Sports, sauce, and censorship
Oct. 21st, 2006 03:10 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
spiderbraids(A non-Winx topic I just have to get off my chest)
Where I live, a total ban on alcohol advertising (and promoting) will take effect on December 5. It's for the sake of public health by preventing people from drinking... so "they" say.
So what does this have anything to do with sports and censorship?
Well, alcohol companies sponsor lots of sports. Just ask the organizers of tournaments like the Johnnie Walker Classic. Originally scheduled for Thailand in March 07, South Korea will be hosting it instead. The ban's already claimed a victim, and it hasn't even started. Suddenly, Blue Canyon Resort is facing HUGE losses instead of profits. I mean, they've worked so hard to prepare for the event, and suddenly it's cancelled. You'd be pissed too!
And where does censorship come in, you ask? Well, football (US: soccer) is a super popular sport here (well, it is everywhere outside the US), and telecasts of European football matches are popular viewing. Just like in most American pro sports, the fields are surrounded with advertising boards. Often, there will be such boards that are liquor adverts. Also, while it may be a foreign (HEE!) concept to America, sports uniforms almost always have sponsor logos on them somewhere. Quite a few teams are sponsored by "the sauce"... right now, I'm watching the highlights of a match between Liverpool and Everton. Liverpool is sponsored by Carlsberg. Everton? Beer Chang (a Thai brand).
Imagine having to airbrush (or whatever) them out for the postgame analysis! Yet that's what the new law calls for. The new law will let them air live (if only because of practicalities), but not in the highlight reel. Absurd, no?
Here are a bunch of excerpts from the Bangkok Post about this ban.
October 14: "TV coverage of regular overseas football matches could pose a problem because there is no shortage of logos and advertising banners for beer and spirits. Trying to pixelate all that out on a TV screen, as is absurdly attempted with cigarettes, would be just another irritating exercise in futility, as well as ruining any enjoyment of the game."
(Yes, local TV does bowlderize ciggies. Absurd enough.)
October 21: "While live telecasts of overseas football matches will be spared, repeats or clips from the matches could be censored with all logos and advertising banners blacked out. Many people watch these repeats because live telecasts are often too late at night for fans who have to work the next day. Repeats of English games (especially Everton where players and banners actively promote Beer Chang), the 2008 Euro and 2010 World Cup and all international tournaments involving the Thai national team could be in jeopardy on local TV."
Exactly what I'm thinking! I've already seen what bowlderized sports highlights looks like. All that censorship is too distracting. (I've also seen sports uniforms get bowlderized as well.)
The Nation's even saying "ads for other products sharing the same trademark as alcoholic drinks would also be banned." That would really only affect two of the biggest brands here (they both also make plain soda water and plain water). Still, guilt by association, yes?
And the Post says that we need different methods anyway...
October 21: "None of the consequences of the ban would matter in the slightest if it had the remotest chance of weaning those most vulnerable off alcohol and saving lives. It would be a worthy sacrifice. We already know that alcohol abuse is a horribly real problem, fuelling domestic and street violence. It is responsible for much of the carnage on our roads, especially at Songkran. But instead of a well thought-out attempt to address the cause of the problem, there is just the illusion that something meaningful is being done. We already have a ban on TV advertising of alcohol before 10pm and if the authorities think this has little impact, what good can come of extending the ban to cover the hours when most people are asleep?
Same day, from the letters page: "It seems fairer to stick to laws that compel producers to warn people of the health risks. Something that is accepted by society and is practised all around us should also be realistically depicted on TV _ all this smudging out is an insult to viewers.
For better or worse, we are stuck with alcohol and cigarettes; in the right quantities they can be enjoyable, but irresponsible use can lead to both self and public harm. That is a law enforcement and social-behaviour issue.
Advertising encourages us to buy all sorts of things that we can do without, or could be harmful in some way. Some of them ought to come with warnings, but imagining that restricting access and advertising will solve the problem is naive."
The first step in reaching a solution is identifying the problem. And that is not social drinking in a Thong Lor pub or brand logos. What causes most consumers to lose control is the demon at the low end of the market called lao khao, or white spirit. It is at least 40 per cent alcohol by volume, absurdly cheap and totally lethal. Furthermore it is never advertised so the new round-the-clock advertising bans will have absolutely no effect on sales. Bottles of the brew are flying off shelves because it carries the lowest excise tax, although it contains the highest percentage of alcohol legally available. Beer, on the other hand, which many lao khao drinkers would prefer, attracts a huge tax rate so they cannot afford it.
This is a farcical situation that must be resolved to stop alcohol abuse. First we should lower alcohol levels and revamp the excise tax system so the lower the percentage of alcohol, the lower the tax. Educate youngsters to make them aware of the dangers. Let parents teach their children to develop a healthy respect for themselves, their religion and the law. Then impose tight controls on irresponsible drinkers and prosecute them when necessary, regardless of their connections, family name or bank balance. Laws already exist for this purpose so why not enforce them? We do not need any more."
For another look at the new booze ban, here's a link to a Google search for The Nation's articles on the ban.
So, whattaya think?
Where I live, a total ban on alcohol advertising (and promoting) will take effect on December 5. It's for the sake of public health by preventing people from drinking... so "they" say.
So what does this have anything to do with sports and censorship?
Well, alcohol companies sponsor lots of sports. Just ask the organizers of tournaments like the Johnnie Walker Classic. Originally scheduled for Thailand in March 07, South Korea will be hosting it instead. The ban's already claimed a victim, and it hasn't even started. Suddenly, Blue Canyon Resort is facing HUGE losses instead of profits. I mean, they've worked so hard to prepare for the event, and suddenly it's cancelled. You'd be pissed too!
And where does censorship come in, you ask? Well, football (US: soccer) is a super popular sport here (well, it is everywhere outside the US), and telecasts of European football matches are popular viewing. Just like in most American pro sports, the fields are surrounded with advertising boards. Often, there will be such boards that are liquor adverts. Also, while it may be a foreign (HEE!) concept to America, sports uniforms almost always have sponsor logos on them somewhere. Quite a few teams are sponsored by "the sauce"... right now, I'm watching the highlights of a match between Liverpool and Everton. Liverpool is sponsored by Carlsberg. Everton? Beer Chang (a Thai brand).
Imagine having to airbrush (or whatever) them out for the postgame analysis! Yet that's what the new law calls for. The new law will let them air live (if only because of practicalities), but not in the highlight reel. Absurd, no?
Here are a bunch of excerpts from the Bangkok Post about this ban.
October 14: "TV coverage of regular overseas football matches could pose a problem because there is no shortage of logos and advertising banners for beer and spirits. Trying to pixelate all that out on a TV screen, as is absurdly attempted with cigarettes, would be just another irritating exercise in futility, as well as ruining any enjoyment of the game."
(Yes, local TV does bowlderize ciggies. Absurd enough.)
October 21: "While live telecasts of overseas football matches will be spared, repeats or clips from the matches could be censored with all logos and advertising banners blacked out. Many people watch these repeats because live telecasts are often too late at night for fans who have to work the next day. Repeats of English games (especially Everton where players and banners actively promote Beer Chang), the 2008 Euro and 2010 World Cup and all international tournaments involving the Thai national team could be in jeopardy on local TV."
Exactly what I'm thinking! I've already seen what bowlderized sports highlights looks like. All that censorship is too distracting. (I've also seen sports uniforms get bowlderized as well.)
The Nation's even saying "ads for other products sharing the same trademark as alcoholic drinks would also be banned." That would really only affect two of the biggest brands here (they both also make plain soda water and plain water). Still, guilt by association, yes?
And the Post says that we need different methods anyway...
October 21: "None of the consequences of the ban would matter in the slightest if it had the remotest chance of weaning those most vulnerable off alcohol and saving lives. It would be a worthy sacrifice. We already know that alcohol abuse is a horribly real problem, fuelling domestic and street violence. It is responsible for much of the carnage on our roads, especially at Songkran. But instead of a well thought-out attempt to address the cause of the problem, there is just the illusion that something meaningful is being done. We already have a ban on TV advertising of alcohol before 10pm and if the authorities think this has little impact, what good can come of extending the ban to cover the hours when most people are asleep?
Same day, from the letters page: "It seems fairer to stick to laws that compel producers to warn people of the health risks. Something that is accepted by society and is practised all around us should also be realistically depicted on TV _ all this smudging out is an insult to viewers.
For better or worse, we are stuck with alcohol and cigarettes; in the right quantities they can be enjoyable, but irresponsible use can lead to both self and public harm. That is a law enforcement and social-behaviour issue.
Advertising encourages us to buy all sorts of things that we can do without, or could be harmful in some way. Some of them ought to come with warnings, but imagining that restricting access and advertising will solve the problem is naive."
The first step in reaching a solution is identifying the problem. And that is not social drinking in a Thong Lor pub or brand logos. What causes most consumers to lose control is the demon at the low end of the market called lao khao, or white spirit. It is at least 40 per cent alcohol by volume, absurdly cheap and totally lethal. Furthermore it is never advertised so the new round-the-clock advertising bans will have absolutely no effect on sales. Bottles of the brew are flying off shelves because it carries the lowest excise tax, although it contains the highest percentage of alcohol legally available. Beer, on the other hand, which many lao khao drinkers would prefer, attracts a huge tax rate so they cannot afford it.
This is a farcical situation that must be resolved to stop alcohol abuse. First we should lower alcohol levels and revamp the excise tax system so the lower the percentage of alcohol, the lower the tax. Educate youngsters to make them aware of the dangers. Let parents teach their children to develop a healthy respect for themselves, their religion and the law. Then impose tight controls on irresponsible drinkers and prosecute them when necessary, regardless of their connections, family name or bank balance. Laws already exist for this purpose so why not enforce them? We do not need any more."
For another look at the new booze ban, here's a link to a Google search for The Nation's articles on the ban.
So, whattaya think?
