From sports stars being far from role models to the Prime Minister’s plea to sports clubs, and now the recommendation for the removal of alcohol and junk food advertising.
I think we are being naïve if we are to assume that our problems with binge drinking and obesity are because there is advertising. The problem is advertising targeting demographics it shouldn’t - mixed drinks that target teenagers and sweets that target primary school kids.
I must applaud Fosters for changing their marketing line and reducing the alcohol content in their Ready to Drink (RTD) products. Fosters has set a maximum of two standard drinks and the removal of energy additives from RTD products. Two standard drinks is still higher than most beers but at least it’s a start.
The government is also toying with the idea of adding health labels to bottles, like those found on cigarette packets. These warnings will probably have a temporary effect on drinking, but are not a long term solution. Shocking images and blunt messages have not eliminated teenage smoking, so I doubt they will have much effect on teenage binge drinking. I’m sure the images and messages will be confronting, but we are too easily desensitized to these campaigns. We need to go deeper with this issue, instead of scraping the surface.
I don’t believe advertising is strictly to blame. Cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and ice has no advertising whatsoever, and yet both the sporting community and society as a whole have huge problems with the abuses of these substances. There has to be other factors involved here. Andrew Johns can go through a whole career with a drug problem and yet never be confronted about it. Why should other sportspeople and society be concerned when those around the greatest rugby league player in the world obviously aren’t?
Your Opinion Counts. CLICK HERE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Haven’t they got better things to do?
Last week the opposition's parliamentary secretary for families and communications Sen Cory Bernardi commenced an inquiry into the frequency and use of swearing. The inquiry will also focus on program classifications and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) efficiency in processing complaints. It will take the Senate three months for the opposition to work out what they want to complain about when the findings are revealed in June.
I can already see the results of the inquiry: ‘Opposition finds ACMA deficient,’ ‘Too much swearing on TV,’ ‘Kids hearing swear words’ and ‘TV destroying fabric of society.’ I’m sure our own Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells will weigh in on the debate. She usually likes to wield a very large censorship wand, especially when it comes to the ABC.
My problem isn’t that there should or shouldn’t be swearing on TV, (there is a time and place for it). My problem is that there are much more pressing matters for senators to address, especially when his is just an excuse for a press conference.
But while we are on the subject of broadcasting, why is there such a disparity between showing swearing and nudity and showing people being killed? A program airing at 7:30pm can showing various villains and henchman being killed but as soon as an actor says s%#t, or is dressed in skimpy clothes, suddenly the whole of society is about fall into the pits of hell. Likewise. the news can show bomb after bomb and dead body after dead body but face a legal dilemma when they show footage of Janet Jackson at the Super Bowl.
Your Opinion Counts. CLICK HERE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | 
