In short:
Bill Shorten all but confirms to Q+A the federal government will reject calls from some in his party for a total ban on gambling advertising.
Ads during kids’ TV will be targeted but Mr Shorten says media companies need gambling [ad] revenue in a battle with social media giants.
What’s next?
- Cabinet is expected to sign off on legislation regulating gambling advertising on traditional and social media this week.
Related coverage:
- SBS: Former PMs, premiers and sportspeople demand Labor go all-in on gambling reform
- The Conversation: The gambling industry is pulling out all the stops to prevent an ad ban, but the evidence is against it
- The Conversation: Does free-to-air TV really need gambling ads to survive?
- [Satire] The Shovel: New hotline to help television networks addicted to gambling revenue
When we’re talking about ads and media, I highly recommend reading the relevant chapter in Manufacturing Consent (PDF version can easily be found for free online).
But really, intuition will get you the raw basics: using the ad revenue model gives the advertiser control over a media outlet. If media truly ‘need gambling ads’, then this implies they cannot afford to lose them. So, they therefore cannot offend the gambling industry or especially the companies advertising with them. And therefore, they are pressured into media bias, into failing to be critical of an obviously harmful, corrupt industry dealing in addiction manufacture AND laundering at the same time!
If you need to prey upon addiction to stay in business, then should you be in business?
Are these companies worth the suffering of vulnerable gamblers?
If they don’t say this they’ll get double the hit pieces. Labor should really stop trying to satisfy the press, they’ll never be happy
Pathetic.
Maybe I’m dumb but couldn’t other advertisers buy up those same slots instead? Gambling accounts may be big for the media companies but they’re not the only ones out there
If keeping these companies running is so important to public interest, why aren’t they receiving public funding rather than relying on money given to them by shady third parties with their own political interests?
I also fail to see how these particular networks owned by international multinational corporations are really any better than any other international multinational corporation like Meta. There is just as much misinformation on Channel 7, for example, as there is on Facebook, and the fact that often that misinformation is communicated as news, therefore making it seem more trustworthy, makes it a lot worse.
