International Policy Fellowship Final Report

March 2002

FINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Improving Media Access for the Population with Disabled Hearing

in Romania and Hungary[1]

Gavril Flora

“As the world continues to exist, and even slightly to improve its health, like a permanently convalescent patient it is afflicted by an endless variety of obscure, but threatening illness; and so, like a single invalid, it is subject to relapses”

Peter Ustinov

Introduction

The right to information and culture – to the “spiritual food” absolutely essential for a dignified and fulfilled life - is one of the fundamental human rights. In our age of modernity, to be informed has not just an immense pragmatic and symbolic value in itself. It is the very precondition of exercising all other rights, of existing at all as a civilized human being. And yet, this elementary chance to become equal members of the informational universe is still denied from millions of people. It is denied out of overt political considerations, discrimination and exclusion, but also as a consequence of neglect, lack of respect for individual needs and lack of consideration to difference and to being different.

Among the excluded social groups, the population with disabled hearing forms a special category composed of people with special sensorial characteristics, who are disadvantaged in exercising participation in the public life of the country due to the absence or inadequacy of specific arrangements, legal standards and policies aimed at enabling their access to visual media information. In the same time, deaf are also denied the right to adequately promote their rights and interests and to have their problems adequately represented in the visual media.

The implementation of rights generally depends not just on the existence of certain constitutional and legal norms, but it is contingent in large extent of the available means and opportunities to exercise those rights in practice. In case of persons who have special physical and sensorial characteristics, however, certain rights are simply meaningless in the absence of special technical solutions necessary for their implementation. To the physically disabled the existence of obstacles such as stairs (and the lack of special devices) might prevent entering public places, shops, etc. In case of population with disabled hearing, (if special solutions such as translation into the sign language are not available) the exercise of virtually all rights might be jeopardized by their inability to communicate with the rest of society. (Barnes et col., 1999, p.5)

The access of deaf to the information transmitted by the television programs requires specifically designed technical facilities and procedures in order to “translate” this information to them. These facilities and procedures might vary from case to case, ranging from captioning or subtitling to the use of an interpreter of the sign language. Beyond the instrumental aspects, however, the crucial issue is the existence and implementation of certain standards and regulations in this field. The major questions to be raised in this regard are:

- What is the level of special solutions and practices, which can be regarded as high enough?

- What means are available or can be devised in order to ensure the implementation of those standards?

The problem under discussion can be defined, on the one hand, in terms of social marginality and inequality as a consequence of lack of access to visual media information of a particular type of disabled persons. On the other hand, the deprivation of the deaf as far as their access to information is concerned, should be considered as a part and a manifestation of a much larger problem, the political exclusion and marginality of disabled.

Two distinct purposes, which are fundamental to any democratic society, are intimately connected with the requirement to ensure the fulfillment of the right to information to all citizens, including the disabled. The first consideration is of a more idealistic nature. It concerns the fact that the right for information is a value in itself and for itself, being a fundamental human right. The second consideration, derivable from the first, has a more instrumental significance, namely, to ensure full participation of citizens in the public life.

To obtain a clearer understanding of what political marginality means in case of the disabled and how it is caused, it is necessary to shift the analysis from the level of individual and micro levels in order to encompass the societal level. One has to look to the way power and resources are distributed between social groups having competing interests. Social disadvantage and discrimination of the disabled should be seen in this wider context.

The following paper will look to the different dimensions of what exclusion of deaf from the visual media transmitted information means and how it is caused. After an overview of the situation in the European Union and its Member States I will have a closer look to the situation in two EU candidate countries: Romania and Hungary.

Legislative framework

1. European Union accessibility standards

The EU legislation, although it includes references to human rights and disability rights, is touching on the relationship of deaf (and more generally of disabled) with the visual media and with other sources of information only in an indirect manner, without setting up precise and concrete regulations in this field. While reaffirming the general right of European citizens to have access to the documents issued by the EU documents, the Amsterdam Treaty does not refer to the need to provide documents in forms, which are accessible to disabled people. This should be regarded as a major legislative gap, which might partly explain why the European integration process is not used very effectively in order to prompt the countries concerned to make significant steps forward towards ensuring higher degrees of access.

Probably one of the most important causes of this surprising level of neglect is the par excellence “marginal” status of the problem. This marginality should be understood in two different senses. On the one hand it concerns the social positioning of the beneficiary disadvantaged minority group (the disabled), on the other hand it has to do with the administrative positioning of the problem in the borderland of two separate and distinct areas: media regulations and disability rights. As a general rule, media regulations do not go so far as to reach the level of concrete requirements for disability access, while the codification of the rights of disabled is also mostly ignoring the field of media.

The absence of concrete and precise regulations does not mean, however, that the study of legal and policy documents indirectly connected with deaf accessibility (and more generally, with the disabled people’s access) to the visual media can not prove to be useful. There are several provisions within the EU norms, which although not stating directly any concrete obligations in the field, in reality are pointing towards the necessity of adopting certain standards of accessibility for disabled. Other norms, while apparently in favor of disability access, in fact are the produce of policy motivations connected with other policy fields. Both the advantages and shortcomings of these provisions should be discussed in order to have a fairly balanced image on the “state of the art” of the problem as it is reflected within EU documents. On the basis of the existing legislation the door is then open to follow up measures in order to determine in each particular case the meaning of the terms “access” or “exclusion” from information to various categories of disabled. Subsequent concrete regulations should be based in such definitions.

In the field of visual media legislation the most interesting provisions as far as deaf (and generally disability) access to media is concerned are connected with the regulations on:

1.cultural and linguistic diversity

2.the status of public television services

1. The requirement of ensuring cultural diversity within the television programs has been reaffirmed several times by major European Community and Council of Europe documents. This requirement was explicitly included in the European Commission’s Communication to the Candidate Countries of 14 December 1999. Stating that “it was crucial that the candidate countries incorporate the acquis communautaire in the field of audiovisual affairs promptly and in full” (art. 5), the document “expresses the view that, in cultural and audiovisual fields, this should apply with the aim of preserving and promoting cultural diversity in Europe.” (art. 10). (EU Press Release: Luxembourg (21.06.2001) –Press: 233 – Nr. 9755/01)

If we assume the existence of a separate deaf culture, then this rather special and distinct type of culture should also find its place on the television screens. These special cultural TV programs should also be made accessible to their main potential audience, the deaf and hard of hearing population. However, is not resulting either from the text, or from the context of the document whether the above article is also applicable or not to the “deaf culture”. On the contrary, it would be probably safe to assume, from the study of how the term “cultural diversity” is used in various EU and Council of Europe documents, that it refers primarily, if not exclusively, to national and ethnic cultures.

The Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers entitled "Audiovisual Policy: next steps" (COM (1998) 446 final of 14.07.1998) is shedding a light to the motives behind the inclusion of the principle of "cultural diversity”. The document is noting that “ EU wide support was considered essential in helping to connect projects from smaller countries to the rest of Europe by providing an early incentive for collaboration between the producers from different Member States”.

Thus in the context of promoting cultural diversity, the protection and promotion of cultural values of smaller ethnic communities and nations, rather than a broader vision of culture, appears to be the major motivating factor of European policy makers. In many respects the same considerations can be made also as far as the significance of the term “linguistic diversity” within the European documents is concerned. In 21 November 1996 the European Council adopted a multi-annual programme to promote the linguistic diversity of the Community in the information society. The opening statement to this programme affirms that it is “essential to provide citizens with equitable access to information, whereas this information should be available to them in their language” and that “languages that remain excluded from the information society would run the risk of a more or less rapid marginalization”. (Official Journal NO.L 306, 28/11/1996 P. 0040 - 0048)

These are important declarations of principle. No concrete reference is made, however, to the sign language, which is the preferred or exclusive mean of communication for many deaf citizens. Moreover, the document is not including disability among the factors to be taken into consideration in regard to interpreting the right for information in a divers society. It only states that “all citizens of Europe should have equal opportunities to participate in the information society, irrespective of their social, cultural, linguistic or geographical situation.” (Official Journal NO.L 306, 28/11/1996 P. 0040 - 0048) This provision still lives the status of sign language within the information society in general and the television broadcasts in special, unanswered.

2. The second main area of visual media regulations to be discussed in connection with the special legislation for deaf and other categories of disabled is the body of regulation concerning public television services. As it is generally expected that public television has to assume the role to reflect as far as possible the whole social diversity, is interesting to see what the European regulatory bodies have to say in this respect.

One of the major documents of reference in the field is the Declaration of the Council of the European Union and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Community. This Declaration reaffirms that “public service broadcasting, in view of its cultural, social and democratic functions which it discharges for the common good, has a vital significance for ensuring democracy, pluralism, cohesion, cultural and linguistic diversity”. (Press Release: Brussels (17.11.1998) – Press: 382 – Nr. 12744/98)The same document formulates essential requirements for fulfilling the socially inclusive and integrative role of public television:

a. “broad public access, without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunities, to various channels and services, as a necessary precondition for fulfilling the special obligation of public service broadcasting” (art.4)

In the body of this article the term “broad public access” is providing ground for granting broadcasting space to programs and channels specifically designed for deaf or other categories of disabled, including participation of journalists belonging to these groups in program design and production. The presence in the text of the expressions “without discrimination” and “equal opportunities” suggest that disadvantaged groups should be supported in order to have their needs, views and ideas adequately represented in the public service television. The Declaration also speaks of access to “services”, a term large enough to include “helping mean” kind solutions specifically designed for facilitating deaf access to visual media, such as the use of interpreters of the sign language.

b. “The ability of public service broadcasting to offer quality programming and services to the public must be maintained and enhanced, including the development and diversification of activities in the digital age.”(art.6)

The reference to the new television technology is important here, as technological advancement can and should be used also to promote equal access of the deaf and hard of hearing to the audio-visual broadcasts. Digital television, in particular, offers the possibility to use subtitling of programs through teletext.

c. “Public service broadcasting must be able to continue to provide a wide range of programming in accordance with its remit as defined by the Member States in order to address society as a whole; in this context it is legitimate for public service broadcasting to seek to reach wide audiences.” (art.7)

This article has a particular significance in sustaining the legitimate demands of disadvantaged social groups – among them the disabled – to have their voice heard and their aspirations represented via the public television services. In the same time, the text is sufficiently vague in the sense that does not formulate any concrete requirement about what social groups should be represented. Nor is any compulsory program time frame for specific social groups established.

The legislative and official policy documents of the European Union touching on disability rights, which are – more or less directly – linked to the issue of media accessibility can be divided in two types. These are:

a. Non-discrimination legislation and policies

b. Measures promoting equal opportunities

a.Non-discrimination policies

The Maastricht Treaty included no mention of disability and provided no legal basis for specific action in this field. The result has been legislation, which indirectly discriminate against people with disabilities. Such was the case, for instance, with the regulations setting up common design standards for goods. When such standards were issued, the needs of disabled population were sometimes overlooked. For example, the 1991 directive on the mutual recognition of telecommunication terminal equipment sets certain minimum standards, which must be met by producers of such equipment in order to achieve free movement within the European Union. These standards do not include the requirement that the equipment should be accessible for use by people with visual impairment, and the result has been to undermine national legislation, such as that in the United Kingdom, which does include this requirement (information from the European Disability Forum).

The Amsterdam Treaty brought about a significant change, by inclusion of a general non-discrimination article, which specifically mentions disability. It reads:

“ Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and within the limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial and ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.” (art.13). (text from European Disability Forum)

The provision quoted above does not confer in fact any extra rights upon European disabled citizens. Instead, it expressly gives the Community competence in the disability field for the first time. More over, the document recognizes the existence of disability discrimination. In order to become an effective tool in fighting discrimination, this provision should be translated, however, in concrete Community policy action.

Such practical policy measures did indeed appear with not much delay. In 27^th November 2000 the European Council adopted a decision establishing a Community action programme to combat discrimination (2001-2006). Beyond reaffirming the general principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms on which the EU is founded, the Action programme makes an important consideration concerning the necessity to adapt non-discrimination legislation to the diversity of social situations and contexts in which discrimination might occur:

"Discrimination on different grounds can have similar features and can be combated in similar ways […] However, the specific features of the diverse forms of discrimination should be accommodated. Therefore, the particular needs of people with disabilities should be taken into account in terms of accessibility of activities and results.” (art.7) (Official Journal L 303, 02/12/2000 p. 0023 - 0028)

There is a clear recognition, in the text of the document, that discrimination of people with disabilities has one special feature: namely, that it can occur simply because the absence of the special means aimed to provide accessibility to services. By the very fact that a society is not producing those helping means and is not making them available to the disabled, is in fact discriminating them, since they are excluded from products, services and facilities which the other (non-disabled) citizens can access.

Among the fields of action to which the Community program should apply the document lists “non-discrimination within and by the media” (art.1b). This means that on the one hand, accessibility for disabled should be extended to the field of media, and on the other hand, media should treat disabled in a nondiscriminatory manner. Two other fields directly connected with ensuring the right to information for disabled are also listed: “equal participation in political, economic and social decision-making” (art.1c) and “effective dissemination of information about right to equal treatment and non-discrimination”(art.1f).

In fact, EU already made a breakthrough in this field by adopting a Declaration to the article 96 of the Amsterdam Treaty, concerning internal market legislation, which reads:

“ The Conference agrees that, in drawing up measures under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the institutions of the Community shall take into account of the needs of persons with disability” (information from the European Disability Forum).

Although this declaration is not legally binding, if a directive adopted on the basis of article 95 does need to be interpreted by national courts or the European Court of Justice, the article could be referred to, to assist in that interpretation.

b.Measures promoting equal opportunities

The Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 (Official Journal L 303, 02/12/2000 p. 0016 - 0022) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation is setting guidelines, which have a much greater range of applicability than the fields explicitly mentioned in its title.

One provision with a larger applicability to a whole range of problems encountered by disabled people concerns the interpretation of the principle of equal treatment. It is stating that “there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 (i.e. religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation). (art.2).

On its turn, indirect discrimination is defined as occurring:

“where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having a particular religion or belief, a particular disability, a particular age, or a particular sexual orientation at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons

1. unless that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary or
2. as regards persons with a particular disability, the employer or any person or organization to whom this Directive applies, is obliged, under national legislation, to take appropriate measures in line with the principles contained in Article 5 in order to eliminate disadvantages entailed by such provision, criterion and practice” (art. 2 b)

In the same time the document reaffirms the necessity to adopt special measures beyond mere nondiscrimination intended to prevent or compensate for disadvantages suffered by a group of persons of a particular disability.

“Employers shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training…unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. This burden shall not be disproportionate when it is sufficiently remedied by measures existing within the framework of the disability policy of the Member State concerned.” (art.5)

In line with these provisions, the Council Directive states that “appropriate measures should be provided, i.e. effective and practical measures to adapt the workplace to the disability, for example adapting premises and equipment, patterns of working time, the distribution of tasks or the provision of training or integration resources.” (art.20) This also includes telecommunication and visual media equipment (TV sets), which in the information society are essential components of more and more working environments.

The technological adaptation of TV sets, so as to enable them for captioning, is particularly important for deaf or hard of hearing employees who needs access to television transmitted information for the proper fulfillment of their duties.

While making clear these obligations, the document is also setting a limit to their applicability, namely that such measures should not impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. This burden shall not be disproportionate when it is sufficiently remedied by measures existing within the framework of the disability policy of the Member State concerned.”(art.5). Although the term “disproportionate burden” is ambiguously defined and largely left to the area of responsibility of each Member State, the Council Directive should nevertheless be regarded as an important step forward.

In the same spirit, the Resolution of the Council of 20 December 1996 on equality of opportunity for people with disabilities (Official Journal C 012, 13/01/1997 P. 0001 - 0002), reaffirms the principle initially enshrined in the Community Charter on the fundamental social rights of the workers.

“All disabled persons, whatever the origin and nature of their disability, must be entitled to additional concrete measures aimed at improving their social and professional integration.“ (point 26).

With view to the implementation of this requirement, The Council Resolution is making a call on member states

1.“to consider if relevant national policies take into account the following orientations:

- empowering people with disabilities for participation in society, including the severely disabled, while paying due attention to the needs and interests of their families and careers.

- mainstreaming the disability perspective into all relevant sectors of policy formulation

- enabling people with disabilities to participate fully in society by removing barriers

- nurturing public opinion to be receptive to the abilities of people with disabilities and toward strategies based on equal opportunities”

2. to promote the involvement of representatives of people with disabilities in the implementation and follow-up of relevant policies and actions in their favor.”(chapt.2)

As can be easily seen, all these directions for policy action are presupposing adequate information and media policies. Due to their extremely large impact on the population, television programs should play a major role in “empowering and enabling people with disabilities” and “in nurturing public opinion” in order to achieve the envisaged policy objectives. But, for these, first of all there is a need to “remove barriers” which prevent disabled to access visual media and to ensure that they can take active part in constructing their own image in the television screens.

b. EU Member States

In the absence of a Community wide specific legislation regulating the access of the deaf to the television programs the responsibility for drawing such legislation and for the implementation of certain solutions primarily rests with the Member States. If we look to the existing legislation at state level, however, the situation is pretty much similar with that at Community level.

The data on access to television referred to in this chapter were taken from the European Union of Deaf Sign Language Project (SLP, 1997). These data were made available by Helga Stevens, project leader of the SLP project. According to this survey, in 1997 only a few states adopted precise legal standards of accessibility. Moreover, the existing legislation was also usually rather modest in its demands. For instance, in Greece a law (no. 2320/1995) requires TV broadcasters to offer a daily 5 minutes news programme in sign language, with simultaneous use of subtitling. In addition, TV stations also have to offer a half an hour programme in sign language every two weeks, which is informative, entertaining, or educational, with simultaneous use of subtitling.

Great Britain is probably one of the countries with the most developed legislation in the field. As a result of the Broadcasting Act 1990, television companies were required to subtitle 50% of all broadcast output by 1998. At BBC1 and BBC2 40-50% of output was subtitled. Commercial TV stations, such as Channel 4 and ITC also complied with this requirement. According to the assessment of the European Union of Deaf, “The existence and activities of the Deaf Broadcasting Council have been a major factor in such achievements as exist in the UK with regard to television.” (SLP, 1997)

In Finland, which officially recognized deaf as a linguistic minority community, possibilities have been investigated to go beyond news programs and “set up an obligation to the Finnish Broadcasting Corporation and commercial channels to produce and transmit a certain portion of programmes in sign language and interpreted into sign language.” (SLP, 1997)

The special solutions offered by TV stations in most West European states are, however mostly the result of the decisions taken by the concerned television companies themselves. These solutions are based on kind of informal standards, guided by EU and national normative political principles. They are mostly established by means of promoting “good practice” and are reinforced by public acceptance.

In some cases, advocacy on behalf of the deaf, direct contacts and negotiations of deaf organizations with TV companies is leading to a positive outcome. This way of achieving accommodation presents the additional advantage that in such cases deaf specialists are usually involved in the process of program implementation from the very outset. The European Union of the Deaf has assumed the task to stimulate this process. The experts of the Union have been involved in monitoring new developments in the sphere of visual media, and have acted in an advisory capacity to a number of national deaf associations and other organizations involved in the development of project proposals.

Sweden, where the sign language was officially recognized already in 1981, and the deaf themselves are regarded as a linguistic minority, is one of the countries with success stories in this regard. “In 1987 started a cooperation of the Swedish National Association of the Deaf with the Swedish Broadcasting Corporation…From the beginning of March 1993, news in Sign Language for the Deaf (News in Sign) was broadcast for five minutes every weekday. Later, “News in Sign” has been enlarged to include 15 minutes in Saturdays. Today only deaf persons are employed to work with News in Sign at the branch of the Swedish Broadcasting Corporation in Falun” (SLP, 1997).

Sweden also offers a good example of how to involve deaf citizens into the political process via the visual media. Before the general elections, political debates on TV are interpreted into sign language. The results of the vote are also presented in TV in the sign language, and at the same time a debate interpreted into sign is going on during the program. This preoccupation to make special and highly symbolically charged political events accessible to the whole society, including the deaf, is characteristic for most Western countries. In Great Britain the annual speech of HM the Queen is re-transmitted with sign language. In Belgium, the King’s speech is rebroadcast with subtitles.

Not withstanding the importance of deaf access to news and to political information, one should nevertheless be aware, that ensuring equal access to people with disabilities ought not to be limited to the accessibility of programs with direct informational purpose and content. In particular, access to cultural and entertainment programs and programs designed for children should fulfill an important role in the personality development of disabled people and could offer them spiritual resources for dignity and self respect. In spite of these, the available data shows that television stations in Western Europe are much slower in finding solutions for making these kind of programs accessible.

The reluctance of TV broadcasters has several reasons. As these programs are supposed to be much longer compared to “flash news”, their costs are also supposed to be higher and they are taking a larger program space, which might be perceived unfavorably by important segments of the hearing audience. Television stations accepting to introduce special programs for deaf might have a difficult time having to respond to pressures coming from both the deaf and the hearing. In Germany, for instance, controversies aroused the special broadcast entitled “Sehen statt Horen” (Seeing instead of Hearing), “presented by deaf people 39 time a year. In 1996 there was talk of a large reduction of the number of presentations […] Massive protests by the deaf as well as numerous politicians and other handicap groups helped to keep this reduction to a minimum.” (SLP, 1997)

There are some other positive experiences. In Great Britain “there are several special children’s programmes from time to time, sometimes geared towards introducing hearing children to sign language”. In Denmark the National TV had programmes for deaf adolescents, once a month and for deaf children, app. once a month. This need is acutely perceived also in other countries, as deaf children can not benefit from the programmes for hearing children. (SLP, 1997)

The accessibility of foreign films and other foreign programs is better, as in many countries these are subtitled, but the translations are designed to a nationwide audience and could hardly be regarded as special solutions aimed at the deaf. Many television stations, particularly the commercial ones, prefer vocal synchronizing instead of using subtitles, a procedure with absolutely exclusive effect on accessibility for deaf.

The situation of deaf access is improving with the increasing possibility to utilize the technical resources of digital television. However, in 1997, when the collection of data was made, only a slow progress was noticed in this regard. In the Flemish linguistic area of Belgium, of all television stations, only BRTN had teletext for deaf and hard of hearing people. Apart from the 19.30 news bulletin, only about a third of all Dutch programmes on BRTN were captioned. The accommodation of deaf from the Walloon area was significantly better, with the RTBF television station giving them the opportunity to get information through Teletext, including pages specifically meant for the deaf. In Great Britain it has been agreed that upon its introduction, digital TV shall have 5% of all programs accompanied by sign language within ten years of its introduction. (SLP, 1997)

The use of teletext has multiple advantages, but also some serious shortcomings and cannot completely replace the use of the sign language interpreters. Although teletext provides plenty of information, but in a manner, which is not specific for the visual media. There is a static image appearing in the screen, resembling the style of a newspaper, rather than of a television. Teletext is a non-personalized method of transmitting information, which offers none of the excitement and emotional involvement characteristic to “live” broadcasts.

In the same time, it is necessary to take into account the profound symbolic significance of the sign language interpreter’s presence in the screen during the main broadcasting programs. These special broadcasts are not just responding to the needs of a disadvantaged social group. They are fulfilling also the role of implicitly educating the public about difference, equality in difference and the necessity to offer public recognition and equal dignity for people who suffer disadvantages due to their special characteristics/disabilities.

c. Romania and Hungary

In Romania, there are no specific regulations concerning the access of deaf to the visual media, which means that access is made or not made possible at the sole discretion of the television companies concerned. Two pieces of legislation currently in force are tangentially connected with this issue, without any of them setting, however, any concrete standards in the field: the Law on audio-visual media and the Emergency government ordinance concerning the rights of disabled. The latter was still not adopted by the Parliament, but is legally bounding from the moment it was enacted by the Government in 1999.

The Law on audio-visual media (Law nr.42/1992, modified by Law 62/1993 and Law nr.19/1999, Legislative Data - base of the Romanian Ministry of Justice) states that “ the licenses for broadcasting shall be issued by the National Audio-visual Council (NAC)” (art.12, par.2). This is defined “an autonomous public institution" (art. 11)”. Concerning the criteria to be used in the evaluation of TV stations aspiring to a license, the Law formulates certain principles to which the broadcasts of the applicant TV stations should adhere. These are: “the plurality of opinions, equal treatment of participants, quality and diversity of broadcasts, stimulation of free competition, of the national audio-visual creation and production, illustration of the national culture, independence and impartiality of the broadcasts of public TV stations “ (Art 12, par. 4). “ The access of social-cultural, political, religious organizations and other applicants to the audio-visual programs shall be made with respect to the provisions of paragraph 4, according to the conditions set by the license agreement.” ( art.12, para.5).

As can be easily seen, neither of these criteria refers explicitly to the access to information of the population with disabilities, or of any other category of persons with special cultural, physical, sensorial or other distinctive characteristics. The provision concerning the access to broadcasts of various organizations expressing particular group interests and needs is too general and vague for being considered satisfactory. Any specification of the social groups, interests and needs which shall be represented in the TV programs is avoided by the legislator.

One can conclude that the text of law essentially reflects a homogenizing view on Romanian society. Moreover, the explicit call for the cultivation of the “national culture” in the text of paragraph 4 is suggesting the assumption that the interests and world outlook of the ethnic majority should receive a special attention within the broadcasts, being regarded as a priority. By contrast, minority interests and concerns receive much smaller – if any – attention within the text of the law.

On the other hand, it is stated in the document that the concrete criteria for granting the license “shall be announced to public by the National Audio-visual Council at least 45 days prior to the day when the competition takes place (Art. 12, para.3). This provision gives in fact an almost discretionary power to NAC, a decision-making body set up predominantly along political lines (complying with the provisions of art.25).The Emergency Government Ordinance 102/1999 concerning “the special protection of disabled and their integration into work” (Legislative Data-base of the Romanian Ministry of Justice), puts forward certain standards concerning several facilities to be offered to the persons having special characteristics due to their handicap. For instance, referring to the population with hearing disability, the regulation asserts that the sign language shall receive official recognition. The document sets as a deadline 31 December 2002 for all public institutions in order to employ translators of the sign language who shall be in direct contact with their deaf or hard of hearing clients. In practice, however, very little has been done for the implementation of this requirement.

In spite of the progress made in formulating clear obligations in some important fields related to the social integration of the disabled population in general and of the deaf population in special, the government ordinance completely neglects other fields which are clearly as much important. The document does not include provisions concerning deaf access to the visual media and does not refer in any sense to the representation of disability issues and interests within the television programs.

Similarly to Romania, in Hungary the legislation in the field of disability rights is rather new. This fact reflects the recent preoccupation of both countries to set up a legislative framework acceptable by Western standards. The ongoing process of European integration (both countries are involved in negotiations for EU membership) acts as a clear motivating and moving force in this respect.

Another similarity concerns the nature of underlying arguments. In justifying the necessity for adopting the new regulations, the legislators of both countries are emphasizing social, instead of legalistic motives. Rather than being primarily concerned of ensuring equal treatment and nondiscrimination, they are stressing the need to achieve “social integration” and a greater “equality of chances.” This can probably be partly explained by the insufficiently developed legal tradition and democratic culture within the region.

Beyond these similarities, there are also important differences. Compared to the Romanian text, the corresponding Hungarian regulations are based on a much more elaborated vision, attempting to state as clearly as possible the basic guiding principles behind the legislative measures. In the same time, Hungarian legislation is also more specific and sets up provisions on most significant aspects related to disability rights.

In the Hungarian case there are three basic documents to be considered. First, the Law nr.26/ 1998 “on the rights of disabled persons and on ensuring their equality of chances” should be regarded as a fundamental legal source in this field. The Parliamentary Resolution nr.100/1999 is proceeding to a detailed interpretation of Law 26/1998 and also sets the concrete tasks. Finally, the Government Decision nr.2062/2000 is putting forward deadlines and is establishing the responsible authorities for the implementation of each objective (the texts of these documents are available in the Hungarian Legislative Data-base).

The philosophy behind these regulations is based on an interactionist perspective, being primarily concerned of “the meaning of social action, that is the subjective perspective, emotions and feelings of human agents as social individuals” (Turner, 1987, p.3). Falling short of convincing human rights centered argumentation, the Law nr.26/1998 nevertheless affirms that the access of disabled persons to information should be considered the very precondition of all other rights and facilities (art.6). Thus the importance of communication and information issues is firmly established, although based on a practical rather than on a right oriented approach.

The need for positive discrimination is also justified by the legislator in a pragmatic manner: “Given the fact that - in their situation - the disabled are less capable to use their rights to which they are equally entitled, they should receive preferential treatment in all possible ways” (art.3). In this context, the law has the merit of stressing the importance of the “helping means”, defined as “the means aimed to compensate for the total or partial absence of the disabled persons’ physical or sensorial ability.” (art. 4)

Although not stated explicitly by law, from the corroboration of the above mentioned articles results in fact the necessity to use all available helping means and to create new means in order to ensure the access of disabled to information. The Parliamentary Resolution 100/1999 aimed to offer a detailed interpretation of the Disability Law goes further. It states that “ the access to information presupposes the fulfillment of two distinct requirements: on the one hand the disabled person should be enabled to receive the information, on the other hand he/she should be offered the possibility to interpret this information correctly” (art. IV/2, para.1)

In this regard, the document puts forward the following provision concerning the access of deaf to the visual media:

“ It is justified to use media regulatory means in order that all national television stations be obliged to transmit at least two daily news broadcasts in such a way that they could be understood by the deaf: either by using subtitles or with the help of a sign language interpreter.” ( art. IV/2, para.2)

From the text does not result clearly whether this requirement should apply only to public TV stations or also to the commercial televisions. The Government Decision 2062/2000 is more specific, stating that “ By the modification of the Law nr.1/1996 on radio and television, the program services of public television must provide the parallel transmission of the main news broadcasts in an understandable manner for deaf persons” (art.2/1). 1^st January 2001 was set for the implementation of the above requirement. This objective, however modest (since it refers exclusively to the main news broadcasts of public television), was not convincigly fulfilled so far, as up to the present day only a low quality teletext translation of the evening news broadcast, hardly accessible to many of deaf, is provided (information from a leading representative of the Hungarian Sign Language Interpreters Association).

To sum up, the analysis of media access of disabled within the legislation and the official political agenda in the two countries demonstrace the persistance of a basic contradiction: namely, that there are general principles and policy guidelines affirmed and to some extent even included in the national law, but these principles and guidelines usually do not reach as far as to establish concrete and precise requirements for the television broadcasters. Not just policy makers, but even deaf organizations in the two countries tend to regard advocating access to the visual media as a field of action which is rather marginal compared to their major preoccupations: employment, social care and education.

Social context

The causes of the lack of access of deaf to the visual media originate partly in the communist (and even pre-communist) past, but are also related to the problems encountered during transition.

a.lack of legal tradition and almost complete absence of human rights oriented way of thinking

The two countries have had only short periods of constitutional development, mainly during the inter-war period. Communism forcefully interrupted the institutional-legal preoccupations for human rights and the protection of rights, which only began to take shape. Communist system was based on the total disregard of legal norms and arbitrary use of "norms" in order to fulfill the legitimacy needs and other political needs of the regime. After 1989 a new legislation has been adopted, which formally codified essential international human right standards. However, authoritarian tendencies and the discretionary use of law by those in power remained a persistent phenomenon thereafter.

Under the impact of European integration process and as the result of democratic civil and political activism within the country, certain positive developments in this field can be traced. Even so, in spite of the progress achieved, a large part of political elite is still adopting an ambiguous stance as far as European and international norms are concerned. European standards are integrated in the internal legislation rather selectively, slowly and mainly under the pressure of international monitoring bodies and of the deadlines set by the EU or the Council of Europe on the way of the integration process.

On the other hand, the ambiguities of the European legislation in the field, the rather vague and general character of certain norms is also contributing to this phenomenon. As many of the "European norms" consist of principles and policy guidelines of a rather general and abstract character, political leaders find little difficulty in formally adopting them, since they remain mainly at a declarative level. The main cause is the lack of political will to translate them in effective norms and legislative standards.

2. the prevailing view in society and in political life that there are "more urgent"

problems to be solved

This is a rather characteristic feature of political culture of post-communist countries during transition. In practice little has been done to alleviate the economic and social situation of large population groups. Politicians and grass roots opinion leaders nevertheless are often arguing that in a country confronted with increasing poverty, "the interests of millions" who live from today to tomorrow should prevail. They usually emphasize that the main attention should be focused on how to fulfill the needs of the numerically large social segments, rather than to pick up small groups who are in a special disadvantaged situation (such as the disabled).

This argumentation obviously originates in the communist rhetoric, which pretended to work in the interest of "the people" understood in a homogenizing manner. Today political leaders make intensive use of such populist arguments in order to attract votes and support. As disabled people are mostly perceived as a small and silent minority, without firmly articulated and efficiently represented group interests, their specific needs tend to be ignored in the dominant public discourses.

c.lack of sensitivity for the specific needs of minority and disadvantaged groups

The population has been integrated under communism in a public education system, which promoted the ideal of the "socialist unitary people". "Negative words", such as "poverty", " disability" or "disadvantage" hardly ever entered the public realm. It is not surprising, therefore, that today many people find it hard to come in terms with the existence and legitimate demands of various minority and disadvantaged groups. In Romania, the fact that national minority concerns has been largely politicized in the past decade is also raising popular suspicions about minority issues in general, as they are predominantly perceived as representing a threat to the interests and status of the majority.

The recent law adopted by Romanian Parliament in October 2001 under the impact of the EU legislation in the field in view of the ongoing integration process, interdicts all forms of discrimination (by implication also the discrimination based on disability). However, given the current social and political context, this law can hardly work as an effective mechanism of protection against various forms of discrimination encountered by deaf and other categories of disabled. Informal discrimination, mainly originated in all kinds of prejudices, is particularly hard to be counterweight. Our research data shows a considerably higher rate of unemployment in case of deaf young people, than the average rate within the region (almost 30 percent compared to around 5 percent)

Our survey of economic enterprises shows the persistence of old stereotypes concerning the capability of deaf employees to fulfill certain professional duties. Similarly to the majority of educators working in special schools, most entrepreneurs consider that deaf are able to do only certain types of physical work, which require a minimum of intellectual and creative effort and a small demand for communication during work. Among the professions most frequently listed by employers are cabinet-maker, dressmaker, locksmith, construction-worker and bricklayer.

In fact, deaf candidates to a job encounter additional difficulties also when applying for the position of manual worker. The results of our survey indicate that particularly the big enterprises (with more than 500 employees) are reluctant to offer positions to deaf young persons (and generally to disabled). Most of such enterprises still are state owned and are undergoing a difficult process of privatization. During the transition period, when there is a strong pressure on former socialist state enterprises to dispense of a considerable segment of their work force, disabled are – together with Roma and other categories of disadvantaged people - among the first to lose their jobs and the last to get one.

The same tendency to assign negative stereotypes to deaf, regarded as a homogenous social category, is also strong among the hearing population. Apart from the consequences of communist education and homogenization policies, the roots of such attitudinal pattern can also be fund in the fact that – as the results of our survey demonstrate - a large proportion of population has little if any contact with deaf people.

Given the fact almost half of those questioned in our survey had only random meetings with deaf in the street and public places or other superficial contacts, it is hardly a surprise that many found it difficult to respond to the question concerning differences between deaf and hearing people.

In what respect are deaf people different from hearing people?

%

1.	Do not hear	19
2.	Are the same as hearing people	16
3.	Way of thinking, negative traits of character	9
4	Using sign language	3
5.	Communicate differently, have communicational difficulties	9
6.	Way of thinking, positive traits of character	5
7.	Disadvantaged in life and work	5
8.	Non-respondents	44

What should be remarked here, beyond the large number of non-respondents and of those who characterize deaf in general abstract terms (“they do not hear”) is the preponderance in the public perception of the negative traits and aspects concerning the life and social status of deaf. On the other hand, it is encouraging to see that this is only one side of the picture, though still a majority side. The respondents who emphasized the positive side of deafness are also present in a significant – and hopefully increasing – number.

The same conclusions can be drawn from the responses to another question intended to measure attitudes towards deaf:

What feelings did you have when you met deaf in the street or other public places?

%

1.	Pity, sorry	30
2.	Sympathy, desire to help	10
3	Embarrassment	3
4.	Curiosity	4
5.	Admiration	3
6.	Neutral feelings	8
7.	Non-respondents	42

It is not difficult to observe, that the overwhelming majority of negative-passive responses within the population who answered this question points to the perpetuation of a traditional conservative vision concerning the perception of disability and of disabled. In spite of the modernization achieved, the relation of population to difference and to people who are different is basically still following the old pattern, constituting a serious obstacle on the way of achieving a higher degree of social integration and human rights standards comparable to the western democracies. On the other hand it should be noted, that a change of mentalities is under way, although it did not produce a decisive breakthrough so far.

4. the prevailing perception of "social need" by the TV stations: television companies want to "offer" or "sell" programs first of all to the majority

Driven either by a perception of "public interest" or of a "commercial interest" or by both, public and private television stations are generally rather reluctant to adequately represent in their programs the interests and legitimate needs of minority and disadvantaged groups. When these groups nevertheless appear on the screen, their representation tends to be marked by stereotypes and even hostile treatment (for instance in the case of the Roma and other ethnic minority population). In case of the disabled, silence, rather than misrepresentation is the dominant trend. There is no mentioning or very scarce mentioning of disability and of disabled mainly because they simply do not fit in the idealized (and highly ideological) dominant self-image of the society.

5. low level of cultural and informational needs

Very few deaf young people manage to finish a secondary school, let alone to graduate from a university. As the results of our survey on a hearing and a deaf youth sample in Romania demonstrate, there is a huge discrepancy and a very accentuated disadvantage of deaf youth concerning access to higher levels of study.

The results of the investigation demonstrate that many of the disadvantages encountered by people with hearing problems have their roots in the malfunctioning of educational roles at family level. As our own experience in the past years show, many parents have psychological difficulties in accepting their deaf children as equal - and equally valuable - with the hearing children. This often results in a deterioration of communicational and emotional relationships between parents and children, with disastrous consequences for the development of the children's personality and identity. Most parents lack initiative in offering an active, supportive education to their deaf children.

The negative educational effects at family level are only intensified by the consequences of deaf education system. As the result, the great majority of deaf young people can not hope even to enter a university, let alone to finish it. The special schools for hearing-impaired children in Romania are provided with extremely small budgetary funds, and therefore are able to apply modern teaching methods only to a limited extent. The children studying in such schools experience huge disadvantages, which are only aggravating the negative consequences of their disability. In most of cases they are not prepared to face serious competition with hearing people. As the results of our survey on a hearing and a deaf youth sample demonstrate, there is a huge discrepancy and a very accentuated disadvantage of deaf youth concerning access to higher levels of study.

As can be seen, the highest educational level attained by deaf young people is almost invariably the vocational school. In a significant minority of cases we can encounter young persons who only graduated from the primary school. Although in the last decade of the communist regime secondary school had become quasi-generalized, very few deaf had access to that level of education. While after 1989 universities became accessible for a much greater number of candidates, apart from exceptional cases hearing-impaired youth were not able to make use of this opportunity.

The results of our survey of economic enterprises in three western Romanian cities (Satu-Mare, Oradea and Arad) confirm that deaf (including deaf youth) employees have lower level of studies even than other categories of disabled employees, with the exception of mentally impaired.The educational level at which this professional qualification is attained is almost invariably the vocational school. Although in the last decade of the communist regime secondary school had become quasi-generalized, very few deaf head access to that level of education.

As confirmed by the result of our survey among deaf youth, in extremely few cases is this profession other than manual work of a certain kind.

In complete contrast with the rather diverse picture of the hearing young population’s occupational distribution, certain professions, such as cabinet-maker and dressmaker are dominating the deaf employment scene. In fact this distribution reflects the inheritance of the communist regime, which envisaged an integrated system of special education and special working places for disabled. In practice that meant – and still means - in the overwhelming majority of cases a transfer from an extremely low standard education to correspondingly low standard employment, with very few choices and almost no chance for upward occupational mobility. Men are employed on a permanent base in a greater proportion than women (75% compared to 60 %). Most dressmaker women are unmarried. Most unemployed women live from social and handicap benefits, living out of the spouse’s or parents’ income is less characteristic.

As results from the following table, the enterprises included in our survey (41 economic units with a total number of 13736 employees) are employing deaf people (including the deaf youth) exclusively as manual workers:

Type of work	Hearing Impaired	Visually Impaired	Physically Impaired	Mentally Disabled	TOTAL
Manual worker	71	52	24	14	161
Office employee	-	-	3	-	3
Manager	-	1	-	-	1
TOTAL	71	53	-	-	165

As can be seen, the statistics concerning deaf employment reflect to a large extent the general situation of disability employment, with the specificity (understandably characteristic also to the mentally disabled) that among deaf, occupation other than manual worker does not occur even by exception.

In case of men we find greater polarization: a minority of them cannot even read, but there is also a small, but significant minority who can use computers. Most men are cabinet-makers, while women are divided between cabinet-makers, carpenters and dressmakers. Very few deaf young people can use a computer and this fact greatly reduces their chances to improve the standards of their jobs. The knowledge of a foreign language occurs only exceptionally among deaf young people.

f. Communication problems

The primary problem of deafness is not a lack of hearing, but an abundance of isolation. As it is organized currently, special education for deaf children tends to intensify this isolation, rather than to attenuate it. Most students are spending all weekdays from Monday morning till Friday evening in the school, being with their families only in weekends. Being cut of from their families and their initial living environment for most of the time, they have little or no opportunity to interact with their hearing peers (hearing children of their age) either. In addition, those deaf who cannot understand lips reading communicate almost exclusively among themselves. They have to restrict their communicational relationships to persons who are familiar with the sign language or use the services of an interpreter.

On the other hand, children from the special schools are isolated also from entering into contact with deaf culture. As most of their teachers are hearing, they have little opportunity to find deaf adult models, which would be essential for their personality development. The presence of deaf teachers would also be beneficial, as they are likely to manifest more empathy in their contacts with children. They know better, from their own experience, the nature of psychological problems connected with childhood deafness.

Those children who are born in families belonging to minority cultural and linguistic communities are facing an additional problem. Due to their reduced contacts and ineffective communication with their parents, and as a result of the fact that they do not have the opportunity in Satu-Mare to receive school education in their mother tongue, they are likely to loose their original culture and language

Most teachers do not accept either teaching of sign language or teaching in sign language as such, arguing that it is important for children to learn the spoken language. But there are many deaf children, particularly those with inborn complete or near complete loss of hearing, who very probably will never be able to learn the spoken language. As sign language is not taught in special schools for deaf, these children are prevented to adequately learn the high culture version of sign language. In this way, although they will learn Sign at a rudimentary level spontaneously from their older deaf peers, they will not be able to use the best of their sign language knowledge

Due to their low lexical knowledge, reading is a very difficult task for many hearing impaired. Mostly they can understand written texts with only very simple straightforward messages Those who cannot understand lips reading communicate almost exclusively among themselves.

The results of our survey show that an important segment of deaf young population cannot understand the information transmitted via oral speech and a significant proportion of them also cannot use lip- reading.

More than 80% of our deaf young interviewees cannot use oral speech as a mean of communication and only about half of them are able to use lip-reading. Some cannot even read. Those who cannot use lip-reading basically have to restrict their communicational relationships to persons who are familiar with the sign language or use the services of an interpreter. Oral speech is used by the great majority of young persons with a moderate impairment and by about half of people with a reduced loss of hearing. Most of these are able to use lip-reading, which provides them access to the hearing population. Sign language knowledge among all categories of deaf young people is almost general.

On the basis of our research outcome it is possible – and methodologically desirable – to divide deaf young people in several distinctive typical categories:

1. Persons who are completely or almost completely deaf from birth, who characteristically communicate only by sign language. For them, the only solution to communicate with the rest of society is the interpreter of the sign language (as it is highly unlikely that most hearing people will learn sign language in short run). Some of them cannot even read or write.
2. Persons who were either born with reduced grade of hearing loss or lost their hearing later in childhood or were born completely deaf, but nevertheless managed to learn lip reading due to their native intelligence, efforts and favoring conditions. Their relationship with the hearing world is basically one-sided. They can understand (within certain limits) by “reading” from their partners lips, but cannot made themselves understood by the hearing, with the exception of writing, and of course, by sign.
3. People who usually lost their hearing at a later age and their loss of hearing is usually moderate or reduced, (but high enough to prevent their full integration into the hearing community). They managed to learn both to lip-read and to speak. Their level of use of oral language is, however, usually low. Most of them are familiar with the sign language, due to their informal socialization into the deaf community. They learn this language from each other in the schools of deaf, but do not receive education of this language and in this language during classes. Therefore their knowledge of sign is at a rather rudimentary level. There is a need to improve both their using of the sign and of the oral language. In the same time, this category of deaf young people is the most capable to learn additional skills, such as the use of computer, of the Internet and of foreign languages. All these would be of great help in their future professional careers and would greatly enhance the quality of their life.

g. Weak capacity of group interest representation

Due to the fact that civil society were almost completely destroyed during the communist regime, the institutionalization of advocacy activities on behalf of disadvantaged groups had to start in very difficult preconditions. All agencies and institutions dealing with disability issues under communism belonged to the state and their personnel consisted of state employees. Many of these people found it hard to start a completely new life of organizational and financial independence after 1989.

On the other hand, the process of setting up authentic civil organizations, which do not have to bear the burden of past structures and mentality, has also been a slow and problematic process. Lack of financial sources, restrictive tax legislation and the insufficient number of specialists trained to work in a democratic (or democratizing) environment have been among the most important causes of this slow pace of development.

8. Low level of public awareness concerning the rights of disadvantaged groups

There is a low level of legal and human rights mass culture at a more general level, but in special a law awareness of the rights of disadvantaged groups, including the rights of disabled. The correct understanding of the concept " different, but equal - different and equal", which is of vital importance for ensuring the rights of disabled in the everyday life, is particularly far away from the grasp of most ordinary citizens. They are of course not guilty of this. The state and civil organizations should have assumed the task to educate them. For various reasons, some of them I outlined earlier, the post-communist elite failed to satisfactorily respond to this need.

As communication of deaf with the rest of society involves two sides, our research aimed to evaluate the attitudes of hearing people concerning the public status and the use of sign language. As illustrated by the graphs below, the population is rather divided on these issues, but only slightly more than half of our respondents agree that there is a need for sign language interpreters to work in public places. Almost the same majority is supporting the idea that the sign language should be recognized as having equal rights with the oral languages.

Men are inclined to regard the public recognition and promotion of sign language more important. Women think in a larger proportion than men, that education and personal involvement matter more. Students, office workers, unemployed and entrepreneurs are willing to learn the sign language in a proportion greater than average. The less educated and less active population segments prefer institutionalization of sign language interpreting services to the promotion of sign language within the education system. Students and intellectuals are supporting to less extent the recognition of sign language: probably out of pragmatic and ideological considerations. In case of students probably there is a manifestation of a certain degree of disregard for the importance of legal guarantees, while in the case of intellectuals one can perhaps speak of a stronger concern about the political implications of recognizing more than one language within the state. Most of respondents who say they are willing to learn sign language are secondary school graduates. Most of them are young, including students. They also think recognition of sign language is important.

As far as the ethnic distribution of the population is concerned, ethnic Hungarian inhabitants are much more supportive to the institutionalization of sign language than ethnic Romanians. They are also more in favor of the recognition of sign language. This probably reflects a greater awareness and sensitivity of Hungarian minority members concerning language issues and more negative reactions and stereotypes at the side of Romanians. Hungarians also think that sign language should be taught in all schools in larger proportion than Romanians think.

Ethnic differences are partly reflected by the distribution of attitudes according to religious belonging, with one particular remark. The Roman Catholic are much more in favor of the generalization of the sign language within the education system and for the institutionalization of sign language interpreters, compared with members of other denominations. This is probably due to several factors: the universal character of this church, social sensitivity and greater awareness with international development in this field as the result of the activities of the organization Caritas Catholica from Germany which developed an extensive network of social services in Satu-Mare.

In case of inhabitants who have deaf family members and relatives, friends and close working colleagues, there is a much higher proportion of persons who communicate with sign language or with a combination of sign language and oral speech. Those who met deaf randomly are using in the largest proportion gesticulation and oral speech They think in a proportion much greater than the average that sign language interpreters should be employed in public offices and that sign language must be officially recognized. By contrast, the respondents who met deaf randomly are using in the largest proportion gesticulation and oral speech.

Similarly to family members, the relatives of deaf strongly support institutionalization of the sign language interpreting service, though are giving less importance to the official recognition of the sign language. As for persons who have deaf friends, a quite important proportion of them (compared to the rest of respondents) is willing to learn the sign language. They regard sign language interpreters’ work and the recognition of sign language less important than family members and relatives. In case of persons who have close deaf working-mates there is also a willingness to lean the sign language, greater than average. They are supportive to the recognition of Sign but regard to less extent necessary the introduction of sign language to hearing schools.

As a cumulated consequence of all factors outlined above there are only minimal (the case of Hungary) or no requirements (the case of Romania) to television stations in order to make their program accessible to deaf or other categories of disabled persons. Similarly, there are no specific requirements concerning the inclusion of special programs dealing with the problems of disabled. On the other hand, it should be emphasized however, that there are no legal limitations or restrictions in this field either. While TV broadcasters are not obliged (or are obliged only at the minimum level) to use special procedures and to broadcast special programs for the needs of disabled, they are also not prevented in any way by law from doing so. Thus the broadcasting policies of various televisions appear as a crucial field, where there is a huge space and potential for measures in favor of the disabled.

The view of TV stations

This is one of the reasons why it is so important to assess the factors, interests and values, which are shaping broadcasting policies at the level of television companies. The interviews with visual media leaders in Romania and Hungary have assumed the task to collect information in view of this objective.

First, it can be observed that due to the specificity of the theme of the proposed interview, the process of contacting the responsible individuals (program directors, public relations managers) of various TV stations has been an interesting experience in itself. The initial reaction of the great majority of interviewees denoted a degree of surprise, simply because such “marginal” subject was raised and brought to their attention. The basic assumption of most contacted media representatives – particularly after reading the fairly detailed questionnaire - probably was that the research will try to show their unwillingness for ensuring accessibility and that they consequently will need to demonstrate the contrary and/or justify their shortcomings.

Two different kinds of reaction emerged from this starting point. Some leading TV personalities tried to avoid responsibility, by postponing the interview, claiming that they are busy and not available for the moment or arguing that they are not competent or are not empowered by their decision making body to answer the questions. With one exception, no overt refusal occurred.

In order to protect their public image, some visual media leaders made efforts for continuing to be perceived as “politically correct”, while nevertheless indirectly attempting to avoid replying to the questions. Others, by contrast, adopted a more active-constructive self-justifying approach, and co-operated during the information collecting process. They usually emphasized their own merits in obtaining some achievements and blamed external factors, which are out of their possibility to influence, for not being able to offer more to the disabled.

Beyond the various types of argumentation used during the interviews, certain general characteristics can be observed, which presumably have a negative effect on the ability of TV stations to respond to the social needs linked to disability:

1. lack of information and of qualified personnel specialized on disability issues

Only a very tiny minority of program producers and television journalists in the two countries has the adequate training and affinity to deal with disability matters. Competent media workers in this field can acquire their skills after many years of practice. Such experience can be gained today mainly - if not exclusively - at the national public television stations, the only ones, which offer permanent programs to disabled.

The very limited broadcasting time offered to special disability programs (in Romania: RTV – one 30 minutes program once a week, in Hungary: MTV - two weekly programs of 15 minutes each; Duna TV – one 30 minutes program/week) allows however the employment of just a small number specialists. In addition the religious programs of the two Hungarian public service televisions, similarly to the Romanian public service television, are rather often presenting the activities of church directed social establishments for disabled.

The journalists working at the private television companies usually have at best a remote connection with disability issues. Many of them find it hard and risky to make an “excursion” to this “strange” field. As a consequence, important events in the life of disabled are often not reported and their special communication needs neglected.

One exception seems to occur in the situations where the program producer feels that a certain issue can be presented in such a manner as to attract a wide public by producing sensation. In such context, “life stories” of disabled persons are presented from time to time in TV magazine-programs specialized in treating “unusual” facts and events. However, presentations of this kind are often one-sided, full of stereotypes and preoccupied mainly to impress their audience, rather than to search for solutions or to engage in a serious social dialogue.

Concerning the implementation of special technical solutions for deaf, several TV station representatives argued that it is difficult to find competent interpreters of the sign language. This is particularly the case in Romania, where there is still no recognized institution for training sign language interpreters. On the other hand, the professional status of interpreters is also uncertain in both countries.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the work of these interpreters is used even by the national public televisions to a very limited extent. In Romania and Hungary alike, only the weekly special disability programs are regularly translated into Sign. As far as private TV companies are concerned, this issue just started to reach their agenda.

b. limited broadcasting time-frame

In case of the researched local television stations (in a centrally located area of Romania), the reduced broadcasting time is often perceived by TV station insiders as another impediment to the introduction of special programs for disabled. Some local program directors feel that news broadcasts, shorter reports, or roundtable discussions can fit more easily in their broadcasting frames. This might indeed be the situation if the available time frame is really very short in absolute terms. In other cases, however, where there is a larger broadcasting time, with good will and efforts, solutions could be found in order to find space for disability programs, even if on a monthly, rather than on a weekly base.

The absence of adequate solutions might denote exactly the absence of sufficient political will to pursue positive discrimination by allocating a reasonable broadcasting time for the articulation of disabled and other minority views and interests. This also presupposes the willingness to assume the risk that the broadcasting time allocated to disability issues might be perceived by part of the non-disabled audience as disproportionately large.

c. financial burden

This has been another argument, which returned in all interviews. It is interesting to remark, however, that the size of the television companies' budget does not appear to be a significant differentiating factor in this regard. National and local, big and small TV stations are complaining of the insufficient financial resources in a similar manner.

Therefore, at least in case of the large TV stations, seems that the major problem resides in their priorities and in their way of allocating resources, rather than in the size of their budget. What is even more striking, among the questioned visual media representatives there is an almost general absence of creative thinking for finding adequate financial solutions in order to cover the costs of special disability broadcasts. This lack of innovative ideas and solutions basically originates in the reduced level of interest in a problem, predominantly perceived as marginal and of secondary importance, if not neglected altogether.

While the cost of certain technical devices, such as subtitling machines, is indeed high in absolute terms (and can represent a real burden for certain local televisions which have limited funds at their disposal), in case of national TV companies the situation is completely different. Such devises, in fact, already exist at the countrywide TV stations, but they are used mainly to the benefit of a larger audience, rather than of the deaf. In Romania, for instance, most foreign films and rebroadcast foreign programs are subtitled, which is accidentally beneficial to the deaf too, but the using of this procedure is not aimed specifically to fulfill their special needs. The same assertion is valid concerning the television genres, which due to their nature are more accessible to deaf (such as dance, ballet, animation films or pantomime).

In Hungary, by contrast, the majority of films are translated by vocal synchronizing, instead of using subtitles. The alternative solution is teletext translation, but this is used rather sporadically for the needs of deaf. The use of teletext has multiple advantages, but also some serious shortcomings and cannot completely replace the use of the sign language interpreters. Although teletext provides plenty of information, but in a manner, which is not specific for the visual media. There is a static image appearing in the screen, resembling the style of a newspaper, rather than of a television. Teletext is a non-personalized method of transmitting information, which offers none of the excitement and emotional involvement characteristic to “live” broadcasts.

In the same time, it is necessary to take into account the profound symbolic significance of the sign language interpreter’s presence in the screen during the main broadcasting programs. These special broadcasts are not just responding to the needs of a disadvantaged social group. They are fulfilling also the role of implicitly educating the public about difference, equality in difference and the necessity to offer public recognition and equal dignity for people who suffer disadvantages due to their special characteristics/disabilities.

In addition, captioning requires special TV sets, which are too expensive for many deaf persons to buy. The only regularly translated broadcasts are the daily news programs of the central television and of one regional studio, but both encounter difficulties in allocating the necessary resources.

d. Lack of co-ordination between TV stations and deaf advocacy organizations

The absence of regular contacts with deaf organizations has been often invoked by the interviewed program directors as an obstacle to the implementation of special solutions and programs. There is a very sporadic circulation of information from the deaf organizations to the TV stations, concerning the special modes and means of communication of the hearing impaired. Program directors argued that it is difficult for televisions to come up with new initiatives without close co-operation, help and advise from those who are most directly affected and who should know best what is good for them. During the interviews, several program managers said that they would be happy to include disabled in their staff and to co-operate with organizations of the disabled, but they complained that it is hard to contact disabled people, and they have no experience of working with them.

Autonomous organizations do not have an easy life, as they have to survive financially from their own resources, under the conditions of unfavorable fiscal legislation. They are in large extent dependent on foreign donors, being supported by Western human rights organizations and charities. Coming in contradiction with the still strong centralist mentality and interests, they are almost inevitably subjected to pressures of political and administrative nature in order to adopt partisan positions or to let themselves used by others.

Given this social and political context, it is not surprising, therefore, that even some “official” deaf leaders, particularly at local level, might perceive the activities of independent organizations in this field as manifestations of unwelcome competition, or, worst, as a threat. In long term, however, organizational pluralism, the existence of a number of civil organizations active in the same field, is likely to produce beneficial results. The fact that no single organization has the monopoly to act on behalf and for the benefit of deaf, requires a gradual process of adaptation to a pluralist NGO environment and a change of the mentalities previously dominated by the monolithic party-state model.

Today is more and more clear that “official” deaf association leaders at national level are not able or willing anymore to de-legitimize the parallel efforts and initiatives of other organizations by simply denying their rights to exist and to function. In a society aspiring to full membership of the European club, such attitude would be a self-destroying strategy. Thus, the only viable alternative remains the “modernization” of the official deaf associations' own agenda, so as to be able to compete with the newly emerging NGO-s.

In order to be successful, the deaf associations should act as key social actors in the center of a communication system which involves all important stakeholders: the deaf themselves, their family members, their teachers, medical experts, governments, entrepreneurs, representatives of the media, interpreters of the sign language and others.

A particular attention should be devoted to the community organization and cultural community life of the deaf. Special services on communication and information matters should be established in order to assist and promote the enlargement of opportunities available to deaf in these crucial fields. To achieve this, instead of trying to desperately stick to a monopoly status, deaf country level organizations should adopt a more flexible strategy, by setting up or attracting under their umbrella a number of foundations dealing with particular (social, medical, educational, cultural) aspects of deaf community life.

As Central and East European candidate states are approaching the moment of joining the EU, the European Disability Forum has intensified its efforts to encourage existing or emerging organizations in the future new Member States to prepare their membership for active involvement in the work of EDF. Disability organizations in the current Member States should support partner organizations in relevant countries, thus ensuring that some of the EU funds allocated for the preparation of the accession are spent on improving the situation for disabled people.

Bibliography

Alasuutari, Pertti (ed.) (1999):Rethinking the Media Audience. London:Sage

Aldrich, Stephens Leigh (1999): Covering the Community. A Diversity Handbook for Media. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press

Barnes, C (1991): Disabled People in Britain and Discrimination: a Case for Anti-Discrimination Legislation. London: Hurst

Barnes, Colin ; Mercer, Geof and Shakespeare, Tom (1999): Exploring Disability. A Sociological Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press

Campbell, J. and Oliver C. (1996) : Disability Politics: Understanding Our Past, Changing Our Future. London: Routledge

Fundamental Principles of Disability (1976). London: UPIAS

Oliver, M (1990): The Politics of Disablement. London:Macmillan

Swain, John ; Finkelstein Vic ; French, Sally and Oliver, Mike (eds.) (1993): Disabling Barriers - Enabling Environments. London:Sage

Turner, B. (1987): Medical Power and Social Knowledge. London:Sage

---

[1] The author would like to thank Emese-Hajnalka Belenyi for her contribution as co-author of this paper

back