You are here: joeclark.org → Captioning and media access →
CRTC →
Findings
Updated 2001.07.15
(Have a look at the intro page first)
This page provides documentation of broadcasters’ commitments to captioning and audio description for digital specialty channels licensed by the CRTC in December 2000.
Update, 2002.01.23: The CRTC cleverly rejiggered its Web site, but in the worst possible way, destroying essentially every URL previously published. None of the CRTC links below will actually work. At this point in our economic history, it is not worth it for me to fix them all, particularly since I quote the actual relevant text. Blame gormless government bureaucrats. I certainly do.
(See criteria – Full details below)
Station name | Commitment | Requirement | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
CC | A.D. | CC | A.D. | |
Biography Channel | B minus | F | B minus | F |
BookTelevision | B minus | F | B minus | F |
Canadian Documentary Channel | B minus | F | B minus | F |
Connect | B plus | F | B plus | F |
FashionTelevision | D | F | C | F |
Health Network | D | F | D | F |
Independent Film Channel | B minus | F | B minus | F |
Issues Channel | C | F | C | F |
Land & Sea | B minus | F | B minus | F |
LCN Affaires | C | F | C | F |
MenTV | B minus | F | B minus | F |
Perfecto, La Chaîne | C | F | C plus | F |
PrideVision | B minus | F | B plus | F |
Réseau Info Sport | B | B plus | B plus | B plus |
TechTV Canada | B minus | F | B minus | F |
Télé Ha! Ha! | B minus | F | B minus | F |
13th Street | B plus | C | B minus | C |
13ième rue | B minus | F | B minus | F |
Wisdom | B minus | F | B plus | F |
Women’s Sports Network | B minus | B plus | B minus | B plus |
Biography ChannelApplication – Decision – Contact: Peter Kovacs | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Starts at only 50%, but ramps up to 90%. No mention of quality standards, let alone improving them. |
B minus |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Let’s see. Biography will “acquire programming that has descriptive video programming.” Nice and recursive, that. Virtually the only biographical programming with audio description (not “descriptive video”) is old American Experience episodes, and given that Canadian broadcasters are too cheap to license original American captioning on old programming, how are we to expect Biography to bother shelling out the bucks for the A.D. track? “Whenever available and applicable”? Just when is audio description not applicable? Biography Channel, reflecting typical Canadian broadcasting cluelessness, fails to understand that “the setup feature of their digital set-top boxes” works for sighted people only. Since Biography actually brings this issue up, presumably they have a fix for that problem. Don’t they? (After all, Biography is a Rogers Cable venture. They also deal in set-top boxes.) “Consulting” with the National Broadcast Reading Service will do nothing but entrench its own appallingly inept description practices. What is “the evolution of descriptive video”? First of all, Descriptive VideoSM is someone else’s service mark, and just what kind of “evolution” are we waiting for? Isn’t this another way of saying “We intend to do nothing whatsoever for seven years, and, when our license comes up for renewal, plead that ‘DVS’ has not ‘evolved’ sufficiently for our service”? |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Parrots the applicant’s plans. No mention of quality standards, let alone improving them. |
B minus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Swallows whole the applicant’s mealy-mouthed refusal to provide audio description. The applicant dictated to the regulator. The dialogue went like this. Biography Channel: “We won’t do audio description. And you will affirm our refusal.” CRTC: “OK by us. We don’t understand this ‘descriptive audio captioning service’ any more than you do.” |
F |
[Back to top]
BookTelevisionApplication – Decision – Contact: Ron Keast | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
As is typical of anything vaguely linked to CHUM Ltd., BookTelevision shows its contempt of captioning by starting out with a puny 35% (well less than half). In fact, for the first three years, less than half the broadcast day will be captioned. In the 21st century. Now, that’s progress. And, naturally, no mention of caption quality, let alone improving it. |
B minus |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
“Meet the needs of the visually-impaired to at least the same extent as LTA does currently”? That bad, huh? BookTelevision appears to believe that voicing onscreen type is all you need to do to ensure access. Indeed, access will not happen if you don’t voice onscreen graphics, but that is only part of the picture. Further, it is an outright lie to claim that any CHUM Ltd. channel voices onscreen print. CHUM bases entire programs and networks (e.g., QueerTelevision, StarTV, and of course CablePulse24 with its so-called dense screen) on unvoiced onscreen type. It makes for a nice visual package, but it is inaccessible. And at no time ever has any CHUM station made a true effort to read out that print. Why would they? That would queer the whole system. In short, LTA is lying when it claims it will increase the verbal rendition of onscreen graphics. It will never happen. But because the CRTC is even more clueless than the Canadian broadcast oligopoly, the CRTC bought it hook, line, and sinker. The previous provision of audio description by other CHUM channels (apparently only CITY-TV) is of course dubbed an “experiment,” as though referring to smoking a joint at age 15 or messing around with Bruce the quarterback after practice one afternoon. Audio description does not require “experimentation.” It is a proven system, though AudioVision’s practice of it is reprehensible and inept. |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Parrots the applicant’s plans. No mention of quality standards, let alone improving them. |
B minus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Reiterates the applicant’s plans, as though the applicant were dictating to the regulator, which is, in fact, the case. |
F |
[Back to top]
Canadian Documentary ChannelApplication – Decision – Contact: Deborah Beatty | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Starts at 50%, ramping up to 90% (one year earlier than required). No mention of quality standards, let alone improving them. |
B minus |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Wow. The CBC really took the bull by the horns, airing fewer than five series with descriptions they got for free (and didn't particularly promote, either). And we’re going to use that as some kind of forerunner? At this rate, by the year 2008 the Canadian Documentary Channel will also have aired fewer than five shows with audio description. Care to lay odds that they will be reruns of the original CBC programs rather than anything new? That, after all, would cost money. Also: Really nice touch to explain how audio description works. Did you also explain how Web sites work in the Interactivity section of the application? It would surely be unfair to view that section as padding and grandstanding. |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Reiterates the applicant’s plans as though reading from a script. No mention of quality standards, let alone improving them. |
B minus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Parrots the applicant’s plans. Question for our esteemed Commissioners: Just what is there to “explore”? We’re not talking about adding Smell-o-Vision™ to television here. Audio description has been in use on broadcast television for 12 years. Just what is the holdup? |
F |
[Back to top]
ConnectApplication apparently not online – Decision – Contact: Drew Craig | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Starts out above 50%. Inches kind of cautiously toward 90%. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B plus |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Certainly the most insulting and dismissive malarkey of all digital-specialty-service applicants whose networks begin with the letter C. (It’s not quite as breathtaking as the gall we’ll see in some other applications.) What “industry-wide cooperative solutions”? Apart from putting AudioVision out of business, given their proven track record of incompetence, the provision of audio description is merely a question of paying for it. No “industry-wide cooperative solutions” necessary. It’s ready to go in the here and now. What’s the holdup? (Well, the answer is obvious: Audio description costs money, but then again, so does an entire new specialty service, and the fact that blind subscribers are paying for a service they cannot fully understand apparently counts for nothing. What does count, evidently, is the expense involved in making TV accessible. That expense might reduce corporate profits, thus threatening the lease on the 930 Turbo and the cottage up north. Admit it: Greed keeps you from providing accessible television. Even though your viewers are already paying for it.) |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Parrots the applicant’s plans. No mention of quality standards, let alone improving them. |
B plus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Blatant parroting of the applicant’s dismissal of the reality that audio description is already here and viable, AudioVision Canada’s rank incapacities notwithstanding. |
F |
[Back to top]
FashionTelevisionApplication – Decision – Contact: Peter Miller | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
What shocking chutzpah. I could just plotz. Years after the CRTC required wealthy broadcasters to provide 90% captioning by certain deadlines, CHUM has the gall to say, in effect, “To hell with your requirements. It’s gonna cost us too much.” And of course the copyright argument is bogus. When licensing a program for broadcast, simply include the right to caption it in the license. The assumption here – and it is a false one – is that the CRTC, or someone else, expects FashionTelevision to caption someone else’s copyrighted programming without permission. Now, whoever said that, exactly? Everything boils down to money with CHUM. Things boil down to money so consistently that, despite CRTC requirements to the contrary, all CHUM will promise to do is spend a certain trivial amount of cash each year on captioning, which could very easily disappear due to creative accounting. Contemptible. And, for that matter, contemptuous. (The fact that the 22-year-old girls with poli-sci degrees currently butchering CHUM’s in-house programming know as much about captioning as Donovan Bailey knows about macramé seems not to have entered the discussion.) |
D |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Further contempt from the glorified accountants at CHUM. First of all, Speakers Corner cannot accommodate a wheelchair user, and all its instructions are in print only, making it inaccessible to two disability groups – a far cry from “welcom[ing] the participation of all.” CHUM trots out the old we-experimented-with- And, as ever, CHUM can find lots and lots of cash to start up entire new specialty networks, complete with launch and schmooze parties, but suddenly comes up all poor when paying subscribers are concerned. Bit of a contradiction here, don’t you think? And, of course, we deal yet again with the blatant lie that CHUM stations ever bother to voice onscreen text, or that such will ever really be done. |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
The CRTC, as usual taking its orders from industry, completely buys CHUM’s lies and diversions, but, in its quisling, milquetoast way, “expects” CHUM to reach the same captioning targets other English-language telecasters have to meet. One supposes that requiring such captioning levels would make CRTC staff unpopular, ruining their chances for lucrative job postings in the broadcast industry once they abandon the sinking CRTC ship. |
C |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Shocking, almost fellative subservience to CHUM’s diversionary tactics, and a baldfaced admission that the CRTC believes audio description serves too few people to be worth the money. (Funny, those people are already paying to receive the channel. Why aren’t they permitted to gain full enjoyment of the programming?) |
F |
[Back to top]
Health NetworkApplication – Decision – Contact: Phyllis Yaffe | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Even by the standards of avarice and hatred of anything involving accessible media made notorious by the Canadian broadcast industry, starting a new network in the year 2001 with 10% captioning comes as a slap in the face. That's two and half hours a day, which could conveniently be sandwiched between, say, 0330 and 0600 hours. We won’t see majority captioning until year seven, when captioning will effectively double from the previous year. Quickie question for Phyllis Yaffe: Why should any captioning viewer bother watching your network at all, let alone in year seven, when you’ve shown such disregard for their needs? And everyone knows that Alliance Atlantis has tons of cash to afford captioning; indeed, Alliance has its own squad of 22-year-old girls with poli-sci degrees desecrating programming on other networks. (In many cases, desecrating programs previously captioned elsewhere, like Da Vinci’s Inquest, Liberty Street, and Prime Suspect.) This is what Alliance really thinks of its viewers. |
D |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
You don’t need to wait for digital transmission to begin using A.D.; it works just fine in analogue, thank you very much. Still, these are digital services. We know you “experimented” with acid in college, but you might as well just quit trying to snow us with the line that you “experimented” with a proven access technology before. “As the subscriber demand dictates”? The demand is already there. You are simply choosing to ignore it. And keep your own words in mind: These are paying subscribers. You are knowingly disenfranchising this clientele. |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
10% captioning is effectively nothing, and the CRTC authorizes it as though taking orders from a leather-clad master. Or, in this case, a kilt-clad master, or that person’s lieutenant. |
D |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
How appalling to find CRTC nabobs simply cutting and pasting an applicant’s own excuses and passing it off as regulation. |
F |
[Back to top]
Independent Film ChannelApplication – Decision – Contact: Catherine Tait | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
Commitment is unclear in online documents. A later E-mail stated:
|
Starts at 50% and increases to 90%. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. (Every Salter St. production has had miserable captions, Lexx particularly so.) |
B minus |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
Nothing listed. The question appears to have been deleted from the original CRTC form. A later E-mail stated:
|
Oh, dear. These poor people really do not understand what audio description is. They seem to think it has something to do with captioning. Independent Film Channel can do all the “requesting” it wants, but the only way to guarantee described programming is to pay for it yourself. (It is your responsibility. You are the broadcaster.) I am working on the assumption that Salter St., by virtue of its new entry into television networks, can be rehabilitated. |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Reiterates the licensee’s commitments as though taking orders. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B minus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
I’m just loving this one. Here we have incontrovertible proof that:
Way to go, protectors of the Broadcasting Act! |
F |
[Back to top]
Issues ChannelApplication – Decision – Contact: Martha Fusca | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Starts well below half, and majority captioning doesn’t kick in until year four. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
C |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
A whole forest of malapropisms here:
In any event, Issues Channel quite possibly does not understand that it has committed itself to describing its “daily flagship program.” God help us all if AudioVision does it. |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Authorizes and reiterates Issues Channel’s refusal to provide majority captioning for years. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
C |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
More outright replication of the applicant’s declarations. |
F |
[Back to top]
Land & SeaApplication – Decision – Contact: Deborah Beatty | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Starts out at 50%; ends up at 90%. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B minus |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
More than just “news/information” programming requires accessibility, and no one places any trust whatsoever in Corus’s ability to keep “the needs of the visually-impaired in mind.” This will probably end up meaning “Well, one time we read a phone number out loud and said ‘for those of you with vision difficulties.’ ” There is already a way to serve the needs of the visually-impaired: Audio description. Don’t try this at home, folks. The network deals with country issues, but there is no homegrown alternative. At all. |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Copies Land & Sea’s commitments – blindly, as it were. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B minus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Another lazy bureaucrat in Hull does a drag-and-drop in Microsoft Word and calls it governmental oversight. Would this bureaucrat care to define what “[keeping] the needs of the visually impaired in mind” actually means? |
F |
[Back to top]
LCN AffairesApplication apparently not online – Decision – Contact: Serge Desroses | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
As we will see with all channels affiliated with TVA, an outright dismissiveness to accessibility is the norm. We start out below 50% captioning and don’t reach a majority level until year four. Nice. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
C |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Baldly states “We ain’t gonna do it.” |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
The CRTC takes its orders from the top, as usual. |
C |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
And, continuing to take orders from its industry masters, the Commission happily rubber-stamps the applicant’s refusal to provide any description at all. |
F |
[Back to top]
MenTVApplication apparently not online – Decision – Contact: Serge Desroses | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Sits at a begrudging one-half level for three full years. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B minus |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
“We ain’t gonna do it.” |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Restates the applicant’s plans. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B minus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
MenTV: “We ain’t gonna do it.” CRTC: “Whatever. Next!” |
F |
[Back to top]
Perfecto, La ChaîneApplication – Decision – Contact: Michel Arpin | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
As is entirely typical of CHUM’s contempt for accessibility requirements, captioning starts well below 50% and doesn’t reach majority status until year five. |
C |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Not only does Perfecto perpetuate the typical CHUM argument that accessibility cuts into our ability to pay for schmooze parties, they betray their contempt for and ignorance of basic facts. What is «le service vidéo numérique (SVD)»? Just fill us in on that one point. What is it? |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
The Commission continues to take its orders from industry, ignoring its own requirements and permitting CHUM, unique among Canadian broadcasters, to simply set a piddling dollar value on its captioning plans. Some redemption in “encouraging” CHUM to hit 90%. |
C plus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Yet another restatement of official government disenfranchisement of paying subscribers who require a well-established access technique to enjoy programming they’re already paying for. |
F |
[Back to top]
PrideVisionApplication – Decision – Contact: Robert Malcolmson | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
First years’ captioning is unclear. |
B minus |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
Nothing listed. The question appears to have been deleted from the original CRTC form. A later E-mail states:
|
PrideVision is in over its head and probably won’t ever make it to air anyway. Apart from the inexperienced and undercapitalized management and its location in the gay mecca of Hamilton, it will be next to impossible to find tough-guy technical staff who will work for a gay network. It is not surprising to learn that the question of audio description prompts befuddlement from a PrideVision functionary. |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Appears to require 90% captioning from year one. |
B plus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
The Commission refuses to direct this rudderless ship. Somebody ought to. |
F |
[Back to top]
Réseau Info SportTwo applications to choose from: first, second – Two decisions to choose from: first, second – Contact: Gérald Frappier | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Starts above 50% but maxes out at only 75%. |
B |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Unduly wordy recapitulation of the entire history of audio description, but there’s a firm commitment: 100 hours a year. That means every year, including year one. |
B plus |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Rubber-stamps the applicant’s plans, offering further “encouragement” to attain 90%. |
B plus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Endorses the 100-hour-a-year commitment, which, it must be reiterated, applies to all seven years. What’s this about “encourag[ing] the licensee to provide an audio description of visual information wherever possible”? I suppose this means “Read out onscreen type.” |
B plus |
[Back to top]
TechTVApplication – Decision – Contact: Peter Kovacs | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Starts at only 50%, but reaches 90%. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B minus |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Well, we see that Rogers did a cut-’n’-paste of its own with its noncommitment. And, to restate the previous question: How are blind people supposed to navigate the visual menus of the set-top boxes Rogers will itself provide? |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Rubber-stamps the licensee’s commitment. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B minus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Mealy-mouthed endorsement of the wealthy applicant’s refusal to spend money on description. |
F |
[Back to top]
Télé Ha! Ha!Application apparently not online – Decision – Contact: Serge Desroses | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Starts at only 50% and stays there for three full years. Does end up at 90%. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B minus |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
No plans at all. If there is such uncertainty in the marketplace, why are you launching an expensive new channel? Won’t that take a chunk out of your stock portfolio, or perhaps force your kids into public school? |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Rubber-stamps the rather measly captioning commitment. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B minus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Wholesale confirmation of the licensee’s refusal to describe. |
F |
[Back to top]
13th StreetApplication – Decision – Contact: Charlotte Bell | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Hey, not bad. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B plus |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
13th Street shall paternalistically decide which programming will be “of particular concern” for the blind. Funny, all evidence shows that blind and visually-impaired viewers have tastes similar to sighted people’s. But, as far as Global is concerned, blind people only need to fully understand programming related to blindness. A tad patronizing, don’t you think? |
C |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
The rote inflexibility of CRTC thinking is highlighted here: We’ve got a broadcaster willing to exceed even maximum requirements, and all the Commission can come up with is “We expect you to meet our maximum, not yours.” |
B minus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Approves the licensee’s paternalism. |
C |
[Back to top]
13ième rueApplication apparently not online – Decision – Contact: Serge Desroses | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Starts at 50% and stays there for three full years. Does eventually arrive at 90%. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B minus |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
More with the “uncertainty.” If things are that uncertain, why roll the dice and launch an entire network? |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Restatement of the licensee’s commitment. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B minus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Applicant says: “Things are too unsettled for the entire sector, let alone for description. Sorry.” CRTC says: “Well, we”ll give you a license and let you risk millions of bucks all the same. But no problemo with the blind stuff.” |
F |
[Back to top]
WisdomApplication – Decision – Contact: Fil Fraser | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Not clear what initial years will show from the application documents. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B minus |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
The perennially impoverished Vision TV comes up with enough cash for a whole new network, but can’t find a few extra thousand for description. What’s wrong with this picture? I thought Vision and Wisdom were the caring, socially-aware, values-based networks. |
F |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Aha. I guess we’re starting out at 50% after all. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B plus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Do CRTC paper-shufflers earn overtime for retyping broadcasters’ copy? Here, the Commission actually provides a verbatim quotation of the refusal to commit to description. |
F |
[Back to top]
Women’s Sports NetworkTwo applications to choose from: first, second – Two decisions to choose from: first, second – Contact: Rick Brace | ||
---|---|---|
CC commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Very low captioning commitment, not reaching majority until year four. Attains 90% eventually. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B minus |
A.D. commitment | Comments | Grade |
|
Play-by-play does not constitute audio description. Don’t believe me? OK, try this: Just from listening to the play-by-play commentary of a hockey game, can you tell me what Mario Lemieux looks like? What colour are the seats? What does the mascot look like? Whose logos are imprinted in the ice? on the boards? How do the teams’ uniforms differ? (How different are play-by-play and audio description on live television? Very different. Read how: Audio description vs. play-by-play commentary on live TV.) WSN cannot possibly expect us to believe its tough-guy on-air announcers will go to all that trouble. (Actually, we can expect WSN to become a female-dominated announcer gulag, in the way that female commentators on TSN are permitted to call only women’s hockey.) Still and all, the 100-hour-a-year commitment is praiseworthy. It does, of course, apply to all years, including the very first. |
B plus |
CC requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Endorses the initial low captioning level. No mention of quality, let alone improving it. |
B minus |
A.D. requirement | Comments | Grade |
|
Endorses the plans for real audio description, but, troublingly, also endorses the ill-conceived plans for fake audio description. |
B plus |