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.

Poo on you Flying Kangaroo

Nothing has revolutionised the experience of long haul flights for parents travelling with children as much as the personal video and games console offered on most aircraft flying international routes.

Children have an endless capacity to play games and watch videos and these systems give them something to do other than chant "are we there yet" endlessly.

But in providing this entertainment, airlines must also provide appropriate information for parents. Sadly, a recent trip on the national carrier as proven this is not always the case.

In fact, the current Q magazine probably breaches classification guidelines while in Australian airspace and certainly works against the interests of parents with children flying on Qantas.

The magazine advises parents travelling with children to "check the Australian Content Classification guidelines and supervise your children accordingly". That would indeed be good advice if the classifications were accurate.

The magazine lists the Peirce Brosnan movie Married Life as being classified PG - it is not. The Classification Board has rated the film M. While I accept that the magazine may have had to be printed before the classification was granted surely a movie about a man seeking to kill his wife so he can marry his young mistress should have raised alarm bells and the airline exercised appropriate caution.

In any event, the airline has no excuse for listing the wrong classification of The Golden Compass. Its PG classification was issued in December 2007 yet you list it as a G film.

The airline magazine's advice to parents is that some movies will not be suitable for young passengers. It is right. The website Parent Preview says of The Golden Compass "parents will undoubtedly be concerned over the portrayals of cruelty and violence. Lyra is in peril for most of this film, and is fearful of adults. Other scenes show children locked in steel cages while bolts of electricity attempt to separate them from their daemon. And when the battle begins to brew, people are killed with spears and guns as the situation in this already dark film begins to intensify".

Many parents rely on the classification system to make informed choices on behalf of their children. Qantas surely has a duty of care to provide them with accurate information to enable them to do this.

How old is too old?

Some aspects of parenting get easier as your child ages. Others just get more complicated.

It's been years since toileting was an issue in our house but it's back and its an issue we have to confront in public.

A 10-year-old male child does not want to go to the ladies toilet. Full stop. No negotiating.

But, it may be neurotic, but his mother doesn't like to leave him to his own devises in the male urinal. Full stop. No negotiating.

The rare family toilet or disabled toilet offer a compromise but they are not always available when nature calls.

So relying on the "safety in numbers" argument the 10-year-old male and a friend were this week allowed to go together to a public toilet while the hovering parent waited outside.

And they emerged announcing that "there was a weird man on drugs inside screaming really rude words and threatening people". Great. Now what?

So if 10 years isn't too old for a boy to use the female toilet, what happens at 11 or 12?

And how much worse it must be for a male parent with a small girl where the option of taking her with you can't be a real option from a much younger age.

What we need is more family-friendly facilities.

The risk may be small but it a risk surely many families are not prepared to take.

Disney execs prove it's a small thinking world after all

It's a world of laughter. It's a world of tears. It's a world where our children are being marketed to at every turn.

Until recently there was a world of difference between watching children's TV on Disney Channel and watching the same programs on free-to-air TV.

Disney was an ad-free zone, a safe place where children might learn to talk about recess and janitors but where they could watch TV without being bombarded with messages to buy, buy, buy.

That world has now gone. Watching the Disney Channel on the weekend was as bad as watching Saturday Disney on the 7 Network - wall-to-wall ads only broken occasionally to fit in some programming.

It's a crying shame that Disney has effectively sold out on kids and a decision that ultimately may cost them. I can not be the only parent that factored in the lack of ads into the decision to subscribe to Pay TV.

The high rotation ad for Dog Poo Barbie - a Barbie Accessory called Tanner which comes with a pooper scooper to help waif-girl be a responsible pet owner - is making me question the value of my investment.

The Disney Magical Kingdom just lost much of its sparkle

Report covers more than #$%^&* Ramsay

Understandable media interest in the Australian Senate’s reaction to the potty-mouth Gordon Ramsay allowed other aspects of the Effectiveness of the Broadcasting codes of practice standing committee report to be overlooked.
The report, released last week, noted a number of interesting changes in the patterns of family viewing which impact on children’s exposure to unsuitable material. It notes, for example, that children are staying up later which increases their exposure to adult material and that the use of the remote makes channel surfing and therefore parental control more difficult to maintain.
But perhaps the most interesting reading was contained in the section relating to news and current affairs.
The committee found that “current affairs broadcasting, as it tends more towards ‘infotainment’ relies increasingly on a diet of graphic and sensationalised reporting of violent crime, spectacular accidents and the like. These stories often have little intrinsic merit as news but do provide an opportunity to screen graphic images during early evening time slots which may be distressing to children”.
There was also concern about unsavory content in other television programs becoming the news story increasing the exposure to a much larger number of children. Gordon Ramsay’s swearing and “the more prurient incidents on Big Brother” (no doubt the turkey slapping incident) came in for special mention.
“This results in the very material that was found offensive by some in a later time slot being televised much earlier in the evening as part of a news or current affairs program”.
Curiously, despite the concern, the committee put the onus back on broadcasters its recommendation 6 saying “The Committee does not wish to tell television stations what they should be in news and current affairs programming”. Why ever not?
What exactly is the point of spending taxpayers’ money on the effectiveness of existing regulations and then washing your hands on the matter?
The committee did recommend “that ACMA, in consultation with broadcasters, review the sections of the Classification Code applying to news and current affairs programming, with regard to the use of graphic and disturbing imagery and excerpts from M or higher rated programs in news and current affairs broadcasting in early evening time zones”.
Yes, yes, heard it all before.
In 1996 for example, in the wake of the Port Arthur Massacre, the Commonwealth Government established a Committee of Ministers on the Portrayal of Violence in the Media. When the report was tabled in the Senate in February 1997 arguably its most contentious recommendation was for a toned down early evening news bulletin saying "when reporting items which are identified by television stations themselves as being accompanied by 'disturbing footage', that footage should only be shown in later evening bulletins and not during the early evening news bulletin when large numbers of children are watching television".
But when the Government’s official response to the report was tabled any talk of enforcement was removed and replaced by broadcasters being “strongly urged” "to be vigilant in meeting the requirements of their codes of practice".
Then in 2000, Victorian Government's Family and Community Development Committee brought down its final report on The effects of Television and Multimedia on children & families in Victoria, urging broadcasters to keep disturbing footage out of the early evening news bulletins.
And here we are in 2008 still politely asking broadcasters to do the right thing.
There is no doubt news creates an especially difficult area for broadcasters. Many of the events journalists cover are violent, disturbing and graphic – that’s what makes them news. But repeatedly parents are telling inquiries that at times the choice of language and images crosses the line in what it acceptable in family viewing times.
They have the right to wonder if anyone is listening.