WTF Channel 7...stop rewriting history!!!

[2011G6E]

Just started to watch the Bathurst coverage, and see a garage full of beautifully lighted classic racing cars. Front and center is Brockies A9X Torana,and thought it looked a little odd.
Then I noticed that they'd blurred out the sides and front of the car so people are not traumatised by seeing the "Marlboro" lettering.

They also did it with the video of the old races while they were doing the tribute to Brock...bastards.

Stop trying to rewrite history and let people see the old bangers in all their glory!!

[Erko]

absolutely miserable.

[Jim Goose]

Sadly it probably falls under law that there is to be no commercial advertising allowed regarding ciggerettes.

CH7 would be breaching the laws and be up for big fines if they did.

Nothing to do with rewritting history.

[Mercury 8]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Sadly it probably falls under law that there is to be no commercial advertising allowed regarding ciggerettes.

CH7 would be breaching the laws and be up for big fines if they did.

Nothing to do with rewritting history.

Spot on.Australian Broadcasting laws are responsible not CH7 rewriting history.

[tezxr8man]

Originally Posted by Mercury 8

Spot on.Australian Broadcasting laws are responsible not CH7 rewriting history.

how about the Gallaher cigerettes or whatever GT's?? they weren't blurred out at all

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Sadly it probably falls under law that there is to be no commercial advertising allowed regarding ciggerettes.

CH7 would be breaching the laws and be up for big fines if they did.

Nothing to do with rewritting history.

Hasn't stopped such cars appearing on shows like gasolene in all their glory.

[jpd80]

Huge fines for even accidentally televising cigarette advertising, it might be
terrible, it might be pathetic but it's the law and not a new rule either.

$66,000 fine per breach in 2007, could you imagine how many examples they could cite in 2 minute highlight package..

LINK
It is an offence to publish or broadcast a tobacco advertisement in
contravention of the Act.
The maximum fine for an individual who publishes or broadcasts an
advertisement is 120 penalty units ($13,200 as at January 2007). For a
corporation the fine is up to 600 penalty units ($66,000 as at January 2007).
These penalties are set out in s.13(1) and s.15(4).
Most people willingly comply with the Act. The Government takes breaches
of the Act seriously. The Department of Health and Ageing follows up on
every reported breach. The Department can refer alleged breaches of the
Act to the Australian Federal Police to investigate. If appropriate, matters can
then be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for prosecution in the
courts.

[Thunder]

Wouldn't the term "advertising" infer that it was paid for by the tobacco company? The government banned them producing new advertising or re-running old advertising campaigns, but showing "historical" images may not be illegal.

It is possible that channel 7 is being over-cautious just in case?

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Thunder

Wouldn't the term "advertising" infer that it was paid for by the tobacco company? The government banned them producing new advertising or re-running old advertising campaigns, but showing "historical" images may not be illegal.

It is possible that channel 7 is being over-cautious just in case?

The law is clear... It is an offence to publish or broadcast a tobacco advertisement in contravention of the Act.

Ch7 is not STUPID and is following the law to the letter... It doesnt matter that the company didnt pay for the add... its still an advertisment.

how hard is it to understand that CH7 didnt make the rule?

How far do we take it? Does Channel 7 start blurring out the Channel 9 livery on the old blue Camaro in old film clips?

Sorry but this the dumbest statement so far.... they blurred out the Malbro add because its AGAINST THE LAW to show ciggerette adds in any form... Its not rocket science.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Thunder

Wouldn't the term "advertising" infer that it was paid for by the tobacco company? The government banned them producing new advertising or re-running old advertising campaigns, but showing "historical" images may not be illegal.

It is possible that channel 7 is being over-cautious just in case?

No, broadcasting recognised cigarette brand names on those car is enough to be in breach of the ban.
The fine in 2007 was $66,000 per breach for a corporation, you can only imagine how many times that fine
would be repeated in a 2 minute tribute.....continued breaches by a network can result in loss of broadcasting license
and to a network, that kind of folly is courting a disaster they would not entertain in the slightest.

[Mercury 8]

Originally Posted by irish2

Hasn't stopped such cars appearing on shows like gasolene in all their glory.

Maybe Ch7 and V8 Supercar TV who produce the show (not CH7)don't want to flaunt the law and be subjected to huge fines.Don't people go down to the pub and whinge to there mates anymore?

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by irish2

Hasn't stopped such cars appearing on shows like gasolene in all their glory.

Bathurst is a commercial broadcast of a multi million dollar sporting event.... not to mention it also has major sponsorship agreements etc.... little bit different to "gasoline".

Its verbotten to show ciggie advertising of any sorts at any sporting event in any shape or form... "Gasoline" has probably just been lucky.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Sadly it probably falls under law that there is to be no commercial advertising allowed regarding ciggerettes.

CH7 would be breaching the laws and be up for big fines if they did.

Nothing to do with rewritting history.

You have to admit though, its pretty stupid. I see they have a number of exemptions for a number of circumstances. Surely broadcasting historical footage would be one of those? For example, displaying or using the Swastika in Germany and Austria is illegal, but there's an exemption to "display" it if it is in historical motion picture footage.

[flightstrike]

Bloody pathetic!

[gtfpv]

IM 43 and a non smoker , all those packets of chocalate cigerrettes i carried around in my pockets and ate when i was a kid , and i dont smoke . i dont agree with cigarette advertising , but the word MARLBOROUGH ISNT A SIN . especially on an old racing car that would breach the rules if it were to race today .

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

IM 43 and a non smoker , all those packets of chocalate cigerrettes i carried around in my pockets and ate when i was a kid , and i dont smoke . i dont agree with cigarette advertising , but the word MARLBOROUGH ISNT A SIN . especially on an old racing car that would breach the rules if it were to race today .

I even used to light the ends of them, and still have never smoked.

[Bucknaked]

Originally Posted by The Monty

I even used to light the ends of them, and still have never smoked.

I thought I was only kid that did that. And I took up smoking around the age of 15. I quit at 31.

I wouldn't say I was a smoker because of commercial advertsing. It was more because my mum was a smoker.

[ratter]

Jim Goose is spot on what he has posted

[DJM83]

Its been discuss in the retro liveries thread.

[DJM83]

Opened again to keep the rubbish out of the retro livery thread.

[zoomie]

Maybe the government should just ban smoking altogther (i gave up smoking nearly 20yrs ago).... Oh no the politicians wont do that cos they wont get the big amount of $$$ they currently get from the taxes on cigarettes.

Just wait till alcohol advertising gets banned (it will happen sooner or later)..

At the end of the day the individual person has the choice to smoke or not, just like all the other choices we all have in life.

[2011G6E]

How far do we take it? Does Channel 7 start blurring out the Channel 9 livery on the old blue Camaro in old film clips?

Censorship has many forms, both overt and subtle. My son in law made the point of asking "Will we ever be able to see unmolested video of the classic Bathurst races ever again on TV, such as a documentary?" and he's dead right. Given what has happened today, we won't. A "lap of champions cars from the past" would be a mass of blurred out paintjobs, race suits and old film would be blurred as well...I think this morning an interview with one guy wearing Winfield logos on his shirt was just a mass of blur. Rediculous.

We don't blur out Nazi logos in movies or old newsreels because some people might get upset. We don't hide the alcohol logo's on race cars even though it causes a lot of damage to society...one could argue more damage than cigarettes.

These cars are a piece of motoring history, and young people today deserve to see them as they were in all their glory. We don't look at them and think "That's a cool cigarette advert...I might spark up a durry"...we look at them and get transported back to a time in our youth when these things were racing around giving us a thrill, and to blur out half the car does a disservice to the people who have spent years and buckets of cash restoring them for our pleasure.

[pottery beige]

ffs deal with it....

[burnz]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

ffs deal with it....

image

man thats the bridge i want to build..

[302 XC]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

These cars are a piece of motoring history, and young people today deserve to see them as they were in all their glory. We don't look at them and think "That's a cool cigarette advert...I might spark up a durry"...we look at them and get transported back to a time in our youth when these things were racing around giving us a thrill, and to blur out half the car does a disservice to the people who have spent years and buckets of cash restoring them for our pleasure.

It kinda funny really...
The scale model race cars dont even have any smoking advertising on them
Yep buy a scale Brock race car and theres no Marlboro adverting on it
Its funny also that Lowndes had his commodore in , what for it , "Marlboro" livery
Marlboro wasnt just a name brand but they also had a well recognised colour, red over white
Sometimes it just goes a little to far, but if and when massive fines can be handed out, many people/companies/businesses have to tread very lightly

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

It kinda funny really...
The scale model race cars dont even have any smoking advertising on them
Yep buy a scale Brock race car and theres no Marlboro adverting on it
Its funny also that Lowndes had his commodore in , what for it , "Marlboro" livery
Marlboro wasnt just a name brand but they also had a well recognised colour, red over white
Sometimes it just goes a little to far, but if and when massive fines can be handed out, many people/companies/businesses have to tread very lightly

That's an interesting one about the livery...back in the "old days" if you saw a black race car with gold stripes, or a red and white one with that "v" design on the bonnet, your brain automatically went "John Player Special, and that's Marlboro"...not to mention other colour/writing schemes. It was a connection you made because of all the fag adverts on TV all the time.

If you showed a kid those colours now, they'd say "Nice paint job", not think "cigarettes"...

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

It kinda funny really...
The scale model race cars dont even have any smoking advertising on them
Yep buy a scale Brock race car and theres no Marlboro adverting on it
Its funny also that Lowndes had his commodore in , what for it , "Marlboro" livery
Marlboro wasnt just a name brand but they also had a well recognised colour, red over white
Sometimes it just goes a little to far, but if and when massive fines can be handed out, many people/companies/businesses have to tread very lightly

If you looked closely, 888 inverted the red triangle on the bonnet so it didnt exactly match the Marlboro trademark.
Either way they were treading a fine line...

Remember when Jordan F1 had 'Buzzin and Hornets' instead of Benson and Hedges? Pretty sure they got in trouble for that.

[NX74205]

Originally Posted by jpd80

No, broadcasting recognised cigarette brand names on those car is enough to be in breach of the ban.

Has there been any case law to support that argument?

Originally Posted by cobramania

The logo's on the historic cars & footage thereof, would be incidental to the matter being broadcast, also Ch.7 or the vehicle owners, would not be receiving any benefit or payment from broadcasting the said logo's. Therefore the way I read it, it's OK to be broadcast.
They are incidental because of this. The dictionary definition of incidental is: "accompanying, but not a major part of something". Tobacco logos accompany the story on historic footage, be-it for Brock or someone else, but are not a major part of it, nor is the story about the particular tobacco company. Therefore is is incidental to the subject matter in the footage being shown.

I agree with that interpretation.

The law is indeed open to interpretation, and unless I see case law that suggests otherwise, I think that blurring out tobacco advertising on cars is absolutely not necessary because not doing so wouldn't contravene the law as I see it.

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Remember when Jordan F1 had 'Buzzin and Hornets' instead of Benson and Hedges? Pretty sure they got in trouble for that.

Nope, they did that because some of the countries they raced in did not allow tobacco advertising. But back then, F1 had not yet had a blanket ban on tobacco sponsorship. Their main sponsor was still Benson & Hedges.

Every other F1 team that had tobacco sponsorship would still carry the same livery to countries that ban tobacco advertising, but the name of their sponsor would be changed to something else.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by zoomie

Maybe the government should just ban smoking altogther (i gave up smoking nearly 20yrs ago).... Oh no the politicians wont do that cos they wont get the big amount of $$$ they currently get from the taxes on cigarettes.

Just wait till alcohol advertising gets banned (it will happen sooner or later)..

At the end of the day the individual person has the choice to smoke or not, just like all the other choices we all have in life.

Are these taxes enough to cover the resulting hospital bills brought about by stupid people exercising their choice to develop lung cancer?

[zoomie]

Originally Posted by superyob

Are these taxes enough to cover the resulting hospital bills brought about by stupid people exercising their choice to develop lung cancer?

Maybe not BUT is all the $$$ raised from the tax actually put back into the hospital system?

No its bloody well not, just like the $$$ raised from the petrol tax is hardly put back into the road network etc etc

Its why my wife and i have got full private health so we dont rely on the "public" system when we can afford to have private cover.