose meter. This is something that most diabetics use multiple times per day. A talking one would mean that a blind person could perform the test alone. Imagine a commercial for such a product with DVS descriptions. Just be sure to include an 800-number, because blind people have an alternative universe that lives through plain, old-fashioned telephone conversations.
Ted Faraone posted a year ago
|
This is an interesting story. Many, many years ago I was a postman. One of my deliveries was to a blind lady living in public housing. She regularly listened to TV. I asked her about it. She said that blind people love TV. Hmm.... This took a bit of time for me to process. She could hear the audio but not see the pictures. It was daytime. The soaps were on. I guess their origins in radio made the audio track very informative. Some years ago there was a cable channel that showed movies with audio descriptions for the blind. I happened to trip over an excellent flick starring Lilli Palmer which had an audio description. The MSO was Time Warner. A few months later they dropped the channel. I don't remember its name and don't know if it still exists. As a partially deaf person, I love closed captioning. It enables me to follow TV programming without turning the volume up so high that it annoys the neighbors. So do Bose noise-canceling headphones. So far as vision goes, I am very lucky in having 20-15 eyesight. So reading the closed captions is easy. I see no reason why we cannot reach out to the vision-impaired in the same way. Bravo, Harry!
tvguru Nickname posted a year ago
|
how stupid! do we not have enough stupid gov regulations as businesses? this cost will cost local jobs and if not in the lease will drive up costs. Fine goals but totally impractical. But hey we are capable of doing it - so lets just do that says uncle sam.... tv tele - vision.... it requires vision - it is what it is - radio is totally auditory - I guess it should be further embellished as well for I do not hear well so it should have pictures! stupid!!!!!
Harry Jessell posted a year ago
|
I agree. We have to many stupid government regulations. I'm calling on broadcasters to do this because it will help them avoid more onerous regulations in the future and because it's the right thing to do.
Gyro Nickname posted a year ago
|
Before this happens, and it will happen, the broadcast and consumer folks need to get together and decide upon a standard for DVS and SAP. There seems to be no standard among receivers as to how they respond to extra audio channels. Indeed, some cable head-end equipment may not be able to handle multiple audio pids without causing a major interruption. And who knows about the various set top boxes deployed by cable, FIOS, and then there's satellite. In analog television, SAP was responsible for a large number of complaints from viewers who would inadvertently get their TV in the SAP mode. With the new digital TVs and the multiple layers of menus, this will be even worse. So Mr. Jessell, before you toot the DVS horn too loudly, let's make sure that when it is finally deployed, it doesn't turn into yet another nightmare for viewers who haven't begun to figure out the complexities of digital TV!

Today's Top Stories

Classifieds

The Market

Symbol Last Change (%)
Nasdaq 2874.04 -19.72 (-0.68%)
NYSE 7592.82 -42.99 (-0.56%)
S&P 500 1324.80 -5.86 (-0.44%)
Updated 05/16 11:23p ET Quotes delayed at least 20 mins.
Source: Financial Content

Ratings

Overnights, adults 18-49 for May 15, 2012
  • 1.
    3.2/9
  • 2.
    2.8/8
  • 3.
    2.5/7
  • 4.
    1.7/5
  • 5.
    1.6/5
  • 6.
    0.4/1
Source: Nielsen
Reviews
Opinions
Features
  • David Wiegand

    Fans of Sex and the City have finally gotten their wish: Their beloved sex-focused sitcom is back on the air ... sort of. The four women have become four men, of course, and the writing isn't as good. Oh, and the laugh track so annoying, it's offensive. And did I mention that the costumes would be considered fashionable if you were holding a yard sale? Men at Work on TBS is almost quaint, it's so old fashioned. If it had any meat on its bones, you'd be tempted to say it's the sadly ignoble epitome of TV's long-festering emasculated-men syndrome. But it's so much of a big, forgettable, innocuous shrug, it's not even worth any actual vitriol.

  • Mike Hale

    The USA Network's motto is "Characters Welcome." Apparently they're especially welcome if they resemble Oscar Madison and Felix Unger. Already stocked with Odd Couple knockoffs in Psych and White Collar, USA adds to its inventory Common Law, another comic crime-fighting show about mismatched partners. But this latest entry exhibits very little of that kind of spark as it tries to wring laughs from the juxtaposition of counseling and police work. It looks too flat and schematically plotted to succeed as the type of lightweight summer fun we’ve come to expect from USA.

  • Joanne Ostrow

    Johnny Carson: Fantastic entertainer, miserable human being. That's the lasting message of Johnny Carson: King of Late Night, the new PBS American Masters film, a rich history of a rare product of television who dominated the small screen for decades. Unprecedented access to personal archives plus all existing episodes of The Tonight Show (1962-92), distinguishes this film by Peter Jones. Telling interviews with family and colleagues, including second wife Joanne Carson, former Tonight Show executive producer Peter Lassally and a number of biographers sharpen the picture. The clips are carefully selected to illustrate specific personality traits, the performance highlights are given context and meaning beyond funny lines and memorable moments.

  • Hank Stuever

    AMC's The Pitch is a sharply-made if slightly off-putting reality series that follows different advertising agencies each week as they compete for new accounts. The inspiration for the show — made clear by its own ad campaign — is to harness some of the verve generated by the network's acclaimed Mad Men. The Pitch has a way of making the ad world seem like a real downer — a repugnant exercise in egotism laced with depressing bouts of creative compromise.

  • Tim Goodman

    HBO's Veep stars Julia Louis-Dreyfus as former Sen. Selina Meyer, who accepts the vice presidential duty and regrets it almost immediately: She has no real power and gets muscled by the Senate, Congress and the (so-far-unseen) president, who delegates all the truly crappy jobs to her. Louis-Dreyfus has found perhaps her best post-Seinfeld role and takes to it with such fervor — the constant swearing, the barely veiled desire to become president, the unhappy give-and-take with other politicians and a delightful disdain for average citizens — that you can't help but applaud what is clearly an Emmy-worthy effort. Her work alone makes Veep a gem, but there's even more to like.

This advertisement will close automatically in  second(s). You will see this ad no more than once a day. Skip ad