I think I’ve been remarkably restrained about the royal wedding. But this seriously got me going tonight. Outright censorship of anything that might be a satirical take on an event which already has a surreal feel to it. And it’s not even censorship of our own TV. We don’t have anything like The Chaser in NZ because there’s no appetite to fund such local content.
The Chaser screens on ABC TV, is irreverant, pushes lots of boundaries and no doubt irritates a lot of people, including politicians. But it’s funny, relevant and takes the piss. Which is a healthy thing in a democracy.
But it doesn’t meet the standards of coverage of the royal wedding. Apparently. Whatever they are. What rubbish.
ABC forced to pull Chaser wedding coverage
Updated 1 hour 22 minutes ago
Cancelled: The Chaser team’s commentary was to offer viewers a satirical take on the royal wedding. (ABC: Dominic Knight)
Just two days before Prince William and Kate Middleton are due to tie the knot, ABC TV has been forced to cancel The Chaser’s one-off live coverage of the event due to what it says are restrictions imposed by the royal family.
The Chaser’s Royal Wedding Commentary was due to air on ABC2 from 7:00pm AEST on Friday, offering viewers a satirical take on the royal wedding.
But now the live special – promised to be “uninformed and unconstitutional” – has been reluctantly pulled due to restrictions imposed over the Easter break.
ABC TV was initially advised by the BBC, and subsequently by Associated Press Television News (APTN), there were no coverage restrictions that would prevent The Chaser’s wedding commentary.
But new conditions of use issued by APTN over the Easter break state footage cannot be used “in any drama, comedy, satirical or similar entertainment program or content”.
Monarchs have always have a stick up their arse about people laughing at them. That’s why they gave us lese majeste and sedition laws. But now, they just make themselves look even more ridiculous.
Time to declare a republic and be rid of bunch of censoring, anti-democratic inbreds already.
Disgraceful.
The royals have really shot themselves in the foot with this. Support for maintaining the monarchy has been growing in recent years in Australia with many young people apathetic about becoming a republic. Now, they’ve just pushed a whole new generation, the young forming the greatest fans of The Chaser, to republicanism. Well done.
Given recent news reported in the Sun of the bride having nightmares of being naked inside the church, one can only hope they have a page 3 display (while the bride is on her honeymoon) lined up for the weekend edition.
I’m not an expert on such things and don’t have time to check right now, but aren’t there usually clauses in most countries’ copyright law that would trump attempts to restrict satire through terms of use? Though perhaps it doesn’t apply so easily for more than short segments. Or am I just confusing American copyright law?
MikeM: Its not about copyright; its the broadcasting rights. Of course, once its been filmed, then people could always do a new commentary and upload it to YouTube or something. But that would be Caring Too Much.
The media in NZ have been going all out with saturation coverage of this event, even though a huge number of Kiwis are just not interested. I thought the corporate news mediaqwere just meant to follow commerical imperatives to cater to the interests of the public…. yeah right.
I saw some online polls (I think on TV One & TV3 sites, maybe for the main daily news papers), when the engagement was first announced. In spite of the fact that these polls most usually lean towards conservativism and/or the right, a big majority were not interested in the royal wedding.
But, in spite of this, the mainstream news media persisted in giving major coverage to the wedding, and, it looks like its had a bit of an impact in increasing the interest…. yesterday an online Stuff poll was running about 50/50 for an against being interested in watching the wedding.
So interests is this media REALLY serving, and as confirmed by censoring the satire? Bread and Circuses?
There is huge irony in this post – given that this is one or the more censored political blogs in NZ.
Many comments are simply deleted, or edited out with some snide comment stating that it’s not appropriate or being called a troll.
Generally this happens when pointing out anything that you folk dont like or want to forget, or simply is uncomfortable for you.
Perhaps you should look in your own back yard before throwing rocks at others and yelling censorship.
Since the live feed of teh wedding will cost 10s of millions to produce but is given gratis to TV channels to run ( will they fill it with ads ? you bet) why shouldnt they restrict its ‘secondary use’.
If you want to ‘send it all up’ hire your own extras and abbey and make your own show.
I think the same applies to any rugby match on TV, use it for ‘anti rugby’ purposes at your legal peril.
I take Idiot/Savant’s point, but I am not sure that the BBC monopoly is limited to live broadcasting rights… of course, the internet being what it is, there will be hundreds of alt.commentaries/hilarious-new-memes spawned from the event fairly quickly, I am sure.
Speaking of Caring Too Much, I think NZers would care more if they were getting a four day weekend out of it as those of us over here are. As one with republican inclinations living in London, who generally cringes at anything vaguely royal-family-oriented, it is hard not to be in favour of cheerful street parties on every housing estate (including my own), especially back-to-back with Easter.
Dare I say we could take it a little less seriously and save our disgust for the nacts?
personally I am much more offended by the police attempts to clear the peace camp and their promise of “robust” policing on the day. One council already banned a republican street party. What happened to freedom of expression?
Is it just me, or do others find is mildly offensive to hear Kate referred to as a ‘commoner’? As if she is ‘second class’ by birth, compared to William who must therefore be ‘first class’ by birth? And now she is to be upgraded to the status of a ‘first class’ human being by virtue of marriage to a ‘first class’ person? Something distateful about all that, to me anyway.
As Idiot/Savant says, expect You tube to become a hive of subversive satirical royal wedding stuff. The ability to suppress has been diminished so much in the last decade. As for the banning of the Chaser that will be a rallying call I imagine rather than a demolition.
@ Jennifer – Yep, that annoys me too. But it’s not like she’s on that much of a different social level to William – she’s hardly from a council estate or anything.
seems like just another convenient distraction to me. combine that with yet more run of the mill dumbing down of the fourth column output, and you have the perfect corporate scenario operating at peak efficiency….
is it just my impression, or is our news media becoming a repository for the dregs of journalistic society? populated by short sighted, shallow, self important nobodies with a streak of greed that makes them easy targets for the money?
can’t find any other explanation for the appalling quality of information being inflicted uppon us..
btw@chris….this post hasn’t anything to do with you. your personal problems are of no interest to anyone here. i personally appreciate the fact that a reasonable standard of debate is required on this site. we get enough self serving drivel written elsewhere.
I completely agree with Chris. This site deletes more comments and bans more users than any other online forum I have seen.
I’m sure deleting people’s comments, no matter how disagreeable, is just the same as silly royals not wanting people to make fun of them.
Mr Man – uh, no it’s not. You’re free to make all the fun of Labour and this blog. Outside the blog. But within the blog you need to obey their rules. Fair enough. Using your logic I should be able to go to the wedding and throw rotten veges at Wills and Kate. Clearly that’s ridiculous.
I love the irony of your comment Chris 8.06am
“There is huge irony in this post – given that this is one or the more censored political blogs in NZ.”
and Mr Man (4.11pm) who “completely agrees” with Chris saying:
“This site deletes more comments and bans more users than any other online forum I have seen.”
Censorship rules. Or does it? How come your comments made it through? And heaps of others on every post that attack labour’s policies and disagree strongly with many of us individually.
It may be bread and circuses, and the radicals might be incensed, but the truth of the matter is that lots of people, for whatever reason are interested in the wedding.
Royalty does still seem to have a strange hold over a wide cross section of society. When Prince William visited Sumner recently, for example, you couldn’t get one of HC’s pledge cards between him and the Labour MP for the Port Hills!
And as far as censorship ruling at Red Alert is concerned: All in all I think the MPs who run it allow a lot of flak from the other side. Although Trev can get out of bed the wrong side some days, and if that coincides with him being on duty more people than usual seem to end up on the naughty step. I’ve been genuinely baffled at how he can censor some of the things I’ve said whilst leaving other stuff up. But it’s your ball. You can pick it up and go home for a while if you choose to…
That was an awesome wedding!
!