Hey Dad! was an Australian sitcom, originally airing from 1987 to 1994 on the Seven Network, that was sold to over 20 countries worldwide. A significant portion of its international fanbase was in Germany. See the Wikipedia page for more information.

Millions of people have watched it, often for many episodes over many months, and from a psychological perspective one must assume that many adopted it as a role model of sorts for adult/child interaction. In simplistic (but sufficiently accurate) terms, it has long been established that the state of mind induced by weatching TV is one of passive acceptance, and many of those watching would have accepted the interactions and events as normal, wholesome, and worthy of emulation.

Recent events suggest that the roles so portrayed are those of a child predator and his knowing and willing victims. Do the producers and promoters of this series thereby incur any responsibility in the likely consequences of such persuasion?

Given what is known of the social persuasiveness of TV (do all those advertiseres REALLY spend money on ads that are NOT effective?) can this be construed as a deliberate attempt at manipulating the mass mind to engage in relationships that may ultimately fall foul of the law, for whatever reasons?

of course fans and producers share the guilt
but for their insatiable demand for cute..to sell transfats/lollies etc to future drunks and diabetics...there is plenty of blame to go arround..

but..who was hurt in this..not us complaining
giving him an easy out by media attention and worse opinonating beyond the facts..many led to this..likely beginning when the pervert was first also perverted..[one in 4 of us are..that less than one in 50 seek to repeat the peversion..and worse 20 inm 50 help copver it over

what would jesus say
he died for yoyur sins..go and sin no more
yes you were hurt..get over it..just dont repeat the perversion.

does not matter to the social engineers how perverted shows are. They are happy that the family unit is destroyed but will lobby hard to have MacDonalds ads banned. That allows them to feel 'morally' superior. Why do you think so many pollies bang on about fast food ads when morally their own lives are so corrupt?

Smythe, I watched the show, a long time ago. I would presume that anything deemed inappropriate about it is in the grey area of acceptability or concern, and in the light grey area at that. It did after all do very well in Australia and overseas.

It is certainly interesting though that Robert Hughes, star of ‘Hey Dad’, has been arrested in London for alleged sexual assaults on young girls:

http://www.news.com.au/national/aussie-arrested-in-london-over-sex-assaults/story-fndo4bst-1226446986905

However, that must surely be kept entirely separate from the producers of the show and the product that was viewed by millions of people.

Meanwhile, we see the most obscene stuff on television, with great frequency, in the form a graphic violence. We also see some pretty graphic sexual stuff. And the glorification or acceptibility of crime, drug-use, etc.

This sort of entertainment is acceptable to mainstream society….. and yet the slightest allusion to the faintest possibility of some obscure suggestion about inappropriate relations between a man and his children in a show from long ago is something concern, is it?

I’d say; if the show was allowed to go to air for quite a few years, was acceptable to a huge international audience, and didn’t run into any significant issues along the way in line with your concerns Smythe, then we should let it be. Leave it alone. Accept it as not having significantly infringed any social boundaries.

I don't suppose you saw South Park last night?

I exclude Ludwig from my comments, and agree with him.
Yes I watched the show, have a mate still known as Nudge
But how, come now tell us, can it be seen as some thing we the watchers need to be held to account for.
To our author, a real world exists out side the one you appear to live in.
What, please tell me, about the show or its adds tells us a star was [not yet convicted] a pedophile?
The reality in this matter, a biting kicking true concern,is people from police officers to judges ministers of religion, every class, think it is ok to assault children.
And did so CENTURY'S before any modern media.

I agree with Belly.

> The reality in this matter, a biting kicking true concern,is people from police officers to judges ministers of religion, every class, think it is ok to assault children.

Give credit where it's due. The young females knew what occurred, since they were active participants, and took part willing, since the events continued for a considerable time. Had they sincerely disapproved, they could have at any time resigned their employment and sought a respectable alternative. They did not do so; instead, they continued to provide sexual favours in return for agreed rewards - cheap celebrity and pecuniary gain. This is not new, and is often called "the world's oldest profession" - sc. prostitution. In short, they were practising child prostitutes, and encouraged in this by their parents and adult colleagues.

To now be complaining of past events at this remove in time is hypocritical, opportunistic, and cynical; but in today's world demonstrates true professionalism. They are merely leveraging their investment in services already provided to obtain further cheap - and now sleazy - celebrity, and almost certainly additional financial reward by way of "damages". With any luck they'll be offered contracts by the local porn studios to re-enact the whole grubby business in excruciating detail, thereby moving their careers to the next level. Given the insatiable appetite of Australians for sleaze and porn, they undoubtedly have bright futures as professional prostitutes and porn stars, and as "Australians making good in the US" may eventually be awarded Orders of Australia for their exemplary role models. Were Australian universities to offer degrees in paedophilia and prostitution, using "Hey, Dad!" as course material, they could open up new career paths as academic lecturers for Australian politicians, lawyers, and priests. Innovation is where it's at!

I leave you to your world, content in knowing you build mountains out of non existent sand hills.
The real world is waiting must go.

Two things:

Firstly, the roles played in 'Hey Dad!' were NOT the roles of child predator and knowing and willing victims. If, in fact, the allegations are true, then one role was played by a child predator while another was played by a victim. From memory - and I was quite young when the show was on air - none of the on-screen interactions even HINTED at predation. Consequently, the show was no lulling us into accepting such interactions, nor are we likely to engage in such acts (or accept them) because we watched 'Hey Dad!'.

Secondly, I think you might be best taking a cold shower and a long hard look at yourself before declaring an alleged victim of an alleged sexual abuse - even an ongoing one - a prostitute. To do so says a lot more about you than it says about the person in question.

Thank you O!
At last a clear headed response to a baffling idea.
I was beginning to fear a brief time watching Capt squiggle and play school, may have turned me in to a monster! cooky?

I remember quite fancying that girl on the show. Though I was about her age at the time. I also fancied the older girl Simone Buchannan.