I got it wrong

My apologies to Nestle. A previous post, which I have now removed, accused the company of including a nutritional guide in its Wonka showbag that wrongly listed ingredients on two products. It appears there are two types of Toffee Apple and Redskin bars with different sources of glucose (one wheat, one corn). I am assured by Queensland Health that the products are accurately labelled.

It's the Board that's bad not the teacher

On its website the Classification Board offers the following advice if you have a complaint about a trailer you have seen at the cinema: “Please contact the cinema where you saw the trailer first to address your concerns. If you are not happy with their response, please contact us in writing”.
Having actually followed that advice, let me add some advice of my own: “Don’t bother”.
In a response to my complaint about the Bad Teacher trailer in a screening of Harry Potter 7.2, the Board’s classification branch advises “it is up to the cinema which trailers they screen with certain films” and “the board does not have any involvement in the content contained in trailers”. As long as it meets the “commensurate audience rule”, which the board defines as the classification of the advertised film must be the same or lower as the feature film, there are no restrictions on the content of the trailer.
Viewers actually have a right to complain to the Australian Communication Media Authority if promotions in television programs do not match the classification of classification of the program being viewed. There is the power to issue breaches and it is a power that the ACMA do exercise. Why aren’t cinema patrons offered the same rights?
A submission to the ACMA review seems appropriate.

Here is the Classification Board's full response:

Bad Teacher

Below is a letter I have sent to the Classification Board about the Bad Teacher trailer. Watch this space
I wish to draw your attention to the trailer for Bad Teacher which I saw during a screening of Harry Potter 7.2 in a cinema packed with young, some very young, people.
View trailer here
In two minutes 35 seconds they use the F word five times, plus the word cock, a teacher smokes a joint and says she wants to sit on the face of another teacher.
I contend that over the 92 minutes of the film this type of content might meet the meet the M classification which demands that “The content is moderate in impact” .
However, condensing what is probably the “worst” of the content into two and a half minutes has the result of a trailer that is simply not within the M guidelines. If that level of language was repeated over the full 90 minutes, viewers would hear the F word 180 times. Would that fit the “moderate impact” demanded of an M Classification? Clearly not. The content is strong and that by your own definition is MA.
I fully appreciate that the cinema complied with the regulations regarding trailers – Harry Potter is classified M as is Bad Teacher so there in nothing to stop the cinema from screening the trailer in question.
Surely, however, the Classification Board must ensure that the trailer, not just the film, meets the standards of the classification system. It seems to me that just as comedies often use the best of their jokes in their trailers, violent or rude movies also indulge in a selective use of content that results in the level of impact that is higher than the film viewed in its entirety.
The Classification Board is repeatedly issuing warnings to parents to consider not just the classification but the consumer advice when deciding on whether to take their children to see a particular film. Indeed Director of the Classification Board, Lesley O’Brien on July 4 issued a release reminding parents and advising that the consumer advice for Harry Potter 7.2 was Violence and Fantasy themes. I was comfortable with that for my teenage son. I was not comfortable with the content of the trailer which was neither violent nor fantasy.
Trailers need advertising prior to the classification of the movie but after classification is there any means of ensuring that the content of the trailer and that of the movie match? If there isn’t there should be. I consider this to be a loophole in the classification system that needs to be addressed.
I would appreciate a response

Drinking game rules well below par

Obviously the responsible drinking message is totally failing to get through, if the annual KMPG pub golf classic being held next Friday is anything to go by. The classic, which is not sanctioned by either the company or the social club, comes with advice that "As mature adults we all know our limits, so please be conscious of this while participating in this event. Refer to the responsible drinking guide attached".

Yet the rules include such gems as "disqualification will occur if you pass out (including hospitalisation)" and you are awarded points for sculling drinks in one go. I may be getting old but this just seems grossly irresponsible.

Part I: General Gameplay

The Tank 5.30pm

Pig n Whistle (left hand hole) 6.30pm

Fridays 7.15pm

Jade Buddha 8pm

Belgian Beer Café (clean play) 8.30pm

Port Office 9pm

Union Jack’s (bunker hole) 9.30pm

Gilhooley’s 10 pm

O’Malley’s (caddy hole) 10.30pm

Winners presentation 11.30pm

1. Players will be scored according to the number of standard drinks consumed at each hole (1 point per standard drink).

2. Dress is casual, but must include a golfing item (for example: diamond vests, long socks, grandpa hats, Michael Jackson one gloves, golfing tees or golf balls).

3. All players must record their score at each hole on their scorecards, and have a fellow competitor sign-off on this score as independent verification.

Part II: Bonus Points

· Hole-in-one: downing a drink in one go, excluding alcoholic shots (1 extra point);

· Golf trivia: correct answer to any golf trivia as posed by a referee (1 extra points); and

· Other golfing games: victory in any ad hoc golfing games as referees order during the event (1 extra point).

Part III: Penalties

Players will have points deducted for non-compliance with any of the following:

· Poor swing: players must comply with the minimum drinking requirements detailed in General Gameplay, Paragraph 4 (forfeiture of points for drinks not consumed);

· Water hazard: players cannot go to the toilet at any hole deemed a water hazard (4 point penalty);

· Left-hand hole: players must not hold their drink in their right hand at any time during a hole deemed to be a left-handed hole (3 point penalty);

· Bunker: players must drink one alcoholic shot at a hole deemed to have a bunker (3 point penalty);

· Caddy: players must hold onto another player (with at least one hand) for the duration of any holes deemed to have a caddy (2 point penalty);

· Clean Play: players must refrain from using un-gentlemanly or un-ladylike language that is not in the spirit of the event (2 point penalty);

· Tactical vomiting: players must not attempt to tactically discharge vomit at any point of the game so as to gain an unfair advantage (5 point penalty); and

· Contravention of dress code: players must comply with dress code requirements detailed in General Gameplay, Paragraph 3 (3 point penalty).

Part IV: Disqualification

Players will be instantly eliminated from the competition for any of the following:

· Attempting to pass off a beverage to other competitors as alcoholic when it is not;

· Passing out (including hospitalisation); or

· Damage to other golfers or spectators equipment, as photos will be taken during play.

Part V: The Winners

· There will be one male winner and one female winner.

· Winners will be the male and female with the highest score at the conclusion of Hole 9.

Part VI: The Prize

· Exclusive year-long rights to the KPMG Masters Green Jacket (for the gentlemen’s competition) or the Pink Jacket (for the ladies’ competition);

· A limited edition Masters trophy cup, which can only be accepted after each winner consumes its contents (which will be whatever any of the ‘losers’ decide to pour into it); and

· Eternal glory.

ACMA report hard to digest

Experts in Australian Communications and Media Authority are obviously big fans of pro-smoking spoof flick Thank-You for Smoking.
And what's more they inhaled.
How else do you explain that in the Children's Television Standards review released last week, the ACMA refused to ban junk food ads during children's television on the grounds that there is no strong evidence between obesity and television advertising?
This is despite last year's finding by the University of Sydney that our kids are exposed to 10 junk food ads an hour during children’s television periods.
So just as the tobacco industry tried to convince us for years that cigarette advertising in no way encouraged people to smoke only to change brands, we are now expected to believe that the millions of dollars spend on pushing salt, fat and sugar to our children doesn't actually make them eat more junk food.
Really?
In explaining its decision the ACMA said restricting food and beverage advertising would be “a blunt form of regulatory intervention” which would “also prevent healthy food and beverage products from being advertised”.
That may be true but exactly when was the last time an advertisement promoting healthy food options to children aired during children’s viewing time.
If such an ad exists you can bet your bottom dollar that the product being promoted is something like a “natural” confectionary – apparently healthy because it is 99% fat free conveniently ignoring the massive sugar content.
The AMAC also notes that restrictions on junk food advertising would result in “significant cost to the commercial television sector”.
Even a one hour daily ban on food ads would, according to the report, result in a drop in commercial television revenue of up to 4%. That just goes to show what a huge industry selling life-limiting food options to children is.
And it goes straight to the crux of the matter. A review supposedly looking into children’s television standards puts more weight on the bottom line of commercial television stations’ profits than in the bottom line of our children.
This is despite the fact that one of the core objectives of the Broadcasting Services Act is to “place a high priority on protecting children from program material that may be harmful to them including advertising and sponsorship matter”.
The Cancer Council believed so strongly that junk food advertising was harmful to children that it mobilised a campaign resulting in 20 521 postcards being lodged with the AMCA.
In addition, a further 67 of the 76 submissions to the review highlighted the need for restrictions on junk food advertising directed at children.
It would seem that just about everyone except the AMCA sees a link between junk food advertising and dangerously high levels of childhood obesity.
Like the tobacco companies of old, the ACMA continues to push the line that as long as the product is legal so too should advertising it.
We can only hope that eventually the regulators will follow the lead of the United Kingdom, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Quebec all of which have some restrictions on advertising of junk food.
Surely the weight of evidence is irrefutable. Where’s there’s smoke there’s fire.

Beastly decisison by Children's Book Council

The decisions of the Children’s Book Council of Australia never fail to disappoint.

Year after year the judges make decisions that are bewildering in their stupidity and even arrogance.

Year after year the body which has a charter “to engage the community with literature for young Australians” makes perplexing and confusing decisions that rate books that are important and worthy ahead of books that children will love to read.

But now, the council has outdone it self an moved beyond irritating and mystifying to mind-blowingly inappropriate and just downright wrong.

The winner of the Picture Book of the Year Requiem for a Beast by Matt Ottley contains not only violent images of a blood-stained axe used to kill Aboriginals but also the f word numerous times.

Since when did we reward phrases such as “íf you do it again you little black arsehole, your goin’t’be in the fuckin’ river” followed closely by “Jesus Christ he even pissed himself. You fuckin dirty little animal” in picture books.

Yes, Matt Ottley has a serious story to tell about the psychological problems in youth, suicide, the stolen generation and the plight of Aboriginal Australia. Yes, the judges make it clear that a picture book might not be for young children.

But there are other values which must be considered when evaluating this title and surely appropriate community standards is one of them.

This book contains no warning about language on its cover and no indication about its content – all that’s there now is a large gold sticker naming it as the Picture Book of the Year. Well-meaning parents will see that as a gold-plated endorsement of the book without any adequate warning.

Well they would see it as that if they find a bookshop that stocks it. Five attempts to buy the book from large retailers on the weekend failed. Four had never heard of it and a couple couldn't pronounce the title. One retailer believed it was in stock. He pulled out a step ladder, climbed up to the top shelf, removed two books from the front of the shelf and then found there were no copies left.

So a book hidden at the back of a top shelf is going to engage the community with literature for young people? Exactly how is that going to happen? Perhaps in much the same way as Windsor Smith sells shoes – create interest through controversy.

Here’s an alternative plan. What about creating interest by rewarding the books children like to read? The Children’s Book Council should try it for once. The novelty might surprise them.

I don't give a monkey's about context - it's still rude

The Classification Review Board will today decide whether the animated September holiday release Space Chimps will keep its PG classification or be downgraded to G.
On July 11, the Classification Board announced that the movie - described as "an intergalactic comedy that highlights the antics of astronaut chimps with the wrong stuff" - would be classified PG with a warning of mild threatening themes.
The distributors appealed the decision and last Friday a review was announced.
If history is anything to go by, the application by the distributors for the reclassification will be successful.
Last year, the review board reviewed five cinema releases and on all but one occasion downgraded the original classification

• Sleuth was downgraded from MA to M on October 22
• 30 Days of Night was downgraded from R 18+ to MA on October 17
• SAW IV was downgraded from R 18+ to MA on October 10
• 300 was downgraded from R 18+ to MA February 28
• Notes on a Scandal retained its MA classification after the January 24 review
  

The explanations for the decisions make fascinating reading for anyone with an interest in classification matters.

Studying the deliberations would make one wonder whether there is such a thing as a rude word any more.

Take the review of Sleuth as a classic example.

In its deliberations, the Review Board noted that the F word was used 16 times and he C word three times but said that was appropriate in an M classification because it was in context.

It even said that "You're a c***" is shouted loudly and with menace. But apparently that's okay for 15-year-olds.

Makes you wonder what level of bad language a film would need to contain to earn an R classification. As for Space Chimps, here's betting that it will have a G classification by week's end.