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

[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.

[gtfpv]

what about classic movies where people used to smoke in the movie , will they have to chp the footage and replce the smokes with those electric vapour cigarette replicas ?

[TC200six]

This isn't to do with any law. This morning on Channel 9's Today show, footage was shown of Brock's Holdens with Marlboro clearly visible with no censoring. Remember when Brock died, there was heaps of footage shown with the Marlboro decals clearly visible. If the law only changed with in the last 12 months, that would mean Channel 9 just broke a law

[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?

[SpoolMan]

Cant see this as being any different as Jim Beam & Jack Daniels have to cover up there alcohol advertising when they race in Abu Dhabi, everyone has to respect the law what ever or where ever it may be.

[Bushbasher]

I think it's the aynal retentive Ch7 legal dept. wowsers getting carried away myself... very disappointing to see the blur.

Bushbasher

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by TC200six

This isn't to do with any law. This morning on Channel 9's Today show, footage was shown of Brock's Holdens with Marlboro clearly visible with no censoring. Remember when Brock died, there was heaps of footage shown with the Marlboro decals clearly visible. If the law only changed with in the last 12 months, that would mean Channel 9 just broke a law

Historical footage doesnt come under the act...

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Historical footage doesnt come under the act...

so what is historical footage
i assumed it was footage taken of subjects from a bygone era . . . . like footage taken from the 70's or 80's that contained cigarette advertising. if channel 9 did indeed show old footage of an uncensored marlboro torana, why do channel 7 have to sensor a marlboro torana

[ebxr8240]

I remember some time back a cricket match being showed and some nark complained!!
I guess you could also say there was no warning on the advertising ?? Aha...
The blurring didn't worry me too much.. Once I worked out why..

[Jim Goose]

One would assume CH7 legal team would be able you answer you much better then i would....

There are plenty of TV shows from the USA which have all sorts of things blurred out... If you watch Myth Busters, the FORD badges or the Chevvy badges on thier vehicles are always blurred out.

Corporate logos are blurred out frequently. There was that show about how the new Camero is built last week. Some old footage from a drag strip was shown and the whole strip of adverts down the side of the track was blurred out.

Obviously CH7 legal team said dont show the logos live to air...

If everyone is that worried about it now (as opposed to 2006 when the law was introduced) maybe they should contact CH7 and ask why?

[ebxr8240]

I guess on some U.S show.. Companies pay or supply engines etc
Say Jegs supply and there's Summit racing advertising at the track..
Competing companies..

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by 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!!!

I saw that as well...this is exactly what I was talking about...fromnow on apparently historical footage will be modified to suit the political climate of today.

Be it for racing cars or anything else, that sets a very dangerous precedent for, as I said originally, changing, rewriting, or alterning historical fact. Resign yourself to the fact that your kids and grandkids will not be able to see footage of the great race without some tight lipped weasel somewhere in a control booth blurring out what was actually there.

[TC200six]

All I can put it down to is Channel 7 decided to censor footage at their own discretion to avoid the possibility of any potential controversy from some whinging minority groups and are not required by law to do so.

[vanman_75]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I saw that as well...this is exactly what I was talking about...fromnow on apparently historical footage will be modified to suit the political climate of today.

Be it for racing cars or anything else, that sets a very dangerous precedent for, as I said originally, changing, rewriting, or alterning historical fact. Resign yourself to the fact that your kids and grandkids will not be able to see footage of the great race without some tight lipped weasel somewhere in a control booth blurring out what was actually there.

At this rate racing will be banned along with the advertising ...with all the crazy humans driving like they are on a race track ....ban tv all together its too influential ...how far will it go , ciggies , fast food , fast cars ...alcohol would be a prime candidate next ..crazy stuff

[Bossxr8]

I've seen ch 7 showing un-censored old race footage for years, why change it now?

Hopefully they don't show any footage of Moffats Stuyvesant RX7 or i'll be right down to the shops to buy a pack.

[gtxb67]

could someone please explain why australian muscle car magazine has images of marlboro and peter stuyvesant sponsored cars on their website in the back issues area
these mags were produced after 2006, so have i just blown the whistle on them

and let's not forget, these mags with cigarette sponsorship on the cover were on display at everyone's local newsagent in the area young male teenagers especially were likely to see them


there is a reason why channel 7 are blurring them, but i sincerely doubt it has anything to do with a 2006 law

[nstg8a]

Yet after the shootout was televised they had an interview with big nose then showed the winfield gtr sliding off the road. Pretty sure I saw no blurring on that clip.

[gtxb67]

http://www.musclecarmag.com.au/austr...ack-issues.php
there you go everyone, not on the tablet so i can paste a link
marlboro, peter stuyvesant, camel, rothmans all proudly on display on the net where young kids have access

i am sure that some of these at the very least were on display in newsagents after 2006

[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.

[zoomie]

At the end of the day i guess its only covering up some advertising, least the cars are shown on main stream TV once again...
I just wish Channel 7 could do something about Matt White and his love for winecup, im so bloody sick of hearing Jamie this and Jaime that blah blah blah. The guy annoys me just as much as that other flog Leigh Diffy that does the presenting on the GT sportscars racing in america and his love for the Government Motors Chevrolet.

[Silver Ghia]

The ban also applies to scale models of these cars being sold in shops etc. They come without the naughty words, but generally you can buy them separately to put on the car once you buy it.

Absolutely ridiculous situation not being able to see these cars as they were. I've been watching motor racing since the '70's seeing the various cigarette brands being advertised on the cars, a whole list of them, but that never made me buy or smoke any of them.

[Peuty]

Just something to think about, why is there not a thread kicking about citing outrage at Biante models not being released with the ciggies logos on them? I have a few models now that should have the logos but don't. Outrage! Disrespect! Etc!

Same thing, as I see it. Or is it just an excuse for the masses to have a misguided sook about Channel 7 again? Maybe it was Matt Whites own personal idea to annoy us fans even more that he already apparently does....

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

could someone please explain why australian muscle car magazine has images of marlboro and peter stuyvesant sponsored cars on their website in the back issues area
these mags were produced after 2006, so have i just blown the whistle on them

and let's not forget, these mags with cigarette sponsorship on the cover were on display at everyone's local newsagent in the area young male teenagers especially were likely to see them


there is a reason why channel 7 are blurring them, but i sincerely doubt it has anything to do with a 2006 law

It began in 2007 with tighter laws but notice how strident packaging laws have become of late,
and now that blank package laws are in place any form of cigarette advertising is now banned.

I think you'll find that the authorities are either not aware of or are turning a blind eye to
the magazines advertised on the net ...hopefully, they don't jerry form too many people talking...

[sbutler]

Get this into ya chennel 7. The bike I built for the 2009 series....

[Peuty]

Hot bike, but I'd probably blur that head if I were channel 7!

[Ford_The_Win]

It's a bit pointless really, unless you work behind a ciggie counter or are over 35, you probably wouldn't know that Peter Stuyvescent is a cigarette brand.

[sbutler]

Here without the poor overworked bugger behind it>>

[Joe5619]

Who really gives a stuff?? There are much bigger issues & problems in the world.. Build a bridge for god sake!!

And how is this is any way "rewriting history"???????????

[Jastel]

While I disagree with the nanny state mentality, it maybe that a few million more people are watching Bathurst vs those pawn shows and they decided not to risk it.

At the F1 I saw some of those old classic cars and the cars are not even painted with the original signs anymore. Just a black blobby patch where the Malboro sign was or Peter one one side and Jackson on the other for Setons old car, so nothing to blur there anymore.

[Nikked]

Does this mean Ch9 will blur out Benson Hedges in the ol'skool cricket footage?