Respect your readers

I am back, bleary-eyed and listless, from the Emerald City. Those who don’t reside in Oz may know it better as Sydney.

It is a phenomenon in its own right and one to which I shall dedicate no further words… because I didn’t see much of it really.

What I did see quite a bit of was the Olympics. They are — apparently — mandatory viewing in all public areas. Well, the swimming, certainly. It’s a cultural expectation that all Australians be exposed to as much pool-side vision as possible once every four years.

Now, while I am no sports fan (being inherently non-competitive and fatally co-operative in my nature) I must confess to like watching the swimming. Probably because it doesn’t involve a ball. And it’s over really quickly.

I can safely report that all airport lounges and gates (as well as hotel dining rooms and restaurants) have a box in the corner for the diversion of this nation of armchair sportsmen.

No, really.

What caught my attention, however, was not the record-breaking performances of the home side, but the appalling quality of the subtitles going live to air for the edification of the deaf.

In order to allow our aurally challenged countrymen to also experience immersion in the Olympic spirit, sports commentaries, interviews and chit chat amongst various sporting types (with broad shoulders, gleaming smiles and carefully tousled hair styles) is being transcribed into subtitles for their viewing pleasure.

This is obviously being done by someone completely unfamiliar with the Australian accent. The resultant sub-titular gibberish is now a serious medal contender in the Chinglish replacement stakes.

The transcribers should be slated as replacements for targets in the firearm events.

Honestly, if a scribe is unable to understand the vernacular that they are listening to (and which is the native idiom of the intended reading public) then they are unqualified for the job at hand and should be given the flick.

What is the point of transcribing hours of conversation – to be displayed two lines at a time – if the resulting text means absolutely nothing at all? Isn’t this just adding insult to injury? I feel that it displays a complete lack of respect for the intended audience and reeks of grudging compliance with someone else’s rules.

Was there a requirement that the official broadcaster also provide sub-titles for deaf viewers? (My lack of interest in the Olympics is the cause of my ignorance here.) If so, who was the bright spark who thought that having any arrangement of letters appearing at a constant rate qualifies as providing comprehensive sub-titles? Why are separate syllables appearing as different words in a nonsensical string?

The great Aussie diphthong appears to completely confound the scribes: towels at one stage were referred to as toe rails. I don’t know why. And I don’t think it is a case of voice recognition software run wild either. The wording doesn’t change to reflect context and there is no inherent sense in much of what appears.

While it did all provide me with much involuntary hilarity and quite a few belly laughs, I wonder what our deaf sports fans are making of it all? Is it a case of roads to Hell and good intentions, or simply an exercise in condescension?

How does this audience feel when they realise that the network executives don’t actually care about the quality of the product they are airing purely for their benefit? Would they rather get nothing than this dog’s breakfast of errors?

This provides an object lesson to all writers. Remember your audience, realise the limitations and provide written work of a consistent quality which actually gets the message across.

A message which does not communicate is no message at all.

Time to sleep.

S.