It always bugs me when news people turn up at, say, locations struck by disasters, and only want to talk to witnesses who speak English, even if their English is very poor - rather than work with competent interpreters, who are almost always readily available in those situations. The result is, time after time, legions of rather inscrutable foreigners on the TV screens in the sitting rooms of English speaking countries, sounding rather dim and (obviously) inarticulate, whereas in reality they are mostly ordinary smart people with something coherent to say and perhaps a telling point to make about the predicament they are in.
I worked with people from the BBC and CNN immediately after the earthquake here in 2006 and before we went out into the field we agreed that the people they interviewed would be allowed to speak their mother tongue rather than be expected to trot out their 100 words of inadequate English - something that invariably creates an impression of cluelessness and poor education. Indeed, in some cases dubbing was arranged.
To me, the fact that Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac - both reasonably proficient speakers of English (maybe Schroeder less so) - almost never uttered a word on behalf of their respective nations in English, is not unrelated to what I said in the paragraph above.
Originally posted by FMFits because the gringos are either too lazy or too stupid to learn other languages.
It always bugs me when news people turn up at, say, locations struck by disasters, and only want to talk to witnesses who speak English, even if their English is very poor - rather than work with competent interpreters, who are almost always readily available in those situations. The result is, time after time, legions of rather inscrutable foreigners on the TV ...[text shortened]... of their respective nations in English, is not unrelated to what I said in the paragraph above.
(no sarcasm)
Originally posted by utherpendragonwell, sam is a racist and he doesn't deny it himself.
You call sam the sham racist and then you come out w/ this crap. The hypocrasy is astounding.
then you come out w/ this crap. The hypocrasy is astounding.
no hypocrisy there, I wasn't referring to just whites but english-speaking foreigners in general.
and its true, from the many english-speaking people I have encountered in my life I can count on my fingers the number of people who could speak other languages.
Originally posted by FMFI agree with you that news organizations should seek out the best possible sources regardless of their ability to speak English, especially if interpreters are available.
It always bugs me when news people turn up at, say, locations struck by disasters, and only want to talk to witnesses who speak English, even if their English is very poor - rather than work with competent interpreters, who are almost always readily available in those situations. The result is, time after time, legions of rather inscrutable foreigners on the TV ...[text shortened]... of their respective nations in English, is not unrelated to what I said in the paragraph above.
It seems though, that are you assuming English speaking viewers leap to the conclusion that (obviously bi-lingual) interviewees are unintelligent because their English isn't perfect.
Sorry about being too lazy to learn others's languages, we're busy providing an economy and police protection for (and from) the poor who have fled here from Latin America.
I suppose that means little to you...Brazil isn't Latin America and I don't think I've ever met a Brazilian immigrant.
But still!
Originally posted by generalissimoOr maybe it's because those who run the outlets know that portraying the victims of these events as simple and uneducated tugs more upon the heartstrings, magnifies the tragedy, and leads to higher ratings.
its because the gringos are either too lazy or too stupid to learn other languages.
(no sarcasm)
Originally posted by SleepyguyI am not assuming anything like that about all English speaking viewers. Apologies if my choice of words gave that impression. I certainly wouldn't assume it about you, for instance. But I have - over the years - been in situations, watched TV in the company of certain groups and had conversations with people - even certain relatives - who have reached jaw-droppingly crass conclusions and said deeply condescending things about people with minimal English proficiency trying to express themselves.
It seems though, that are you assuming English speaking viewers leap to the conclusion that (obviously bi-lingual) interviewees are unintelligent because their English isn't perfect.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSorry about being too lazy to learn others's languages, we're busy providing an economy and police protection for (and from) the poor who have fled here from Latin America.
Sorry about being too lazy to learn others's languages, we're busy providing an economy and police protection for (and from) the poor who have fled here from Latin America.
I suppose that means little to you...Brazil isn't Latin America and I don't think I've ever met a Brazilian immigrant.
But still!
nobody is forcing to you to do that, and by "latin america" you mean mexico, right?
and even so, that gives you an "excuse" not to learn a foreign language? what a load of crap.
I suppose that means little to you...Brazil isn't Latin America and I don't think I've ever met a Brazilian immigrant.
brazil isn't in latin america? are you retarded?
how is it relevant that you've never met a brazilian immigrant?
Originally posted by DrKFin other words, the problem isn't whether we're making the people being interviewed look dumb - but how we're going to maintain the attention spans of people who actually are dumb?
I think part of the problem may be that extended subtitled interviews may well have a 'switch-off effect' as viewers are required to put more effort in to comprehension and decide not to bother (or, at least, that TV execs fear such a response).
Originally posted by DrKFThat is a matter of getting used to it (and literacy). When I watch a German movie, I find the dubbed voices hilarious for a few minutes, and annoying afterwards.
I think part of the problem may be that extended subtitled interviews may well have a 'switch-off effect' as viewers are required to put more effort in to comprehension and decide not to bother (or, at least, that TV execs fear such a response).