[efrahin]

No joke or insult intended, if there are enough people who need the service; I am all for it. Did not realize the problem was so extense. Sorry.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by chelsea24

I replied to this on another post, but I'll repeat it here. My husband has only 10% hearing, but through the miracle of modern science, he had a cochlear implant and it's been a real blessing to us. Even with that, we keep the Closed Captioning on all the time. I like it myself because in many of the movies, the actors are talking very fast, comedy shows, etc. Guess we both just got used to it.

Now in all honesty, he does not watch VNN. But that doesn't mean I don't think the developer or whoever is in charge, shouldn't provide Closed Captioning. I absolutely think they should. When we joined ALDA, The Association for Late Deafened Adults, years back, we discovered that there were over 40 million people that were partially or completely deaf. I'm sure that number has grown.

It only stands to reason that in a community of 70,000 plus and growing, a good percentage would have problems hearing. Although our minds may be "young at heart" sometimes our bodies don't exactly stay in tune.

This is primarily a retirement community, so it goes without question, that VNN should be captioned. It's simply a no brainer.

The more I read from you Chels, the more I become your devoted fan.

[Muncle]

If there are enough people in the community who need and/or want Closed Captioning on VNN, there are a number of options available. If the ownership decides that it is not financiallty feasible for them to do so, CC proponents can offer to pay or they can find corporate sponsorship or a charitable group to provide funding. They could hold an annual golf tournament.

Evidently there are some mandates levied upon station ownership re CC. If VNN qualifies for a waiver under those rules, so be it. They then have no legal or moral responsibility. Seemingly under the regulations, if they do not qualify for a waiver, they have two options. The first, of course, is to implement CC. The other is to close the station. It would not be the first victim of government regulation.

[redwitch]

Muncle, I totally disagree with you on this one. While VNN may have a legal exemption, I do believe they have a moral duty to provide closed captioning. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. In the comparative scheme of TV, the amoung of money to provide closed captioning would be a drop or two in the proverbial bucket for the Morses. The difference it could make to many who reside in TV would more than outweigh this cost. The fact is that many that reside here are hearing impaired and do rely on closed captioning to be able to participate in an activity most of us take for granted (watching and understanding television). This, to me, does make it a moral issue. If something can be done without true hardship on one and if that something becomes a true benefit to others, there is no excuse for not doing it and it is a moral responsibility to do what can be done.

Just because something is morally right doesn't mean it will happen. The choice is not ours. In this case, it is up to the owners, directors and managers of VNN. I hope they see that not providing closed captioning does harm many and can become an image nightmare for them. It is causing ill will and bad publicity, not just in Ocala but in TV itself.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by redwitch

Muncle, I totally disagree with you on this one. While VNN may have a legal exemption, I do believe they have a moral duty to provide closed captioning. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. In the comparative scheme of TV, the amoung of money to provide closed captioning would be a drop or two in the proverbial bucket for the Morses. The difference it could make to many who reside in TV would more than outweigh this cost. The fact is that many that reside here are hearing impaired and do rely on closed captioning to be able to participate in an activity most of us take for granted (watching and understanding television). This, to me, does make it a moral issue. If something can be done without true hardship on one and if that something becomes a true benefit to others, there is no excuse for not doing it and it is a moral responsibility to do what can be done.

Just because something is morally right doesn't mean it will happen. The choice is not ours. In this case, it is up to the owners, directors and managers of VNN. I hope they see that not providing closed captioning does harm many and can become an image nightmare for them. It is causing ill will and bad publicity, not just in Ocala but in TV itself.

Well said Redwitch. I LIKE it when a lot of bright people present their views without getting wild in here.

[Muncle]

Under the probably unwarranted assumption that there is no legal responsibility to do so, the ownership of VNN could provide Closed Captioning and it would be a real nice, friendly, charitable thing to do, but in my opinion, they have absolutely no moral responsibility to do so. Similarly, the Morse Family, as a unit or as individuals, could fund such an action. It would be nice, charitable, friendly (as above), they’d get a nice tax write-off, and maybe rack up a nice plenary indulgence. Connie Duff Wise or Cindy the Chevrolet lady could do the same. All these people can readily afford to provide CC to VNN, likely with little impact on their net worth if one can believe the prices quoted in the Slantenal, and it would be real sweet of them to do so. But none of these people have a moral obligation to provide closed captioning to VNN.

Red, many people tie the moral responsibility of the station owners to their financial status. Witness the inane inclusion of the Morse family’s ownership of a yacht and plane in the original column, as well as Morse‘s Republican contributions and connections. That is class warfare at its lowest, but it fits with the general tone. No one claims that you or I have this responsibility, but if they could swing the logistics, all the moral responsibility police would likely favor a tax on Bridgeport residents to fund their pet cause.

Like all else, it’s a personal opinion, but I don’t think that anyone is entitled to anything other than what they earn. An individual may be given something, be it via charity, inheritance, or whatever, but they have no moral right to it. As that old essay stated, everyone has a God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No more. Anything else is gravy, either earned or given to us. And since we have no moral right to anything else, no one has a moral obligation to provide it. They can do so, but it should be of their own volition.

[samhass]

Muncle, You are an eloquent gentlemen. I agree with your comments completely.

[redwitch]

I agree that they should not be forced to do it. It should be done out of good conscience, nothing more. I think that ultimately it will happen simply to stop the bad publicity about it.

Originally Posted by redwitch

I agree that they should not be forced to do it. It should be done out of good conscience, nothing more. I think that ultimately it will happen simply to stop the bad publicity about it.

Redwitch? What is your opinion on how the FCC will rule on this exemption request? The lawyer's March 3, 08 filed petition (written Feb 28, 2008) http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r...ent=6519868993 major arguments seem to be that channel 20 on TV tv cable broadcast already has some kinds of captioning and that VNN is losing money and forcing it to get closed captioning would result in VNN's demise.

I am kind of only see half of the elephant with the line of reasoning.

[redwitch]

I think it would be a close call. The FCC usually has little sympathy for going out of business excuses. However, we are talking a very small, limited use TV station. My guess is that will be the deciding factor and that VNN will get the exemption for that reason.

I have difficulty believing the cost of closed captioning would be that high. I mean everything runs in a loop, so it would only be the first hour or so that would that have to be typed in. Not an astronomical amount of human or technological time involved. I also think that the bad feelings that would be created in removing VNN, especially after TV just lost the buffalo, would make the developers, et al. think long and hard before shutting down VNN if they do lose. I still keep hoping they will do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do and well within their means to do so.

[DeafDeaf]

It does not matter if the TV station is merely a marketing tool Since it is to public, it should be functional equivalent to all viewers!

[DeafDeaf]

Originally Posted by efrahin

Does anyone know How many people will really benefit from the Closed Captioned feature?? Is all of this fuss about 3 or 4 people??

There are hundreds and thousdands of deaf, hard of hearing, and people whose hearing are diminished by age. Common Sense! Efrahin!

[DeafDeaf]

Originally Posted by efrahin

Does anyone know How many people will really benefit from the Closed Captioned feature?? Is all of this fuss about 3 or 4 people??

It appears that EFRAHIN does not accept people whose hearing is diminished with age also! The State of Florida has over 3 million people with hearing loss. Is that signficant? Those tri-county areas have over sixty thousands!!! Let's see when EFrahin lose hearing and then what will he say!

[billethkid]

4 or 5?
eleventeen or 91?
We live in a society where provisions are made mostly for minority (not race) groups. A litigious society whereby the sqeeking wheel gets almost anything it wants.
So for some of you/us that are not in the closed caption need group, I am sure you fall into some other minority group that is to your benefit.....eh?

btk