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.

[flightstrike]

Bloody pathetic!

[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.

[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.

[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 .

[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.

[Fiesta_Man69]

I understand why it's blurred on tv (laws today etc). But in today's telegraph there's a story on Brock (promoting Bevs new book) and there's a big pic of the 84 Malbaro liveried Commodores, no censoring whatsoever. I understand it's a different medium but that's just silly.

[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.

[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?

[pottery beige]

ffs deal with it....

[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.

[2011G6E]

So if the statements above are correct, I was right...never again (and this seems to be the first year it has been an issue as far as I can remember) will we ever see a TV program showing classic Bathurst races or documentaries or motoring shows where we can see an "un-blurred" version of the cars...

...anyone who thinks that isn't something important and a fundamental change in the way we are allowed to view our motoring history just doesn't get it...

There is aleready an ongoing push to ban alcohol advertising...imagine how attractive the cars will look then...not to mention whatever the next thing is that will in years to come be politically incorrect to allow to be viewed and which will have to be blurred out of history...

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

So if the statements above are correct, I was right...never again (and this seems to be the first year it has been an issue as far as I can remember) will we ever see a TV program showing classic Bathurst races or documentaries or motoring shows where we can see an "un-blurred" version of the cars...

...anyone who thinks that isn't something important and a fundamental change in the way we are allowed to view our motoring history just doesn't get it...

There is aleready an ongoing push to ban alcohol advertising...imagine how attractive the cars will look then...not to mention whatever the next thing is that will in years to come be politically incorrect to allow to be viewed and which will have to be blurred out of history...

Ahh this isnt something new.... the laws came into effect in 2006.
Its been blurred out before.

[cobramania]

To those who say Ch. 7 can't broadcast the old cars without the logo displayed due to the law, I can't agree you, with the way I read it.
As has been said before, the cars were on Nine's Today show, & I'm also sure I've seen old footage of Brock's & others cars on the 9 or 10 news in the last few days without logo's covered/blurred.

This is part of the Tobacco advertising act. & I've highlighted the important parts as I read it.

11.3.1.1 Tobacco advertising permitted under the TAP Act
All tobacco advertising and sponsorship was completely banned, with limited exceptions, by the passage of the TAP Act. A tobacco advertisement may be broadcast or published if it is accidental or incidental to the matter being broadcast. Individuals who do not receive any benefit from broadcasting a tobacco advertisement are permitted to do so. For example, individuals may wear clothing that is branded with tobacco industry trademarks without breaching the Act.

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.

If Lownde's car was painted identical to the logo it may be a different matter on a technicality, but you'd have to be of an age or associated with smoking Marlboro to link the images together, young kids or those who have no association to smoking, wouldn't have sufficient knowledge of the logo to link them together, unless pointed out to them, & thus is highly unlikely to have any effect on them taking up smoking Marlboro or any other cigarette.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

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?



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.

Jim Goose,


Please accept my most sincere apology if my post was in any way rude or offensive towards you. Clearly it must have been for it to motivate you to use “STUPID” in your reply.

Secondly, I have a keen interest in advertising and the law,and my experience has been >>>> The law is subject to interpretation in court. My interpretation of the LINK posted by JDP80 was in reference to the word “advertising”, a word that is arguably the focal point of the law.

Thirdly, my assumption of Channel Seven was based on the fact that the Seven Network’s channel (7mate) broadcast “American Pickers” and that show has featured collectable tobacco advertisingin the past, un-blurred.

[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.

[Jim Goose]

Historic footage would be classed as incidental.... having replica cars with the advertisement right there in front of you broadcast live cant be classed as an accidental broadcast and could be conscrewed as breaching the Act.

The footage the OP was referring to was a bunch of replicas shown together, not historical footage.

When the laws were introduced there was a lot of hoo-haa about what could be shown and what couldnt. Replicas race cars were often shown with their adverts name blurred out when statically shown.

[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.

[XR Martin]

They probably just want to avoid any potential backlash and/or lawsuits from the Government. Especially since minister Roxon has a hardon against the tobacco companies.

[Bearman]

I've just seen historical footage of Brocky's 1979 win with the word "Marlboro" blurred out. This is what I have a problem with, big time.

The owners of those surviving cars today have to comply with the Nanny State, it's something they have to grapple with at historic meetings, the AGP etc. The broadcasters as well have to comply.

If Brocky's A9X ran around the track today the broadcaster would have to blur out that very offensive word. This is bad enough but to have to, or feel they have to do this for footage that is 33 years old it just detracts from the spectacle and really cheeses me off.

Nanny State political correctness gone too far!!!

[burnz]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

ffs deal with it....

image

man thats the bridge i want to build..