★★★★★ 0/5

Californication breaches Code. Again.

Two 'MA' rated eps failed to carry correct consumer advice on the content of the show.

20
Leave a comment

duchovnyCalifornication has got TEN into trouble again.

This time it’s for failing to provide correct consumer advice for two episodes in Adelaide. Given it was the second series in 2008, and the show had already attracted much scrutiny, this actually seems rather hard to believe.

Previous breaches have been over incorrect classification.

Despite these episodes being correctly classified MA they were not accompanied by adequate written advice as to the nature of the content, required under the Code.

As a result the Australian Communications and Media Authority has found that Network TEN Adelaide breached the consumer advice provisions of Code of Practice (the code) in relation to broadcasts of the program Californication.

The relevant eps were episode 8 (broadcast on 23 November 2008) and episode 10 of the second series (broadcast on 7 December 2008). Both were broadcast at 10:40pm. The first ep was found not to have warned of the content in enough detail as to match the classification.

“Relevant consumer advice is vital in assisting viewers to make an informed choice about the programs they and their families watch”, said Chris Chapman, Chairman of the ACMA. “It is important that licensees provide accurate consumer advice, particularly for programs classified MA which are considered suitable for viewing only by persons aged 15 years or over.”

TEN has now implemented additional consumer advice training for its staff and ‘system improvements’.

ACMA says it would consider stronger remedial action should a further breach of this nature occur by TEN. Of course.

Source: ACMA

20 Responses

  1. What’s next? Cigarette packets naming every single possible health problem that may arise from smoking? You know it’s bad….make your judgements from that.

  2. Well the name “Californication” should say it all. Hello!!! If you are offended easy, dont watch. By the way why is it ok to show someone being shot but a “natural” thing like sex is not. I know which I would rather watch.

  4. @ Evil

    Those two decisions had nothing to do with “incomplete” consumer advice.

    A “home affairs” member complained about Charlie Wilson’s War over a scene of brief breast nudity (incidentally, breast nudity is permitted under PG guidelines), and the additional consumer advice of “partial nudity” was subsequently added by the Review Board. Ordinarily, it shouldn’t have been mentioned at all.

    Also, Friday the 13th was appealed by the studio as they wanted an MA15+ classification. The appeal failed, and the movie retained its R18+ classification for violence and sex scenes (however the review board noted that the sex scenes could have been accomodated under the MA15+ classification).

  5. You claim that ‘ACMA has very clear guidelines about content and classification’. Where are these guidelines? They are certainly not contained within the code itself, because it is a highly ambiguous document. All such codes are highly ambiguous, and mean very little until a sufficient degree of precedence has been built up. For example, every decision the Classification Board makes sets an official precedence. Their code has been tried and tested, and so whilst the text is highly ambiguous, the legal precedence behind it is not.

    The network classifiers do not have such a vast array of officially validated information to base their decisions upon. ACMA’s President Chris Chapman acknowledged the importance of precedence in the media release concerning the series 1 breach:

    “The publication of breach findings over time serves to inform all commercial broadcasting licensees – not only those to whom the breach findings relate – and the community, about the types of program material that are considered appropriate for the classifications contained in the code.”

    Also, your argument that TV is a different medium to film sidesteps the fact that films broadcast on free-to-air commercial television are not required to abide by the same code, nor are programs broadcast on ABC or SBS. It’s all just bureaucratic nonsense which prevents the commercial networks from being able to properly service the demands of their audience, the vast majority of whom are not children or fundamentalist Christians.

    1. Far be it for me to defend ACMA. I’m not suggesting I agree with the state of play. But again there’s currently little point in discussing OFLC standards for an ACMA breach. Discussions about future change are entirely valid but as they say “that’s another story.”

  7. David, you can’t draw parallels between these breaches and the breach which occurred during season 1. The season 1 breach was a classification issue, and something which was handled via the classification department. These season 2 breaches have occurred as a result of human error further along the line. Therefore, whilst they have effected the same program, they are completely unrelated.

    What’s more, ACMA were right in not taking action against Ten in both instances. With regard to the season 1 episode, Ten did everything they thought ACMA would require of them. Classification is a guessing game for the commercial networks, because the code they are forced to comply with is far more restrictive than the Classification Board’s code. Therefore, the only real source of information they have to draw on regarding what is permitted under the code are previous rulings made by ACMA. For instance, the code specifies that sexual activity must be discreetly implied at MA level, but how should one interpret the word “discreetly”? The networks classifiers can’t simply put on a DVD and use that as a benchmark, because they operate under another, more liberal code.

    So as you can see, under the current system nobody knows the rules unless they break them, or unless ACMA provides detailed information regarding a complaint. Things would be a lot more effective if ACMA simply brought the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice into line with the codes already used for the classification of films, DVD’s, computer games, as well as programs broadcast on ABC and SBS, and film’s broadcast on channels 7, 9 and 10. Let’s just hope that the networks raise this issue via Free TV Australia when the code comes up for review (next year, I believe).

    1. No, not drawing parallels at all and I agree the breaches are based on different issues. But Californication was under such scrutiny, I’m surprised they slipped up by not listing correct consumer info.

      ACMA has very clear guidelines about content and classification and the network classifier has enough experience to know what scenes warrant relevant consumer advice, which clearly wasn’t attached to the broadcast. Again, given Californication’s history it’s pretty poor that they slipped up. They knew they would be watched like a hawk by conservatives.

      There are reasons why ACMA classifications differ from OFLC, and it is partly to do with access. Agreeing to buy a ticket at a cinema is very different to a child walking into a room at home or in a public venue and seeing adult content.

  8. Yet the OFLC provide incomplete consumer advice all the time and get away with it.

    In fact, twice this year — Charlie Wilson’s War and Friday The 13th both had their consumer advice “strengthened” at the review board stage.

  13. typical that the complaint should come from Adelaide. Complain for the sake of complaining. The person who made the complaint probably didn’t even watch the show!

  14. I’ve noticed that two MA episodes were devoid of any consumer advice, however, I figured that the MA rating was purely a formality (as is the case with a lot of crime/drama programmes, which are rated M by default regardless of the episode’s content).

    I found it bizarre that there were some episodes rated MA without any consumer advice since the code of practice specifically stresses that programmes rated MA or AV must contain a warning prior to broadcast, however, there were some episodes, particularly in the latter half of the season, that could easily have slid past with an M rating. I can’t vouch for episode 8 though, since I’m pretty sure that particular episode was deserving of an MA, with episode 10 deserving an M.

    Ten should just scrap their plans for additional training and just hire me. I can take on the ACMA. 😛

    @ Matt

    Californication Season 2 will be released on DVD on August 20th.

  16. I think it’s fair to assume that the show is being watched very closely by the pro-censorship religious nuts who were so outraged by the pilot episode. I’d bet dollars to donuts they’re the ones making the complaints to ACMA.

  18. On at 10:40? Seems more like a “parents need to control the kids’ TV watching habits” issue to me, and they’re just looking for someone to dump the blame on.

    And yeah, I agree David, it is hard to believe. You’d think people would’ve realised what it is, and the nature of the show, by now.

    Christ, I think when Ten starts airing it again they should just have a 5 minute long classification warning, listing every warning possible…

Leave a Reply