An Urgent Postscript: The Proliferation of Commercial Advertising 
in Non-Commercial Australian Television (With Special Reference to SBS)*

	On the 2 June 2006 the media ran a number of stories on the introduction of commercials within programs on SBS. This station currently operates, I believe, on about 85 million dollars a year and is hoping to raise an additional 10 million through this extended use of advertising. Here we have, again, an example of proliferation! An erosion of both cultural standards and our time, at our expense, and, at the expense of the quality of cultural expression in general. Indeed, I would argue that a variety of proliferational agenda are in evidence if we were to examine this example more closely. In this postscript let me look at this particular topic from a selective mix of theoretical, practical and critical points of view. (1)

	From a theoretical point of view let me ask “just what forms of proliferation are present in this instance?” For a start we see the creeping, insidious spread of a commercialism seeping through our culture, in all its multicultural complexity and cultural plurality. In this a particular style of ethos is being promoted through a set of ethical imperatives centered in a set of commercial imperatives (concerned with the maximization of commercial profit, etc.) without appropriate checks and balances. Our overall culture is being driven by these new centers of power based upon such short-sighted commercial aspirations. As a result our overall culture is being distorted, a distortion that is accelerated through the proliferation of commercials and their proliferated means of re-iteration. A sense of distortion that cannot be directed so much at any one source of such an influence but more to the collection of sources as an emergent force. To illustrate this point I am reminded of the fact that a certain country, in the recent past, asked its overseas business representatives to be a little less ruthless in the negotiation of future contracts with smaller countries on the grounds that the collective efforts of such people were giving that particular country a bad name that, in turn, was operating against its overall commercial interests. A similar shift in ethos is operating not so much from the site of each commercial as it is disseminated but by the accumulated consequences that emerge from the nature and manner of their collective reiteration. Hence this critical point of view that believes such collective anti-cultural/contra-cultural dissemination should be checked and better re-directed before we further suffer the consequences of these adverse forms of cultural subversion. Should we always “reward ourselves” at the expense of others, contribute to greenhouse emissions beyond what is socially acceptable, benefit at the expense of future generations, etc., etc! (2)

	Now, the question was asked “what forms of proliferation are possibly present in this instance?” Besides this creeping commercialism of our society there is the breaking of aesthetic standards. The unity of works of art should not be disrupted by the intrusion of texts that don’t belong to such a time of aesthetic review! Basically, I believe such intrusions are just bad form, bad manners, and how can we expect future generations to not

*	Latest version of this paper, and the paper on proliferation, can be found on my homepage:www.homestead.com/noelshomepage/noelshomepage3.html  

interrupt inappropriately if this practice is not seen for what it is, namely, a gross form of rudeness. Now, commercial broadcasting, it could be argued, is contracted on that premise that such intrusions will be advanced in the course of programming. But, in our watching of non-commercial programming that contract is not there (and we should question its legality in that light). The state, from taxes, basically subsidizes the operations of non-commercial broadcasting. In this regard, the state should honour its obligations and expectations! Furthermore, we must ask why does SBS, e.g., desire more money when it appears to be successfully operating on the budget it already has? Is there an agendum of proliferation here too? Do we need more programming? If the answer is “yes” then perhaps certain economies should be introduced. Moreover, the government should honour such expectations especially in the light of the fact that we have just had the largest budget surplus in our history, approximately equivalent to the gross national product of a country like Syria. In the light of the fact that we no longer supply ‘free education’ on a tertiary level, etc., then, perhaps, we could afford a little extra on our broadcasting if only to keep up with increasing costs?! However, I don’t feel the proliferation of a possible empire building at SBS need be automatically funded. As always a balance should be realized, although, I more suspect, the government for the last decade has taken a very myopic point of view about the quality of life in Australia and the ways and means its promotion can take a more ‘spiritual’ point of view. By ‘spiritual’ is simply meant an approach that operates from the ‘integrity of a person or community’ and the means available to augment that sense of ‘integrity’. (3)

	Now, what practical points of view are there that can be adopted in our examination and rectification of this type of invidious commercial proliferation as it is allowed to invade into the psychic heartland of the cultural psyche? As noted in the previous paper on proliferation, proliferation, as in the amelioration of noise pollution, is best addressed at the source of the noise pollution. Hence an emphasis upon de-proliferation at the source as all else can only be a counter-proliferation through retrospective forms of addressing the issues to hand. These sorts of issues in Radio and television programs, by their linear nature through time, are best addressed at the source. These forms of proliferation are best addressed, therefore, by political pressure in such a form that sees this form of commercial proliferation not being allowed to rudely intrude into the integrity of programming (given, it could be argued, that there is no ‘contract’ for it in the first place). Hence, if other people feel that this controversial issue should be addressed, before all public forms of communication are controlled and overseen by this rampant commercialism and all its negative consequences, then let us promote those forms of political pressure that ensure that this direction in cultural manipulation is actually checked and not accelerated. How might this platform be formulated? In this open forum perhaps we might like to formulate a plan of action that addresses this very instance of proliferation? In this regard, let me make a few suggestions to begin with. (4)

	First, our motivation should be well-grounded. What exactly are our reasons for supporting this platform, or, would we prefer to support a further extension of a commercialist ethos into our so-called non-commercial broadcasting? Second, what practical measures could be adopted to disseminate the existence of our platform and promote the nature of that platform. Third, how might we formulate such a platform. Here are some tentative suggestions to debate: telephoning SBS to signal our displeasure before the advent of this new regime and during the execution of this new regime; letters to newspapers; email campaigns to political figures (and perhaps a ‘Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme-like scenario might’ eventuate at a political level with a 180 degree change in direction?); signal that SBS will not be watched in real-time by the use of podcasting, video-taping, DVD recording, by refusing to watch such programs along with a black-listing of all products/product-producers/services known to be disseminated by such advertising, etc. Now, let me ask for your suggestions in this regard. (5)

I am hopefully a successful stand can be made on this particular issue and this type of issue in general!! Proliferation is not bad in and of itself, however, unchecked proliferation is a waste of resources whether that be money, time and/or capital in some other form, etc. However, and let us be clear on this topic, all forms of directly instigated hyper-proliferation are always unfavourable for both the person and the community and will always come with a price to pay greater that immediacy of a more apparent price tag…! (6)

							      Noël Tointon, Sydney, 4.6.06.