Sign language interpreters at politicians' media events: Real help for the deaf or mere virtue signalling?

The first is that, in the case of ASL interpreters commonly featured on footage from US networks, almost nobody in the Australian deaf community can understand them. Such translation thus is a waste for Australian viewers, though it is largely unavoidable.

The second is that, in the case of live Auslan interpreters translating speech at Australian events, there is clear doubling-up given that programmes are routinely closed captioned for our TV audiences anyway. This in turn raises an issue about the need for additional Auslan translation.

The third issue is the relative accuracy of (visual) Auslan versus (written) captions. The evidence suggests that written captions convey more detailed information, though an Auslan interpreter can convey more emotion.

According to the Victorian Deaf Society, real time captioning (RTC) works by capturing audio information from a presentation, and distributing it to a captioning studio. The audio is converted to text by a captioner. The text is then streamed using the internet to a computer. This process happens in real time with a delay of seven to ten seconds. Shortly after the presenter speaks, the words appear on screen with around 98 per cent accuracy.

Post-lingually deaf people generally learn English before they learn to sign, if they learn to sign at all. For this group (according to the Society), captions undoubtedly provide a better level of comprehension, particularly of presentations with heavy use of proper names and specialised terminology.

RTC may not be ideal for all deaf people in all contexts according to the Society. The English literacy of the deaf person, their preference for Auslan, availability of alternative models, the subject matter, and other factors can make Auslan more suitable in some cases.

Deaf people who are not confident about their English fluency most likely prefer Auslan interpretation over RTC because it presents information in their native language, Auslan. In some cases deaf people who utilise hearing aids or Cochlear Implants may have some useful hearing. If this is the case they may prefer Real Time Captioning.

A prominent Auslan interpreter used by the NSW government says his role is not to translate the information but to interpret the meaning of whatever was being conveyed. "We don't interpret word for word," he said. "We're delivering the meaning, the intent and the tone of the speaker. That's our job."

A further point of information is that, from April 2020, ABC News Channel's Sunday 6.00pm AEST national news bulletin became picture-in-picture Auslan interpreted.

Overall, while it is obvious that sign language is essential for ready communication between deaf people, it is far from clear that there is a strong need for sign language interpretation for TV presentations, particularly when they already are closed captioned as a matter of course. Closed captioning seems to be a more accurate translation than Auslan, and is understood by nearly all deaf people.

While I have never experienced what it is like to be deaf and this consequently limits my first hand knowledge, my impression is that only a small few of totally deaf Australians actually require Auslan translations in order to easily understand media events that routinely are already closed captioned. However, since the extra cost involved in Auslan translation is relatively small, I am not necessarily advocating the removal of Auslan translations from such TV presentations.

Finally, I can't help forming an impression that the decision to employ Auslan translators at bushfire, Covid19 and other presentations by Australian politicians, has nevertheless been more a case of virtue signalling than seeking to address a widespread need among the deaf.