Hmmm Media Watch is on hols ...

Earlier this week, (Tuesday IIRC, but it might have been Monday)
Channel Ten ran a stroy on iots 10.30 news about people paying $15 per
week to insure themselves against the costs of losing their licences
on points -- presumably you get the money needed to cover you for
taxis and so forth. There was mention of drivers losing points at the
burgeoning number of fixed camera locations and whether some just
thought this to be "revenue raising". At the end of the story, a web
address was offered for further information about the offer.

In short, the item had almost the exact structure of an infomercial.

This raises a couple of issues.

1. As I undersatnd it, commercial broadcasters are supposed to provide
clear separation between "program content" and advertising.
Admittedly, the infomercial format and cross-promotion of TV shows has
blurred this a bit, but it does strike me that this was one step
further.

2. One could argue that offering insurance to reduce the impact of
losing one's licence through points loss is whiteanting a system that
is intended to predispose restraint and ultimately greater safety on
the roads. This argument might, or might not, be persuasive, but the
mere fact that it was not even raised to be dismissed surely reflects
the reality that this story was in fact an infomercial. Ditto the
absence of any counterclaim that speed cameras were just 'revenue
raising'. Ironically, if one believed the story -- that the growth in
speed camera locations posed a threat to the interests of drivers that
could only be staunched by insurance, then the growth of speed cameras
would be actually good for business -- the insurance company and the
RTA and Channel Ten would be in a kind of symbiotic relationship. The
RTA 'raises revenue', Channel Ten gets an advertiser, and the
insurance company sells premiums.

Fran
.