Muslim World Report

Uncensored Transcriptions: A Call for Media Accessibility

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 13, 2025 9:59 AM | 6 min read | 1084 words

TL;DR: Censoring language in transcriptions harms deaf and hard-of-hearing audiences. Providing uncensored media is crucial for accessibility and representation, empowering marginalized communities and fostering informed public discourse.

The Importance of Uncensored Transcriptions for Accessibility in Media

In recent weeks, the conversation surrounding the necessity of uncensored transcriptions for media content has gained renewed attention. This issue is particularly pressing for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, who rely on accurate and comprehensive transcriptions to fully engage with media (Lederberg, Schick, & Spencer, 2012).

Key Points:

  • Censoring explicit language distorts the original context of the audio.
  • Context is paramount in media consumption; preserving its integrity is essential for all audiences (McKee et al., 2019).
  • Censorship of language infantilizes disabled audiences and limits critical discussions.

The implications of this practice extend far beyond individual media pieces; they touch upon broader societal assumptions regarding who is capable of grappling with complex topics and who deserves unfiltered access to information. In an era where platforms like TikTok have become mainstream channels for content creation, many creators edit their audio to avoid algorithmic scrutiny.

  • Euphemisms are used instead of explicit discussions (e.g., “unalive” instead of discussing death) (Diakopoulos & Koliska, 2016).
  • This trend dilutes the message and shapes discourse in detrimental ways, prompting avoidance of pressing issues.

If we do not address these issues, we risk perpetuating a cycle of exclusion and misunderstanding, where the lived experiences of marginalized communities remain invisible.

Consequences of Censorship:

  • Critical discussions are stifled, leading to a societal landscape that favors avoidance over engagement.
  • Escalating movement toward sanitization could bolster algorithmic biases, limiting discourse variety (Bennett, Herman, & Chomsky, 1989).

As society grapples with increasingly complex and contentious issues, the stakes become particularly high. Failure to confront real language and difficult subjects may exacerbate social divisions and reinforce stereotypes, denying marginalized communities their rightful representation (Oliver Turner, Kirsten Windfuhr, & Navneet Kapur, 2007).

What if the Trend Toward Censorship Continues?

If the trend of censoring explicit language in media transcriptions persists, we may witness:

  • A slow degradation of authentic dialogue surrounding sensitive topics.
  • Severe ramifications for marginalized communities, further excluding them from nuanced discourse.

Potential Ramifications:

  • Narrowing the scope of acceptable narratives, favoring predominantly palatable viewpoints while marginalizing dissent (Christidis & Devetsikiotis, 2016).
  • A chilling effect on creators who may hesitate to tackle important issues due to fear of backlash.
  • The risk of public discourse becoming less reflective of real-life issues.

What if Media Platforms Adopted Inclusive Transcription Practices?

Conversely, if media platforms embraced inclusive transcription practices, we could see a significant shift in media accessibility:

  • Empowering deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals to engage equally with their hearing peers.
  • Fostering informed engagement among diverse audiences and cultivating empathy regarding pressing issues (McEvoy, Marschark, & Nelson, 1999).

Benefits of Inclusive Practices:

  • Setting new standards for inclusive content and prioritizing authenticity.
  • Attracting a broader audience interested in content reflecting their realities.

What if Audiences Demanded More Accountability from Content Creators?

If audiences began to demand greater accountability from content creators regarding their transcription practices, this could spark a cultural shift toward more responsible media consumption:

  • Advocacy for uncensored transcriptions would empower marginalized communities and improve representation in media (Clark, 2015).
  • This pressure could lead to industry-wide standards ensuring equal access to information for all audiences.

Such audience-driven advocacy can drive meaningful change within the industry, encouraging transparent relationships between creators and their audiences.

Strategic Maneuvers

For Media Platforms

Media platforms must take proactive steps to establish inclusive transcription practices:

  • Form partnerships with organizations focused on disability rights to create guidelines ensuring uncensored transcriptions.
  • Invest in training for transcription staff and leverage advanced AI technologies.
  • Implement user feedback systems for audiences to report transcription issues.

For Content Creators

Content creators hold significant power in shaping media narratives:

  • Recognize the importance of providing accurate transcriptions to enhance credibility.
  • Engage audiences in conversations about accessibility and actively seek feedback.
  • Collaborate with advocacy organizations to elevate underrepresented voices.

For Audiences

Audiences play a critical role in demanding change from platforms and creators:

  • Voice expectations for uncensored transcriptions and hold media accountable.
  • Support creators who honor accessibility and share experiences to raise awareness.
  • Educate themselves and others about the importance of accessibility in media.

The Potential for Change

The discourse surrounding uncensored transcriptions is crucial to both accessibility and representation in media. By fostering a culture that values transparency, authenticity, and inclusivity, stakeholders can ensure that all voices are heard and respected.

Media platforms can lead this change by prioritizing uncensored transcriptions, while creators can initiate critical conversations to foster understanding. Audience advocacy serves as a catalyst for transformation, demanding that media creators and platforms prioritize inclusivity.

Ultimately, the path toward a more equitable media landscape hinges on collective efforts that bridge access, representation, and social responsibility. Together, we can create a future where all individuals, regardless of ability, can engage with media in its entirety, fostering an environment where diverse narratives are celebrated and uplifted.

References

  • Bennett, J. R., Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1989). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon.
  • Clark, C. A. (2015). Comparing Asynchronous and Synchronous Video versus Text Based Discussions in an Online Teacher Education Course. Online Learning, 19(3), 1-15.
  • Diakopoulos, N. & Koliska, M. (2016). Algorithmic Transparency in the News Media. Digital Journalism, 4(4), 1-19.
  • D’Amico, R. (1978). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Telos, 10-26.
  • Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon.
  • Lederberg, A. R., Schick, B., & Spencer, P. E. (2012). Language and literacy development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children: Successes and challenges. Developmental Psychology, 48(1), 1-18.
  • McEvoy, C. L., Marschark, M., & Nelson, D. L. (1999). Comparing the mental lexicons of deaf and hearing individuals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 312-320.
  • McKee, M., Paasche‐Orlow, M. K., Winters, P., Zazove, P., Sen, A., & Pearson, T. A. (2019). Assessing Health Literacy in Deaf American Sign Language Users. Journal of Health Communication, 20(4), 1-9.
  • Oliver Turner, K., Windfuhr, K., & Kapur, N. (2007). Suicide in deaf populations: A literature review. Annals of General Psychiatry, 6(26), 1-10.
  • Pertz, L., Plegue, M., Diehl, K. M., Zazove, P., & McKee, M. (2018). Addressing Mental Health Needs for Deaf Patients Through an Integrated Health Care Model. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 23(2), 158-167.
  • Skøt, L., Jeppesen, T. D., Mellentin, A. I., & Elklit, A. (2016). Accessibility of medical and psychosocial services following disasters and other traumatic events: experiences of Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals in Denmark. Disability and Rehabilitation, 38(23), 19-30.
← Prev Next →