My irritation here stems from the inane idea that the reason newscasters have diarrhea of the mouth is a generous gesture so that blind people can keep up with the news, when in fact it's another symptom of a news media that is far too self-indulgent.

I said that the narration that the news provides is the only news that the visually impaired get off the TV, especially those with old TVs, and especially those who encounter blindness in old age where their technological learning curve is limited by habit, ability, and fear.

I did not say that the narration is provided for that purpose. I said it's what they have. I said it shouldn't be taken away from them because you find it annoying when you can just turn the sound down.

You said you didn't want to miss something that might be valuable by doing that. Your choice. Compare that to blindness: not their choice.

You can also turn on the captions. Or you can turn on the alternative soundtrack, so that you can experience first-hand the method you recommend to people who already have lost access to images as a means of communication.

Maybe Mary Anne's next theory will be that low-riders fix their cars that way so handicapped people can get into them more easily.

Ah, the soul of wit. When low-riders become the major means of transporting handicapped people, we'll talk.