Ben WhitcombWho Purveys Gratuitous Violence on the Gigglebox?
April 23rd 2008 23:05
SMACK! Biff! Bang! Crack! Kapow! No, this isn’t a remake of the 1960s camp version of Batman, it’s an ode to days gone by on the footy field – a time where lifting legs, a sleight of fist, or a good bare-knuckled brawl was interspersed with the odd try and hard-hitting tackles..
When former Newcastle Knight-turned-TV-personality Matty Johns’ alter-ego Reg Reagan called for rugby league to “bring back the biff”, I for one wasn’t unhappy. Not PC to say so, I know, but there’s nothing like a good stoush on the footy field to sort out the boys from the men, and, funny as it sounds, it’s a good way to settle a game down if things have started to get a bit niggly. Usually the two instigators of the brawl get 10 minutes in the sin bin, the other players take stock of the situation, and the game continues in a more conventional manner.
Yet, the Powers That Be that run all major sports in the world – whether it be football, cricket, rugby, basketball, as well as the minor sports such as rugby league and AFL – have decided that coming down hard on such infringements will clean up the game and all will be well. Their argument is a strong one. My little fellas both play football (that’s soccer to you heathens who misuse the correct term!) because my wife doesn’t want them to get hurt. Administrators of the more physically harder sports such as AFL, League and Union, know that a boy’s fledgling career is influenced by the kid’s mother. In my wife’s case, she believes when they hit their early teens they can make the decision for themselves, but until that time, it’s her call. This gives soccer a foot in the door, something that other codes realise is hurting their game.
One of the champions of the clean-up has been the media. Newspapers, radio stations and television newscasters, along with commentators of the game, have always had to be seen to do the right thing. League’s Phil Gould is one who breaks the mould by occasionally bringing up the “old days”, but his is a lone voice in the corridors of League headquarters or the games’ changing sheds.
Some of these media folks are also driven by those upstairs, not least because they have a vested interest – News Ltd has stakes in both Brisbane Broncos and Melbourne Storm – and if advertisers see dirt in the game being converted into rating points coming down, then TV stations see their bottom line starting to get hit. I am also sure there are those in the fourth estate who genuinely want the dirt out and would rather see a game settled within its rules.
So after this rant, what the hell is your point, you might ask. Well it’s this: I have no problem with a bit of fisticuffs on the field, but I do have an axe to grind when it comes to gratuitous violence. Granted, it can be a hard beast to define. At its most basic it is violence for the sake of violence. I don’t think footy field antics meet the criteria because most involved in such incidents rarely do it for the sake of it, and don’t really know a blue is on until the first punch is thrown. Television is a whole different kettle of fish. I’m sure I could easily show television programmes with graphic violence, and I could show you television programmes where violence is inferred, but never seen, but the outcome to the viewer is still the same. So is the former gratuitous? Dunno. That’s not even my point. Barry Hall is.
As anybody who follows AFL knows, Sydney Swan Barry Hall laid out Perth opponent Brent Staker with a left hook that would have done Mike Tyson proud. Even in slow motion Staker’s eyes took a sickly turn to the heavens the split second he was belted, and I’m sure his already scrambled brain was even sicklier after he hit the deck. Now, here is my problem. I have seen that incident literally 50 or 60 times. Why? Because they keep showing it on the news. Again, not a bad thing in itself. However, am I the only one who thinks that when watching the story on commercial news channels that seeing that hit no less than five or six times EACH time the story is shown, is being gratuitous? I think so. I’d go so far as to say it is irresponsible of the new’s producers to show the incident over and over again. It serves no purpose other than to sensationalise the story; it shows a man king hitting another man, and it shows the obvious distress such a hit can cause. It meets the definition of gratuitous and it’s hypocritical of current affair shows on those same channels that chastise others for doing the same. We only need one pic of the shot guys, anything else it trying to get at small grab at ratings. Worth it? I think not.
When former Newcastle Knight-turned-TV-personality Matty Johns’ alter-ego Reg Reagan called for rugby league to “bring back the biff”, I for one wasn’t unhappy. Not PC to say so, I know, but there’s nothing like a good stoush on the footy field to sort out the boys from the men, and, funny as it sounds, it’s a good way to settle a game down if things have started to get a bit niggly. Usually the two instigators of the brawl get 10 minutes in the sin bin, the other players take stock of the situation, and the game continues in a more conventional manner.
Barry Hall in full flight
Some of these media folks are also driven by those upstairs, not least because they have a vested interest – News Ltd has stakes in both Brisbane Broncos and Melbourne Storm – and if advertisers see dirt in the game being converted into rating points coming down, then TV stations see their bottom line starting to get hit. I am also sure there are those in the fourth estate who genuinely want the dirt out and would rather see a game settled within its rules.
So after this rant, what the hell is your point, you might ask. Well it’s this: I have no problem with a bit of fisticuffs on the field, but I do have an axe to grind when it comes to gratuitous violence. Granted, it can be a hard beast to define. At its most basic it is violence for the sake of violence. I don’t think footy field antics meet the criteria because most involved in such incidents rarely do it for the sake of it, and don’t really know a blue is on until the first punch is thrown. Television is a whole different kettle of fish. I’m sure I could easily show television programmes with graphic violence, and I could show you television programmes where violence is inferred, but never seen, but the outcome to the viewer is still the same. So is the former gratuitous? Dunno. That’s not even my point. Barry Hall is.
Barry Hall in full fight
| 94 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
