Jump to content

Seven in trouble with ABA for Olympic Cliffhanger


Guest Andy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Too violent for G

12 May 2005

The Australian

THE Australian Broadcasting Authority has found that Channel 7 breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice by giving an episode of Home and Away a G rating when it should have been rated PG and carried a consumer advice warning.

The cliffhanger episode, broadcast on August 13 2004, showed characters being held at gunpoint by a mentally unstable woman and ended with the sound of gunshots, leaving the impression someone had been murdered. The complainant said her six-year-old daughter was upset by the episode and continued to be frightened for several weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too violent for G

12 May 2005

The Australian

THE Australian Broadcasting Authority has found that Channel 7  breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice by giving an episode of Home and Away a G rating when it should have been rated PG and carried a consumer advice warning.

The cliffhanger episode, broadcast on August 13 2004, showed characters being held at gunpoint by a mentally unstable woman and ended with the sound of gunshots, leaving the impression someone had been murdered. The complainant said her six-year-old daughter was upset by the episode and continued to be frightened for several weeks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well considering from the ALL the advanced publicity... that EVERYONE with an ounce of sense ...not to mention a newspaer...and who watched all the promos...knew that Noah was gpoing to get shot, I think tht the parents concerned are being a tad OTT. It may well have merited the PG rating..but they and the rest of the country knew what was coming up!

I'm in the UK at resent and i am astounded at the stuff which is passed here for childrens or early evening TV...some of it would get a PG or even an M rating at home...and they very few complaints...because parent are warned and they know what the subject material is going to be. If I were a parent i would not relay on some facelesss bureaucrat to tell me what was OK for my kids to watch...I'd find out myslef. i wouldnt let them watch some of the cartoon crap which goes out...and i would rater they watched home and away then some of the other things that are out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too violent for G

12 May 2005

The Australian

THE Australian Broadcasting Authority has found that Channel 7  breached the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice by giving an episode of Home and Away a G rating when it should have been rated PG and carried a consumer advice warning.

The cliffhanger episode, broadcast on August 13 2004, showed characters being held at gunpoint by a mentally unstable woman and ended with the sound of gunshots, leaving the impression someone had been murdered. The complainant said her six-year-old daughter was upset by the episode and continued to be frightened for several weeks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well considering from the ALL the advanced publicity... that EVERYONE with an ounce of sense ...not to mention a newspaer...and who watched all the promos...knew that Noah was gpoing to get shot, I think tht the parents concerned are being a tad OTT. It may well have merited the PG rating..but they and the rest of the country knew what was coming up!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's just it. People DON'T watch all the promos. People DON'T sit in forums obsessing over bits of info from TV Week. We DO, so we knew. Jane, the single mum with a part time job who can't really afford TV Week didn't.

The whole point of the classification system is to allow viewers to make an informed choice about what they (and what they allow their children) should watch. 7pm was classed as a G time slot. Seven advertised the episode as being suitable for General viewing by everyone. Clearly the content didn't match the rating. Jane was obviously wasn't expecting someone with a gun to show up and fire a few shots at people.

Seven were very clearly in the wrong here, and the ABA and the complainant (even though I'm sure the whole nightmares thing was a beatup) were 100% correct in this case. I'd say Seven knew they were in the wrong, but decided to take a calculated risk and show this content. Chances are they'll just get a slap on the wrist. Which is a shame, really, as it reduces the effectiveness of the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.