I’m pretty slack. I’ve let the people with more-or-less perfect hearing talk ALL DAY about suitable accommodations for the profoundly deaf and what’s most cost-effective. Which is probably as it should be, since all of them know far more than people who are actually hard of hearing.
If on the off-chance anyone DOESN’T know what technology for long-distance oral communication is like (I don’t know, apparently this is something everyone learns in kindergarten maybe?) and wants to hear from someone who’s actually looked up alternate ways of talking to people that don’t involve normal conversation through a phone, you’re in luck! Because I (*drumroll*) have DONE THAT.
Now, obviously there is your standard written communication – the fastest being email. This is what I prefer, personally, but clearly it wouldn’t be appropriate for doing a radio interview. You need to be able to actually hear that. However, in theory the host could write a list of questions and email them to Mojo, record himself asking them, and get her to record her answers and send them. Then the radio station would have to carefully stitch all the audio files together and adjust the background noise and volumes and things like that so it sounded like Dr Frankenstein wasn’t responsible for its creation. The downside of this is that most hour long radio interviews aren’t just questions and answers. They’re conversations. Which means they have to be able to respond to each other. I guess they could do one bit at a time, but you’d have the same costs for editing it properly and it would take FOREVER.
Some people do radio interviews over the phone, and while that doesn’t really work for someone who’s profoundly deaf, it’s true that there are systems for deaf people to use phones. Specifically, a relay service with a translator in the middle who generally types (I believe – I have never actually used this service, only looked into what was available, and didn’t think it would be suitable for me) the responses to the deaf caller and reads their answer back to the hearing caller. This also takes longer than standard conversation, plus it wouldn’t be Mojo’s voice, unless I guess they had the translator only translate one way. However the radio station would still have to edit out the pauses between questions and their responses, which again, costs money, plus the translator needs to get paid for the over an hour that they’re sitting their transcribing everything the radio host says. I have no idea what the operating costs of this service are, but I imagine they’re paying people a decent wage because they have to be extremely reliable and extremely honest, and quite possibly adept at understanding all sorts of accents (including English spoken by someone who’s never actually heard it spoken before), plus of course they need to maintain the technological set up required.
Then there’s everyone’s favourite means of catching up with their family on the other side of the world, Skype. This can be ruled out straight away. It’s just not high quality enough to be able to lipread the person on the other end. The only way it would be feasible would be ridiculous workarounds like having the host write everything he says down on a huge pad of paper and hold it up to the camera for her to read.
There’s also automatic transcription software, which some people with perfectly fine hearing might have used before themselves – I believe Google has it as an option if you use their phone services and get voicemail. However at this stage most software is either affordable and REALLY REALLY BAD, or really expensive and only really bad. To be at all accurate you most likely need to attune it so that it recognises the individual way you speak and how you pronounce words, which is useful if you’re only using it to transcribe what you’re saying (ie, having the software take dictation instead of hiring a secretary to do it), not so much for figuring out what the radio host from a community radio station is saying. In addition to the costs of the software, either they have to air it live and prepare for on air confusion, or again, edit it.
Finally, there’s good old fashioned face to face conversation. This is easy to air live, no need to edit out long pauses or equalise audio quality. There’s no problems with video quality being high enough to lipread. If there’s any confusion it’s much faster to clear up because you can rely on facial expressions and body language as well as quick response time. Because we’re much more used to it, it also produces a much more natural sounding conversation that isn’t stilted and awkward. Yes, it does involve transport costs, but there are no other hidden costs and it gives the best quality product as well as being easier for the people involved.
See, communicating using all those other workarounds is actually pretty damn stressful. I mean, I’m speaking for myself here obviously. I’m not Mojo, I don’t know if it’s stressful for her. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was, but I wouldn’t be that surprised if it wasn’t either because my issues with audio also come with mental health problems and are related to processing, not receiving the sound in the first place. (It’s just like a hundred times harder when it involves speakers. I don’t know why, but when I’m buying multi trip train tickets at the Wellington stations my brain can’t even connect the sound coming out of the speakers to the person standing in front of me. All I get is *background noise* and *silent person moving their lips*. It’s easier over the phone, but I’ve built up such an aversion that I’ll do pretty much anything to avoid doing it anyway.) And when it comes to the radio host, it’s most likely something he’s never done before at all. Having to communicate in a brand new way, knowing that people are listening to you do it and judging your performance, is kind of off-putting and it’s just a lot easier to avoid that if at all possible. And let’s be real here. It’s not like she was flying to inner Mongolia or something. Flights to Masterton and back are not that expensive – someone calculated it as 0.73 seconds of welfare expenditure, let alone other costs. Considering she was speaking on disability issues, something that she’s uniquely placed for, and a sector that gets shut out of politics on a major level, this is really not an unreasonable cost we’re talking about. I’m not even going to compare it to other things that taxpayer money has covered – other people have done quite a bit of that, and while they’re incredibly illuminating, I don’t think they’re even necessary. This is just plain not that big a deal.