Australian Idol & Current Affair Age discrimination story
Tue, 31 Aug 2004, 01:43 pmWalter Plinge14 posts in thread
Australian Idol & Current Affair Age discrimination story
Tue, 31 Aug 2004, 01:43 pmDo you think performers over the age of 28year olds should apply?.
Did you see the 40's something chap on a current affair show not so long ago who's taking Grundy's (I think) to the courts for discrimination.
All I can say is GO FOR IT. There are plenty of talented performers out there who are in their late twenties, thirties and forties, plus.
When the reporter on the current affair started interviewing people on the street about their thoughts on the matter they simply replied anyone who wishes to apply should be given the chance. They even went on further to say age does not matter if your talented.
I hope this guy wins in court. Hopefully the rules will change for 2005. Stay tuned for the results, I hope there is no hush money involved.
Cheers
Smiles
JB
Did you see the 40's something chap on a current affair show not so long ago who's taking Grundy's (I think) to the courts for discrimination.
All I can say is GO FOR IT. There are plenty of talented performers out there who are in their late twenties, thirties and forties, plus.
When the reporter on the current affair started interviewing people on the street about their thoughts on the matter they simply replied anyone who wishes to apply should be given the chance. They even went on further to say age does not matter if your talented.
I hope this guy wins in court. Hopefully the rules will change for 2005. Stay tuned for the results, I hope there is no hush money involved.
Cheers
Smiles
JB
Re: Storm the Age
Fri, 3 Sept 2004, 05:34 amWalter Plinge
Crispian wrote:
>
> You can't wave the discrimination flag simply because they've
> limited the age group. Its like saying that I should be
> allowed to be a doctor because I genuinely want to help
> people even though I haven't been trained.
So the opportunity should be denied them outright? Are there no options available to someone with genuine ability?
Suppose you desperately want to be a doctor, but no univeristy wants to train you because they are being financially supported by a benefactor or sponsor (like McDonalds) who only wants young and sexy doctors asking them to turn their heads and cough.
If you think I'm exaggerating, think again. The way government is going (and has been going for some time - and globally at that), every facet of society is being forced to rationalise and find alternate means of financial support. When our own film industry is forced to offer the "Herald-Sun Best Actor Award", and the "KFC Best Cinematography Award"; when even the prestigious BAFTA Awards are forced into similar corporate toadying; when theatre and opera companies are being sponsored by corporations to the extent that publicity material is churned out declaring that "Volvo presents Bell Shakespeare", or "British Airways presents Opera Australia", etc.; we know that the playing field has changed.
I'm not suggesting that this is inherently corrupt or reeking of blatant corporate interference, but when we've come this far, how much of a push would it need?
> You have to understand the marketing strategies of television.
And WADR Crispian, you need to understand that your precious "marketing strategies" can and do have a very real impact on the careers and livelihoods of some very comptetent professionals who are simply trying to make a mark in an already incredibly competitive business.
:o)
dm.
>
> You can't wave the discrimination flag simply because they've
> limited the age group. Its like saying that I should be
> allowed to be a doctor because I genuinely want to help
> people even though I haven't been trained.
So the opportunity should be denied them outright? Are there no options available to someone with genuine ability?
Suppose you desperately want to be a doctor, but no univeristy wants to train you because they are being financially supported by a benefactor or sponsor (like McDonalds) who only wants young and sexy doctors asking them to turn their heads and cough.
If you think I'm exaggerating, think again. The way government is going (and has been going for some time - and globally at that), every facet of society is being forced to rationalise and find alternate means of financial support. When our own film industry is forced to offer the "Herald-Sun Best Actor Award", and the "KFC Best Cinematography Award"; when even the prestigious BAFTA Awards are forced into similar corporate toadying; when theatre and opera companies are being sponsored by corporations to the extent that publicity material is churned out declaring that "Volvo presents Bell Shakespeare", or "British Airways presents Opera Australia", etc.; we know that the playing field has changed.
I'm not suggesting that this is inherently corrupt or reeking of blatant corporate interference, but when we've come this far, how much of a push would it need?
> You have to understand the marketing strategies of television.
And WADR Crispian, you need to understand that your precious "marketing strategies" can and do have a very real impact on the careers and livelihoods of some very comptetent professionals who are simply trying to make a mark in an already incredibly competitive business.
:o)
dm.
- ···
- ···
- ···