Maybe the captioning people just couldn't see themselves typing, "Rey Raggy!" all the time. :D

<font color=deepskyblue>Both issues are equally relevant, <font color=orange>Chewbacca</font>. I agree that it would be nice to know how the committee determined which shows should or should not be captioned. I also agree that there is nothing "wrong" or "sinister" about any of the programs listed (at least as far as I could tell).

However, the author of the article is putting a major spin on the facts. Suggesting that the funding for these shows was used to pay the bill to Haliburton or to fund the Homeland Security Department implies that President Bush has a direct influence on these shows not being captioned....but that simply isn't the case.

The funding IS important because the article actually lists the guidelines required to qualify for the federal grants. The Department of Education states that the programs must be informative, educational, or news. If you look at the list of shows that did not recieve funding, it is hard to justify any of them as actually being educational or informative. They are entertaining, but that isn't the same thing.

Something else I wonder about. The author says that - according to the NAD - these shows used to be captioned, but the USDE has suddenly decided they no longer qualify. Personally, I find that allegation somewhat dubious. I've watched some of the sitcoms from the 70's on TV Land and I have the caption turned "ON" on my TV set...so I see the text on ANY of the shows that are captioned...and I've NEVER seen any of the older shows captioned.

What I believe the author did was use a juxtaposition to imply a greater guilt than actually occurred. His statement that "these shows USED to be captioned" comes right after the paragraph mentioning that various sports programs are not captioned now. I know for a fact that many of THOSE shows WERE captioned...so the author isn't technically lying. He talks about the sports programs then mentions the NAD says "these programs" used to recieve gov't funding. That is probably true. But the implication is that ALL of the shows mentioned - all 200 of them - WERE captioned before, but now they aren't.

To be honost, I just don't believe that is the case. However, if any of our members HAVE seen episodes of <font color=white>Sanford and Son</font>, <font color=white>Bewitched</font>, , <font color=white>I Dream of Jeannie</font>, , or <font color=white>Scooby Doo</font>, that WERE captioned, I will be happy to admit my error on that issue.

I don't mean to give you hard time. I actually agree with you that these shows should be captioned and I think the gov't should explain themselves if they DID provide funding before, but have suddenly cut the funding for those shows. At the very least, they should inform the public of the criteria used to determine which shows qualified.

But the overall tone of the article and the obvious anti-Bush spin make me doubt the truthfulness of all the claims it makes.</font>

Good one, Inja Yew.

Chewie, I am fully aware of why the term was used. I don't have to read the article to make the connection. We all read stories of how the Taliban controlled media and print. That's why the word is so darned attractive to someone wanting to proclaim "Despot" in a backhanded fashion.

Any sensible person must admit that using the list of words I "boycotted" in relation to the U.S. government and/or its leaders is really hyperbole. And, if I want hyperbole, I read fiction.

Cerek, thanks for posting the underlying rules. That pretty much settles the issue for me.

I sorta wonder why the subsidies exist. Why do the rules place only emphasis on being educated and informed - why is there no allowance for the thought that hearing impaired people may want to be entertained? Is the purpose of the whole exercise a quality of life thing, or is it simply an education and training department exercise fullstop?

and quit reading. I'm boycotting shit with oblique sweeping references to our government and fascism, totalitarianism, Nazi-ism, or radicalism. I know it's en vogue right now, but it's still exceedingly tacky and evidences an itty bitty brain.</font>[/QUOTE]I understand and personally sympathise, as I hate people using emotive terms instead of actual arguments. However if you actually read this article its taken from a very light hearted point of view. The author, I believe, knows this "scandal" won't change the world and it certainly doesn't mean you guys are living in a dictatorshop, but he thinks that the method used to decide which programs are funded for this and which aren't is quite dubious, even chaotic. I think personally that more than anything this guy is actually just drawing the readers attention to the fact that this is a mess, rather than pinning the blame on the government and calling for Bush's resignation.

Overall I think you've got hot under the collar about the use of a word I really don't think was intended in the fashion you think.

It's sort of strange that the article implies guilt to the current presidency, and yet there's not really much mentioned about the billions of dollars raked in by the television industry every year. You'd think they could spare a few million from the revenues of the Stupor-Bowl halftime ads to make 'bewitched' only slightly less meaningless than it already is, for the hearing impaired :D

I keep close captioning on my tv because I like it. I like to compare the written words to what comes out the actors mouths. Lots of times while a movie has been edited for language, the captioning has not. I'm easily amused I know, but it's a survival skill where I live. ;)

I remember seeing the words "Close Captioning Funded by Toyota" and such. It seems to me the wealthy private sector ought to be the ones to fund these sorts of projects. Yeah I know I'm evil, but I'm tired of the public coffers being empty. I think our elected officials need to take a hard look at where tax dollars are allowed to go and do a whole lot of cutting.

On the topic of funding I am basically libertarian, But while public funds are being used to do it, the decision making process on how the funds are used should be transparent, fair, and consistent.

Of course either way CC is funded, we will still pay. If not in taxes than in higher cable/satellite bills, more commercials, and/or other methods networks can use to squeeze dough out of us to recoup the costs.