Sir, - For his article entitled "Tobacco Bill may affect broadcasting" (Sport, March 1st), Johnny Watterson spoke to me and to a Department of Health official (unnamed, as usual). Readers who struggled to the end of the piece - principaly about tobacco ads and Formula One - must have been somewhat confused. The "official" supported his Department's assertion that there exists "new technology to blank out the names of tobacco products on cars". I maintained that such technology does not exist. Not only does it exist, the official repeated, but "it is used in other countries."
Mr Watterson chose not to enlighten his readers about which of these opposing statements is, in fact, correct, so maybe he should run another episode. He could start by asking the official to name the countries that allegedly are using this new technology. (The correct answer is "none".)
Next Mr Watterson might consult with Orad, Epsis or some other industry leader in virtual imaging about the limits of the existing technology in covering live events. Any one of them will tell him that in certain, limited circumstances the new gizmos can eliminate ads on fixed objects or stationary hoardings, or can superimpose different virtual images on them. But, pertinently, the technology cannot eliminate or replace advertising on randomly moving objects - such as racing cars!
Then he might ask Formula One Administration whether, if someone invented this magic machine, broadcasters would be permitted to use it to eliminate sponsors' signs from cars and perimeter boards. (This would not be a long conversation!)
In this he will find that FOA is no different from the GAA, the FAI, the IOC, the IRFU or indeed, any major sporting organisation. They are all funded, to some extent, by their sponsors/advertisers and are bound to protect their interests.
If the Government now considers incidental signage of tobacco manufacturers no longer acceptable, it should ban the broadcasts of all events that carry such signage. Presumably this ban would apply not just to RTE, but to all TV signals available in the State, and also be extended to newspapers such as The Irish Times, which published a picture of a Benson & Hedges car in the middle of Mr Watterson's article. Underneath it was a picture of Mika Hakkinen, with two more cigarette brands, Marlboro and West, clearly visible. (Your report of the Australian Grand Prix last Monday had an even higher-than-average tar content, containing brands in no fewer than seven pictures on one page!)
Like many bans, this one would not be universally popular. Some would consider it to be a brave move that would end the argument once and for all. The only difficulty is that the argument has so far been between passionate prohibitionists and spin-doctors from the tobacco industry. The public are largely ignored. Now, at last, the Government has piped up on our behalf, but instead of engaging in sensible debate, it threatens us with yet another ban, and bases its strategy on a piece of machinery that nobody has invented.
Obviously, publishers such as RTE and The Irish Times can argue that justification for continued coverage of Formula One resides in collective responsibility to assess its editorial context; or in continuing to trust the public's ability to distinguish between the ads and the events; or even in the public's right to decide the issue for themselves. This is a delicate, difficult argument and one that needs a much more informed and enlightened debate than the one you printed, featuring Johnny Watterson, me and "Deep Throat" from the Department of Health. - Yours, etc.,
Tim O'Connor, Group Head, TV Sport, RTE, Dublin 4.