“Some of our viewers could be offended” by any number of things that are aired every day without an eyelid being blinked. I’m offended by pretty much everything Andrew Bolt says on Insiders. I’m offended by Virginia Trioli talking about her sagging breasts before 7am. (28 November 2008: check the tape!) But I don’t see Dalton rushing to protect me.

I thought the ABC was for all Australians — even those grown-up enough to have an adult conversation about the advertising industry. Clearly not.

Mr Dalton, if you’re so worried about offending people, just commission endless series of Spicks and Specks and other mindless entertainment. Bah! ABC TV really is turning into an adult-minding service.

If the ABC says anything it will get slammed either by interest groups or in a senate hearing and needs to be careful about how it broadcasts.

Congrats to those involved for putting the add online and bringing the panel back for an indepth discussion.

I do not believe it was censorship, the add is available now… just how is that censored?

I’m glad ABC didn’t object to Zapruder creating a separate venue for viewing the ad. I think this approach might just have caused more discussion, with Aunty dodging the offense bullet. My opinion of the ABC has slid backwards though – banning the airing of the ad kind of says that they think their audience can’t handle this kind of debate, with these kind of delicate issues.

I don’t disagree that there MIGHT have been some strategy behind the censorship and subsequent posting on website.

For me the debate isn’t about the “effectiveness’ of the ad. We can debate every ad ever produced about that. There’s no right or wrong in opinions about an ad, except on the client’s scoreboard.

My question is censorship. The same thing we railed about regarding the proposed Internet Filter. (and yes I understand the diff btwn choosing to click on something online as opposed to viewing something on TV).

The 10 minute debate explaining the ad probably helped, but as a standalone piece it was nowhere near as effective as the work on racism that was shown in support of the strategy.

Why not show it on air? Perhaps ABC *were* showing an acute awareness of their audiences. By NOT showing it on air, they showed respect for those who may be offended, and by publishing it on the web they opened the door to those curious enough to check it out. And by shifting it to the web, it also opened the debate to a wider audience, rather than just the panel.

And, sneakily, this gives the Gruen producers a clear understanding of the power/potential of moving some of their programming towards the digital space. Very clever if you ask me.

BTW I think the website was set up by Gruen Transfer producers Zapruder’s Other Films, not the ABC.

The antiprejudice.net website DID have a comments section too (which I didnt see at first) and has received 500 comments thus far. Most I have read so far seem supportive of the ad and many question why it wasn’t aired.

Yes I know the danger of generalising and that’s why I pre-empted that comment, but nonetheless Gruen does pull a pretty well educated demo even though it is high rating. (Yes its possible to have both occasionally).

Most people I have shown the ad to thought it was good and very effective. They were confronted by it but understood it.

Why not show it on air, with a warning, then intelligently debate it?

I definitely agree about including a facility for viewer debate on the website.

As to censorship – isn’t it just a case of allowing the audience to opt-in? If you wanted to see it, you could. The only thing that could have been done better was to invite debate and conversation on the topic on their site (or via a Twitter style API).