Marlee Matlin calls out CBS for sidelining Deaf Super Bowl performers
CBS barely showed Deaf performers Anjel Piñero, Daniel Durant, or Shaheem Sanchez during the main Super Bowl broadcast
Aux News Marlee Matlin
Before Reba McEntire sang the national anthem at Sunday’s Super Bowl, the announcer recognized CODA star Daniel Durant as the artist who would be performing the song in American Sign Language. The camera cut to Durant, who waved, and then was never shown again. The broadcast didn’t show much of Anjel Piñero (who signed “America The Beautiful”) or Shaheem Sanchez (who signed “Lift Every Voice And Sing” as well as Usher’s Halftime Show), either, and the omission didn’t go unnoticed.
Oscar winner Marlee Matlin, who in 1993 was shown signing along with Garth Brooks during the entirety of his national anthem performance, posted on Twitter/X, “I am absolutely SHOCKED at @CBS for introducing the Deaf performers at today’s pregame #SuperBowl and then not showing even one second (or more) of their performance… as has been tradition for the last 30 years. WHY!?”
The NFL did promote a separate platform on the CBS Sports website where viewers could watch the full ASL performances. But according to an Axios study, ASL performers actually “appeared on screen for 8% or less” of the national anthem on the main Super Bowl broadcast. This has caused controversy in the past, including a New York Times op-ed from Super Bowl performer Christine Kim in 2020, after she was barely shown on the broadcast. “Why have a sign language performance that is not accessible to anyone who would like to see it?” Kim wrote. “To be honest, it was a huge disappointment—a missed opportunity in the struggle for media inclusiveness on a large scale. Though thrilled and excited to be on the field serving the deaf community, I was angry and exasperated.”
There have been many celebrated ASL performances in recent years, including Justina Miles’ interpretation of Rhianna’s halftime show at last year’s Super Bowl. Though this year was light on ASL in the main broadcast, Sanchez nevertheless described the opportunity (through an interpreter) as “lit” on CBS Mornings. “I actually taught Usher sign language before. He actually learned really fast, so this was an amazing opportunity to actually meet again with him, to meet with him at the halftime show to perform with him. I mean, we weren’t expecting that, but it was a dope experience for me,” Sanchez said.
He added that “last year, it was more of just interpreting. This year, we have more of a performance. There’s dancing and signing, bringing that into one to show that it’s a show, not just me interpreting. So that was different: I’m a Deaf performer, not a Deaf interpreter. I mean, I’ve never seen that before. When Deaf people were looking at me like, ‘Dang, wow, I’ve never seen that before!’ … We need more deaf people like this, to perform for us.”
26 Comments
I think it is fair to say that the government should deafen anyone involved in this decision so they learns some compassion for deafies.
I’m guessing they do it because they don’t think of it as a “performance” so much as an aid for people who are deaf/HOH, and then from they think, “Well, it’s just the national anthem, they already know the words probably, so we don’t really need to show it.” But of course by that line of thinking why bother having an interpreter at all for the songs. If you have them, I don’t see what it would hurt to show them for at least part of the song, or in a little box in the corner for the whole thing.
I wonder if they also figure it’s more for the people on-site in the stadium. Like if you are hearing impaired and might benefit from the interpreter and are watching at home, presumably you already have the captioning on making it redundant to show the interpreter too, so I can kind of understand why producers might think it’s reasonable to just have a brief flash on the screen.
unless they’re on the jumbotron at all times i can’t see how it would be all that helpful to someone in the stadium that isn’t physically near the interpreter. The cynic in me says it’s a goodwill gesture from the NFL whose benefits outweigh the cost
People who don’t understand the performance potential should watch that video of Method man admiring the ASL interpreter at a Wu Tang show
Hey, CBS: inclusion is a big deal for people. It’s not that hard to actually show the ALS interpreter that got mentioned by name. It’s not like there’s a shortage of cameras at this game.Do the right thing.
Maybe a dumb question but what’s with this recent trend of having live sign-language interpreters for everything televised? Is that really preferable to simply offering closed captioning? (Edit: As the article notes, this isn’t a recent trend for the Super Bowl, which has apparently done it since 1993.)
It’s common for things that are televised live, where the live captioning is still very mistake ridden.
ASL isn’t simply a substitute for subtitles. It also demonstrates the inflections for words. Like when someone’s tone goes up or down. Now, this is less important I suppose for music, but for a speech, or dialogue it’s very helpful.
Ah, that’s a good point. Still feels unnecessary occasionally though; like, did we really need it filling a third of the screen during Kathy Hochul’s COVID updates?
No idea if it was super needed, but filling up a third of the screen for a pretty marginalized community seems fine to me. I can deal with it.
To go back to your original point, people who write subtitles often cut out words or paraphrase, which I believe is pretty disrespectful to the deaf. It should be written as is exactly said.
Oh wait really? When I turn subtitles on, I’m frequently annoyed when they cut words out like that, but I always assumed it was for the benefit of the deaf, since a lot of superfluous words can take too long to read before the next sentence replaces it. And I don’t know a lot about ASL (or anything about it, really), but surely it’s not a perfect word-for-word translation—I’ve heard that syntactically, it has more in common with Japanese than with English, unless I’m misremembering.(Also, my assumption has been that interpreters might occasionally “streamline” sentences here and there out of necessity, but I could be completely wrong about that too—I’d google this stuff, but unfortunately I’m about to reach my iPhone’s Screen Time limit. G’night!)
People who are paid to write subtitles often cut out some dialogue to make the job easier for themselves. I hold no anger for them, because they are often paid minimum wage. They just want to get the job done. I do, however, harbor a huge resentment for the system that pays people so little that they don’t care about letting the deaf community get proper representation or being able watch a movie like everyone else.
This has been a great conversation, and I appreciate your participation!
yes, visual prominence is important. (to your question about 1/3 of the screen)
obv there are many more deaf viewers in the tv audience than the on-site audience (3.6% of gen pop USA*) and how many were in the stadium? (not a question with an answer, apparently**) . so when you have interpreters only for the people who are there, and all there is is a token acknowledgement, like, whats the point? its also really limiting their presence and visibility. as they say, representation matters. exposure matters. (exposure to the language, not for the performer. although that would be a good thing too.)
and id like to reiterate a point bam made, that ASL is more expressive than CC
* https://nationaldeafcenter.org/faq/how-many-deaf-people-live-in-the-united-states/
*
Yes bc deaf people can get Covid too
I’m replying to this thread, but hopefully everyone can benefit from this response. American Sign Language(ASL) is it’s own language with syntax, grammar and culture all tied together. Subtitles, close captioning, etc is for those that read in the same language that is used for the spoken language. For example, if I am watching a movie in German, the subtitles will also be in German. If i dotn speak that language, I have to change those subtitles to the language I do use as having subtitles in German will not help me. Similarly, many ASL users, do not use English as their mode of communication, so having subtitles in English will not be as beneficial as actually having equal access to the performance, or anything televised, in their own language. Additionally, ASL is a visual language that doesn’t not have a corresponding written form, thus emphasizing the use of subtitles and close captioning as not being an effective way for ASL users to benefit from what they are watching.
The signing is for the people at the stadium that can’t watch with closed captioning. Why would anyone need it while watching on TV?
Pity the hearing impaired folks in the nosebleed seats.
What’s that ASL for “dope”?
Mime a needle injection motion
They just use a picture of you
Marlee Matlin figures out how to get her name in the paper today.
Can you figure out how to fuck your self off out of existence
Can you?
Wait, we’re capitalizing “Deaf” now?
Another nudge that ASL should be part of k-12 school US curriculum, not a separate study, but an integral part of classrooms, to make it a part of normal interactions. Some cultures are so close – seen too many videos where an Italian is challenged to have a conversation with their hands held still by their sides.