Big Brother Uncut Shocker brought to task!

[SPOKEYDOKEY]

Big Brother, high rating crap television program has been brought to task by the television regulations authority over a couple of incidences on their uncut episodes.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority have stated that "Ten would be required to give assurances that such breaches would not occur in future."

Also stated by a spokesman for the authority is that "[The authority] doesn't have the power to impose a fine, However, we could make the undertakings a condition of their licence, so if they breach them again we could potentially revoke their licence."

I'm quite sure Big Brother is feeling the pinch there...and here is the perfect example of why we have such dreadful television, because there is no relevant regulation. One of the Frontline episodes gives a perfect example of how they get around complaints showing how the procedure is so long winded that at almost every step they get a large proportion of complainants not bothering anymore.

anyhoo, that's my saturday morning rant, have a good weekend y'all ;)




http://www.smh.com.au/news/tv--radio/to-the-diary-room-please/2005/09/16/1126750126007.html

[paninamanina]

I also heard an interview on the radio one day that said Big Brother received Queensland Government Funding for the program.

[antis]

without arse and tit was is it then?

[SPOKEYDOKEY]

same as what it is with arse and tit...crap television

[DjLuVvY]

:bow:

Big Brother, high rating crap television program has been brought to task by the television regulations authority over a couple of incidences on their uncut episodes.


:bow:

[gymboxer]

and what is it that makes you so happy? Is it that BB gets criticised in any form (that is, the fact it is the Uncut content is immaterial), or specifically that it is the uncut material that got criticised?

If is happiness that BB got criticised and the form of the criticism is immaterial, then so be it - its just a general disliek of the program.

If, however, your glee is based on the specific content of Uncut, I would be interested to know why you, or anyone, is so happy about Uncut being the focus of complaint.

[DjLuVvY]

and what is it that makes you so happy? Is it that BB gets criticised in any form (that is, the fact it is the Uncut content is immaterial), or specifically that it is the uncut material that got criticised?

If is happiness that BB got criticised and the form of the criticism is immaterial, then so be it - its just a general disliek of the program.

If, however, your glee is based on the specific content of Uncut, I would be interested to know why you, or anyone, is so happy about Uncut being the focus of complaint.

It's the latter. I don't like BB in general, but that's a personal preference. However, I don't mind it being aired.

I hate uncut because I don't like such nudity and filth (languge and behaviour) being aired on television at such an early hour.

[reece_elite]

Dont watch it.

[gymboxer]

I think it raises interesting issues about what TV classifications are for. The classification as it stands comes in at 9pm, and my understanding is that there is no more restrictive classification.

BB never came on before 9.30, and the more 'exposing' material was aired later than that, on the few times I watched it . (I can't say with any certainty what time it was always aired.) So what time would be appropriate? And for what reasons would that that time be suitable?

As a point of contrast: I switched onto a channel sometime between 9 and 9/30 a few weeks ago and saw a man being repeated hit, blood all over him, and then he fell onto the concrete and went 'splat' when his head hit the ground. He was then dragged with very gratuitous squelching sounds, and a thick trail of blood left behind.

The classification allows this.

It makes me wonder what the fundamental principles underlying the classifications are. I cannot see the equivalence within the classifications between what is permitted within violence and what is permitted with regard to nudity.

(Please note I write this out of intellectual curiosity. I can appreciate that some may well be offended by BB, and respect this position. My interest is more in the issue of classifications at this point.)

[DjLuVvY]

Dont watch it.

Yup I don't. But my 12 year old cousin could very well be flipping through the channels when BB is showing people playing with their penises or talking about d*cks and p*ssies.

[SPOKEYDOKEY]

I think it raises interesting issues about what TV classifications are for.

...

My interest is more in the issue of classifications at this point.)

same, as far as i know the television industry is self-regulated, with an authority that has no power to do anything but say 'don't do that'. pretty piss weak and allows for all manner of dreadfulness on television.

hence why i don't watch too much of it, there are far better things to do in life ;)

[DjLuVvY]

I think it raises interesting issues about what TV classifications are for. The classification as it stands comes in at 9pm, and my understanding is that there is no more restrictive classification.

BB never came on before 9.30, and the more 'exposing' material was aired later than that, on the few times I watched it . (I can't say with any certainty what time it was always aired.) So what time would be appropriate? And for what reasons would that that time be suitable?


I think BB uncut should be pushed till later on in the evening so only people really wanting to watch it will stay up and watch it, or record it to watch it later. I don't think 9.30pm is an appropriate time to air it. What is an appropriate time? I don't know, maybe 11.30pm.



As a point of contrast: I switched onto a channel sometime between 9 and 9/30 a few weeks ago and saw a man being repeated hit, blood all over him, and then he fell onto the concrete and went 'splat' when his head hit the ground. He was then dragged with very gratuitous squelching sounds, and a thick trail of blood left behind.

The classification allows this.

It makes me wonder what the fundamental principles underlying the classifications are. I cannot see the equivalence within the classifications between what is permitted within violence and what is permitted with regard to nudity.



Hmm interesting. Classification is such a subjective thing so not everyone will agree on one single classification for a program anyway.
But they could always push programs that *could* offend people, or those not suitable for kids into a later time slot.

[Taxman]

Yup I don't. But my 12 year old cousin could very well be flipping through the channels when BB is showing people playing with their penises or talking about d*cks and p*ssies.
Maybe your uncle and aunt should do a bit of parenting and
a) Get their 12 y.o into bed at an appropriate hour.
b) Hang on to the remote.

Besides, if your 12 y.o cousin is a boy, pretty soon he'll be playing with his penis all day regardless.

[redambition]

Yup I don't. But my 12 year old cousin could very well be flipping through the channels when BB is showing people playing with their penises or talking about d*cks and p*ssies.

i'm sorry, the television and the television networks are not your cousin's parents. it's not their job to restrict his viewing and ensure that he only sees suitable material.

it's just another excuse for parents who cbf taking responsibility and imposing boundaries on their children.

personally, i'd be concerned if i had a 12 year old and they were watching tv at 9.30pm. i don't know of a single show that's suitable for a 12 year old on at that time. another thing is - i would be more concerned with my child seeing violence on televison every 5 minutes rather than them catching a passing glimpse at someone's body while flicking channels.

[Geezah]

As a point of contrast: I switched onto a channel sometime between 9 and 9/30 a few weeks ago and saw a man being repeated hit, blood all over him, and then he fell onto the concrete and went 'splat' when his head hit the ground. He was then dragged with very gratuitous squelching sounds, and a thick trail of blood left behind.

I think the difference is that one is simulated, however real it may seem, and one is in fact real. I think that may be the consideration taken with regards to classification.

[DjLuVvY]

i'm sorry, the television and the television networks are not your cousin's parents. it's not their job to restrict his viewing and ensure that he only sees suitable material.

it's just another excuse for parents who cbf taking responsibility and imposing boundaries on their children.

personally, i'd be concerned if i had a 12 year old and they were watching tv at 9.30pm. i don't know of a single show that's suitable for a 12 year old on at that time. another thing is - i would be more concerned with my child seeing violence on televison every 5 minutes rather than them catching a passing glimpse at someone's body while flicking channels.

My 12 year old cousin was just an example to try and express my point quickly. It was a bad example, so here are some facts for you.

According to the article, BB uncut exceeded the MA classification. Which means, it's contents were not suitable to be aired at 9pm, and/or not suitable for people under 15 yrs. Why? Because a male contestant exposed his penis behind a female contestant and at another instance a song was televised with references to sexually degrading behaviour.

Hence my reasons for saying it is inappropriate to televise such 'nudity' and 'filth' at 9pm. If BB uncut in future conforms to MA guidelines, I would still personally prefer it (and all other MA programs) to be televised at a slightly later time slot. This is because what one person considers MA may mean something more, for someone more conservative.

[redambition]

My 12 year old cousin was just an example to try and express my point quickly. It was a bad example, so here are some facts for you.

According to the article, BB uncut exceeded the MA classification. Which means, it's contents were not suitable to be aired at 9pm, and/or not suitable for people under 15 yrs. Why? Because a male contestant exposed his penis behind a female contestant and at another instance a song was televised with references to sexually degrading behaviour.

Hence my reasons for saying it is inappropriate to televise such 'nudity' and 'filth' at 9pm. If BB uncut in future conforms to MA guidelines, I would still personally prefer it (and all other MA programs) to be televised at a slightly later time slot. This is because what one person considers MA may mean something more, for someone more conservative.

firstly, bb uncut started at 9.30pm ;) once again i reiterate: if there are kids under 15 watching tv at this hour it's the parents who should be taking responsibility, not the television networks. if it's the adults who are offended, well, i'm sure there are other channels.

secondly, there was a warning before the show started about what it might contain and the host (gretel) would always warn the viewer of what was going to be shown. it's not like it was flashed up on the screen without warning - you had a chance to turn it off or change the channel if you thought you might find it offensive.

thirdly, they would always save the more "hardcore" pictures (you know, the shower shots etc) for the end of the show. this would mean that the viewer would have to sit through the entire show watching things go downhill and being told repeatedly what was coming up.

if they're still watching when a penis or boobies finally appear on the screen then it's their own fault.

this is what i don't understand: people complain about these things being on television even when they are classified correctly.. well, no one is forcing you to watch them. I'm no fan of BB, but i did see a few of the BB Uncut shows. the housemates did disgust me with some of their behaviour, but i don't blame channel ten for putting it on. when i decided i'd had enough, i picked up the remote and clicked it off. simple.

fair enough, they might have to give the show a stronger rating (I can't remember if it was classified M or MA) but i can guarantee you that won't stop the complaints. some people aren't happy unless our world is censored for them so that they don't have to make the decision for themselves.

another thing as well - the MA classification is the first restricted classification. if something is rated MA then it means that no one under 15 is meant to watch it unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. food for thought... violent MA movies are able to be shown at 9.30 pm, so what's the fuss over a bit of nudity?

[phunkdust]

werd red

[DjLuVvY]

firstly, bb uncut started at 9.30pm ;) once again i reiterate: if there are kids under 15 watching tv at this hour it's the parents who should be taking responsibility, not the television networks. if it's the adults who are offended, well, i'm sure there are other channels.

secondly, there was a warning before the show started about what it might contain and the host (gretel) would always warn the viewer of what was going to be shown. it's not like it was flashed up on the screen without warning - you had a chance to turn it off or change the channel if you thought you might find it offensive.

thirdly, they would always save the more "hardcore" pictures (you know, the shower shots etc) for the end of the show. this would mean that the viewer would have to sit through the entire show watching things go downhill and being told repeatedly what was coming up.

if they're still watching when a penis or boobies finally appear on the screen then it's their own fault.

this is what i don't understand: people complain about these things being on television even when they are classified correctly.. well, no one is forcing you to watch them. I'm no fan of BB, but i did see a few of the BB Uncut shows. the housemates did disgust me with some of their behaviour, but i don't blame channel ten for putting it on. when i decided i'd had enough, i picked up the remote and clicked it off. simple.

fair enough, they might have to give the show a stronger rating (I can't remember if it was classified M or MA) but i can guarantee you that won't stop the complaints. some people aren't happy unless our world is censored for them so that they don't have to make the decision for themselves.

another thing as well - the MA classification is the first restricted classification. if something is rated MA then it means that no one under 15 is meant to watch it unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. food for thought... violent MA movies are able to be shown at 9.30 pm, so what's the fuss over a bit of nudity?

How difficult is it to understand; people complained about the extent of nudity and filth (for a show starting after 9pm that is said to be suitable for 15+), and the people were right -- BB uncut did breach the MA code. This means penises and such filthy language is not suitable to be aired at that time and/or not suitable for a 15+ audience, which I agree with.

I'm glad BB uncut has been taken seriously.

I personally prefer if such shows(MA, or maybe those on the borderline of MA and something higher) were pushed till later, so that similar cases don't arise too often.

Simple :)

[SPOKEYDOKEY]

How difficult is it to understand; people complained about the extent of nudity and filth (for a show starting after 9pm that is said to be suitable for 15+), and the people were right -- BB uncut did breach the MA code.

I'm glad BB uncut has been taken seriously.



:lol: yes, they have been taken incredibly seriously..........:lol: :lol:

and i am quite certain they are shaking in their boots over their punishment...oops, that's right, there's no body able to punish them in any meaningful way?

ah well, let's look forward to big brother 2006 'braincut' where they'll be viewing on live television for the very first time a human being without a brain....oh yeah, the rugby league's been doing that for years now

[gymboxer]

Yes - the complaint has been upheld, which means BB Uncut has been found to have broken the classification (on two occassions) as it stands.

I personally think the classifications suck (my intellectual word for the day) as I cannot see a consistent underlying principle that ties it all together. It looks to me, and I am happy, delighted even, to be shown where i am wrong, but violence and nudity appear to be treated very differently, where nudity is treated much more restrictively than is violence.

I do wonder what the basis of this is? I suspect it is ultimately driven by religious prudery re nudity, and the obsession with sex becomes self-reinforcing. Seeing a penis is not harmful in itself - but tell people often enough that they have been harmed by seeing one and they might well be harmed.

Real vs simulated is an interesting point - it implies that a real penis is more dangerous? more something anyway, than implied explicit violence.

I guess I am still seeking the primary principle(s) guiding this...if they exist.

The 'protection' of children argument is an abrogation of parental responsibilty (after we 'agree' on an appropriate time after which things can be shown).

[redambition]

How difficult is it to understand; people complained about the extent of nudity and filth (for a show starting after 9pm that is said to be suitable for 15+), and the people were right -- BB uncut did breach the MA code. This means penises and such filthy language is not suitable to be aired at that time and/or not suitable for a 15+ audience, which I agree with.

I'm glad BB uncut has been taken seriously.

I personally prefer if such shows (MA, or maybe those on the borderline of MA and something higher) were pushed till later, so that similar cases don't arise too often.

Simple :)

the thing is - the entire show did not breach the guidelines - there were a couple of incidences within the show that did. i have no problem with the BB team and the network being penalised for the bits that did in fact breach the guidelines - as this applies to any tv show and movie that's classified. they try and push the envelope, they get slapped. (the issue that arises here is that TV classifcations aren't all that set in stone - they are more of a guide rather than law.)

the problem is that people have fixated themselves on these few incidences that did breach the guidelines and as such are arguing that the show in it's entirety is not suitable for anyone to view. that is simply not true - there was plenty of material in the series that fit perfectly within the classification guidelines. i understand that the content may offend some people, but by the same token there are people out there who want to watch it and who aren't offended. it's a two way street and that's why the program is rated so strongly and why there are warnings slapped on all the way through it... so that the viewer is aware of what they are watching, and so that they have a chance to switch it off.

side point - the 6pm news. how many graphic real-life images are shown on that, yet the news essentially has a G rating. i know that most families would have the kids in the same room while the news is on. (fair enough, it's information, but if a child sees someone staggering out of a bomb blast, how does that affect them? how do you explain to them that it's not a joke, or someone being silly, or a made up story, but that it's real and that there are people out there who think that killing and hurting others is ok? at least if they catch part of an inappropriate movie you can explain that it's just a story and no one was hurt.)

i can also understand that you'd prefer MA programs to be put on even later than the current 9.30pm timeslot - i've seen some MA things on tv at that time that i often wish weren't on, but where do we draw the line? do we make it 10.30pm, 11.30pm? the point being that there is no "cut off" time that guaruntees that all the children are in bed and that the easily offended have switched off the tv. it's a tough situation for the networks (and also the viewers).

for my personal opinion: i think that as long as shows carry ratings (and the content warnings that go along with them), then it's up to the viewer to decide whether it's something suitable for them to watch. if you hate sex on tv (like my mother) and you watch a movie that contains the "sex scene" warning, then you've only yourself to blame when you find yourself disgusted or offended. if part of a show breaches a guideline, then fair enough, they'll get fined (or whatever it is), but it's no reason to cut the show off completely unless they deliberately and constantly ignore the rules.

i love a meaty debate on a sunday morning :)

[dial_69_4_keith]

if it wasnt for BB uncut hundreds of 14 year old boys would be rubbing one out over a best and less catalogue.

[phunkdust]

What's Cartman's line from southpark? Something along the lines of - you can see wars, stabbings, shootings, etc on tv but as soon as you see a nipple it's all over.

[Bracko]

One of the Frontline episodes gives a perfect example of how they get around complaints showing how the procedure is so long winded that at almost every step they get a large proportion of complainants not bothering anymore.

damn good eposide that one...

RIP frontline.

I've got the scripts and most of the series on video :thumb:

[DjLuVvY]

the thing is - the entire show did not breach the guidelines - there were a couple of incidences within the show that did. i have no problem with the BB team and the network being penalised for the bits that did in fact breach the guidelines - as this applies to any tv show and movie that's classified. they try and push the envelope, they get slapped. (the issue that arises here is that TV classifcations aren't all that set in stone - they are more of a guide rather than law.)


Fair enough, I'm satisfied if they don't show such offensive (for many, although I don't personally mind seeing a penis or boob here and there) material in future. Although personally, I'd be happier if...


the problem is that people have fixated themselves on these few incidences that did breach the guidelines and as such are arguing that the show in it's entirety is not suitable for anyone to view. that is simply not true - there was plenty of material in the series that fit perfectly within the classification guidelines. i understand that the content may offend some people, but by the same token there are people out there who want to watch it and who aren't offended. it's a two way street and that's why the program is rated so strongly and why there are warnings slapped on all the way through it... so that the viewer is aware of what they are watching, and so that they have a chance to switch it off.


True. But like I said, I have nothing against BB, just BB uncut for what they had shown. True that it's a two way street, but I personally think it's a better compromise if we avoid offending people, for the price of making it slightly more inconvenient for people who want to watch the show, by pushing the show to a bit later on in the evening. I doubt the extra inconvenience is going to cause as much trouble as offending people.


side point - the 6pm news. how many graphic real-life images are shown on that, yet the news essentially has a G rating. i know that most families would have the kids in the same room while the news is on. (fair enough, it's information, but if a child sees someone staggering out of a bomb blast, how does that affect them? how do you explain to them that it's not a joke, or someone being silly, or a made up story, but that it's real and that there are people out there who think that killing and hurting others is ok? at least if they catch part of an inappropriate movie you can explain that it's just a story and no one was hurt.)


Fair enough.


i can also understand that you'd prefer MA programs to be put on even later than the current 9.30pm timeslot - i've seen some MA things on tv at that time that i often wish weren't on, but where do we draw the line? do we make it 10.30pm, 11.30pm? the point being that there is no "cut off" time that guaruntees that all the children are in bed and that the easily offended have switched off the tv. it's a tough situation for the networks (and also the viewers).

No there is no "cut-off" time that suits everyone, but if we have a "MA program time" starting at (say) 10.30pm, people won't watch after 10.30pm if they don't want to. Personally I think 9.30pm is too early.


for my personal opinion: i think that as long as shows carry ratings (and the content warnings that go along with them), then it's up to the viewer to decide whether it's something suitable for them to watch. if you hate sex on tv (like my mother) and you watch a movie that contains the "sex scene" warning, then you've only yourself to blame when you find yourself disgusted or offended. if part of a show breaches a guideline, then fair enough, they'll get fined (or whatever it is), but it's no reason to cut the show off completely unless they deliberately and constantly ignore the rules.


Well that pretty much sums it up. BB did not abide by the MA restriction and I'm glad they were taken seriously (regardless of what "seriously" means these days :)) However, I don't wish that the show be taken off.

Regarding the program classifications: Sure they help people decide what they should watch and what they shouldn't, but moving MA shows to a bit later in the evening gives people a peace of mind, that they can flip through the channels without having to see penis, and that their kids don't get exposed to offensive material, till (say) 10.30pm.


i love a meaty debate on a sunday morning :)

Better than cleaning for sure. Be back after lunch ;)