From the TIMESONLINE website:
Climate change sceptics are to be targeted in a hard-hitting government advertising campaign that will be the first to state unequivocally that Man is causing global warming and endangering life on Earth.
The £6 million campaign, which begins tonight in the prime ITV1 slot during Coronation Street, is a direct response to government research showing that more than half the population think that climate change will have no effect on them.
Ministers sanctioned the campaign because of concern that scepticism about climate change was making it harder to introduce carbon-reducing policies such as higher energy bills.
The advertisement attempts to make adults feel guilty about their legacy to their children. It features a father telling his daughter a bedtime story of “a very very strange” world with “horrible consequences” for today’s children.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867046.ece
You can also watch the advert using the link above to the TIMESONLINE website
Some Harmless Sky readers have made complaints about the advertisement and I have started this thread because there is obviously going to be a lot of discussion about how the regulators react.
Alex Cull’s complaint can be found here
The full text of Robin Guenier’s complaint is here
Robin has also written to his MP, Peter Lilley, who was the only member of the House of Commons to speak out strongly against the Climate Bill.
I have received the following updates form Robin. Things seem to be moving very rapidly.
14/10/2009 16:13
I called Karen Harms [at the ASA] to discuss this. My fear was that, by turning this into a “political” issue the ASA might wash its hands of the affair & simply dump it on Ofcom - who, in turn, would prevaricate as they have with you, even deciding in the end that it isn’t political after all. But her line was busy & I left a voicemail. Then she called me, but I was on another important call &, this time, I missed her. However, she sent me an email with more detail which, to some extent, allays my fears. In my complaint, I cited ASA’s TV Code section 4 (d) [it’s interesting that they’ve already considered my complaint in some depth to get down to this detail!] - Section 4 is about “Political and Controversial Issues” and 4 (d) says that “No advertisement may show partiality as respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy”. That seems to distinguish “current public policy” from “political controversy” and I was concerned with the former not the latter. She now (her latest email) relies on a note to Section 4 that says (para 2) “The term ‘political’ here is used in a wider sense than ‘party political’ - e.g. “campaigning for the purpose of influencing legislation or executive action …” and goes on to say (para 3) “The … investigation of complaints in relation to political advertising … remains a matter for Ofcom.”
She is (per her latest email) relying on that to say the 4 (d) part of my complaint is a matter for Ofcom not the ASA. Essentially that meets my concern - I refer to about 16 other sections of the Code and they stay with the ASA so my “dumping” fear is unfounded. But I’m unsure about 4 (d) anyway - I’m talking about “partiality” re “current public policy” and that, if I read ASA’s Code correctly, is not a “political” matter (see above) - unless they argue that the ad is designed to “influence” “executive action”. Why would the Government wish to influence its own action.
Anyway, I called her to discuss all this. And, once again, had to leave a voicemail - asking her to call me back. I’m waiting.
14/10/2009 16:33
I’ve now spoken to Karen. She was very helpful. She listened to my interpretation of their Section 4 and understood my points, saying she wasn’t herself able to agree or disagree with me although she appreciated my logic on the matter. She said, therefore, that she would contact Ofcom herself and get their view and contact me when she had done this. In the meantime, she confirmed that ASA (i.e. Karen) would be considering my overall complaint with specific reference to my other 16 Section references, noting that this would not preclude her from referring also to other relevant Sections that I might have missed.
I.E. she could hardly have been more helpful.
This seems, so far, to be moving remarkably quickly. I’ll keep you posted.
I am also moving relevant comments to this thread from the New Statesman thread. The problems with references to comment numbers are unavoidable I’m afraid.
UPDATE: It’s proved impossible to move the comments because the vast size of the NS thread makes the software I use fall over. If you want to refer to them you can create links by right-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘link location’ and then pasting in a link in the usual way.
Discussion of the adverts on the NS thead starts here
Updates: 16/10/2009
If, after viewing the advert, you want to complain about it, then you can do so at the Advertising Standards Authority here:
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/
It was broadcast again on Thursday 16th October 2009 on ITV1 between 8.00 - 8.30 PM.
There is discussion of the government’s reaction to a flood of complaints about the advert at The Guardian website here.
Update 18/10/2009:
Robin has received another response from the ASA. See his comment here.
Update 24/10/2009:
You can sign a petition against the government’s TV climate change adverts on the Downing Street website here:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/climate-ad/sign
TonyB, A regular contributor here, has written a paper that adds very interesting context to the governmen’s TV advertising campain. It can be found at Air Vent here:
This has also been picked up by WattsUpWithThat as well.
I don’t wish to over-anticipate events, but it would be utterly delicious (and almost worth £6m) to hear the government issue a retraction. Now I’ve written that, I can see how improbable it sounds, but it’s still a sustaining thought!
I wonder how the BBC would handle the news that the ASA had condemned the ad as misleading or inappropriate..?
James, it is definitely a sustaining thought. Could go either way, and the danger is we’re setting ourselves up for disappointment, but… what the hell. I’m thinking of it as an experiment - whatever the outcome, there will be something to learn.
Robin’s positive experience with the ASA person tends to confirm my experience years ago as a market researcher for the Central Office of Information (responsible for all Government advertising) - that civil servants are extremely meticulous about sticking to their rules. There’s something more important than the fate of the planet at stake here, after all - the reputation of their department. (No, seriously) If the public lose faith in the truth of one official advertising campaign, bang goes the credibility of a dozen efforts on AIDS, vaccination, road safety - who knows?
I posted a serious complaint like Robin’s and Alex’s. I rather wish I’d just pointed out the implicit message: Switch the lights off, children, or your doggy will drown. From my marketing experience, I’d say it’s important that everyone reacts according to their own feelings. A wave of heartfelt protest is more impressive than a carefully orchestrated campaign.
TonyN
Not being a citizen of the UK, I am a bit at a disadvantage discussing the government advertising campaign there.
However, I find it curious that taxpayer money is being used to convince the same taxpayers that are funding this campaign that they need to change their minds to support a government plan to tax them even more heavily.
Can you explain the logic of this procedure?
Max
PS My personal opinion: You guys need a change of government fast.
to manacker #4
The rationale, from the government’s point of view, is to persuade people to cut down on energy consumption, in order to help the government to meet its carbon emission reduction targets. Since the three main political parties are in agreement on these targets, the government may argue that the campaign is not controversial. The countering argument s that it is not based on scientifically proven facts, and is therefore misleading, even if it has cross-party support.
A change of government will make no difference. Only public protest has a chance of being effective.
In his post above, TonyN quotes my “fear was that, by turning this into a “political” issue the ASA might wash its hands of the affair & simply dump it on Ofcom”. This concern followed an email I received from my new friend Karen which said “If you believe that this is a political ad, you need to contact Ofcom for their view”. However, it turned out this referred only to my citing paragraph 4(d) of the ASA’s TV Code (I referred also to 16 other paragraphs) and, following my discussion with her on this, she said (as noted above) that she would contact Ofcom herself and get their view and contact me when she had done this. And ASA would deal with the other 16 paragraphs themselves.
For anyone interested in nit-picky detail, here’s my follow-up email to Karen (14 October):
We certainly do need a change of government, but unfortunately there has to be widespread agreement on the best alternative, and there are only so many floating voters.
The upshot is that a party remains in power for long enough to make a complete hash of things, then the other lot are given a go, and so on. It’s a sort of reverse Peter Principle, where you finally get demoted when your incompetence becomes obvious. I suspect it’s the same elsewhere.
To paraphrase Churchill, democracy is the worst system, apart from all the others.
As for the advert, I think that Geoff’s summary (switch off the lights or the dog gets it) is very apposite. I shall put that in my complaint.
geoffchambers
To your #5, there are nuances here.
I can see that trying to induce the voting populace to conserve energy by avoiding waste, improving efficiency, etc., is a good thing, which most people would support.
To ask the voting populace to “tighten their belts” to help mitigate against the “impending climate crisis” is a more dubious request, especially if this is being requested so that the government can meet its carbon emission reduction targets (does a majority of the voting and taxpaying public really care an iota about the government meeting these?).
To ask them to pay a carbon tax that will ostensibly be used for installing windmills all over the scenery (where this will have no real impact on either the UK’s carbon footprint or global temperature) is folly.
To this comes your argument that the whole concept of government commitments to reduce carbon emissions in order to avoid an impending climate crisis is based on highly questionable scientific assumptions.
If it is true, as you say, that all politicians and political parties have jumped on this bandwagon, then you are correct in saying that only public protest will work.
The politicians and parties must not be allowed to forget that the entire funding of the government plan will be carried by the voting public, not by the government bureaucrats or politicians.
Max
Re: Geoff, #3
From your marketing experience, how successful would you expect that ad to be given that, according to the TIMESONLINE report it is specifically targeted at hard line sceptic?
Re: Max, #4
I think this advert is supposed to be seen in the same category as similar campaigns dealing with AIDs, smoking and drink driving. But that parallel doesn’t seem to work and I am having difficulty in defining why this is so.
Re: RObin, #6
As I am sure Robin knows, when dealing with the kind of rule orientated burocratic process that Geoff mentioned in #3, that kind of ‘nit picking’ is essential and can make the difference between success and failure.
The Guardian has just picked up on this story.
The ad was shown again on ITV1 between 8:00 and 8:30 PM last night.
To TonyN at #9
You ask how successful I think the ad will be. If it’s supposed to be aimed at hardline sceptics like me, not at all, but I doubt whether that is the case.
I used to conduct focus groups on subjects like race relations and social security benefit takeup. The idea would be to recreate the ‘pub discussion’ atmosphere, and inject advertising concepts to see how they influenced opinions. I imagine the market research behind this campaign must have made the following recommendations:
- emphasise the future; “it’s about the children”
- steer clear of science, because it gets people arguing
- don’t make any specific claims which might be challenged
It’s quite clever really, since we hardline sceptical knowalls are effectively excluded from the debate. Everyone agrees with switching off lights, which is what allows Caroline Lucas (I think it was her) to claim on Newsnight that 97% of people are doing something to combat climate change. This in turn will allow the government (any government) to claim that public opinion is behind them when they double energy prices or deface the country with windmills.
The weak point of the campaign is that it more or less admits that the global warming story is a fairy tale. A noisy backbencher of left or right could make mincemeat of this.
Now hurry along to the Guardian thread linked by Alex, boys and girls. Let’s flog this dead horse and put a stake through its heart.
TonyN
You wrote (I assume it was “tongue-in-cheek”)
The UK government advertising campaigns against these other threats were based on their known impact on UK citizens:
AIDs kills people
Smoking does so more slowly, but there are enough hard data showing that it does, indeed, kill people.
Drunk driving is faster (and it also kills non-drinkers), but it is also a sure killer, as many statistics all over the world have shown.
Anthropogenic Global Warming has killed no one, least of all a UK citizen and resident, to date.
There is no good reason to believe that AGW will ever kill any UK citizen and resident.
As an outsider sitting near the snow line in Switzerland, I see it like this (but I may have missed something here):
The current UK government made a silly commitment to reduce carbon emissions and is now using taxpayer funds to run an advertising campaign to sell its taxpayers and voters (who will pay dearly for the implementation of the actions required to realize this silly commitment) the benefits of this silly commitment.
Seems like someone goofed by “jumping the gun”. These guys should really be fired, and the “other team” who will then be voted in should be told in no uncertain terms why the current government was fired.
Power to the people! After all, they pay these guys’ salaries.
Max
Hi Max #13
If you are interested, if you would allow TonyN to give me your email address I will forward you a copy of an article I have written on the politics behind AGW which culminated in this advert.
It is a sorry and disturbing tale of how the British Govt has used the alarming notion of ‘catastrophic climate change’ to actively promote their own political agenda to achieve ‘one world living.’ It is thoroughly researched and documented so is entirely factual, although it would make a very good plot for a best selling novel.
It is much too long to post here :)
tonyb
If any of you are discussing this at other blogs, can I ask you to include a link to this thread, particularly as there is a link here that will allow people to watch the advert and also a link to the ASA’s complaints site.
This is the URL:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=228
TonyB
I hereby authorize TonyN to give you my e-mail address (which, as he knows, has changed).
Looking forward to your message.
Max
P.S. I’m not a citizen of the UK, so am not directly involved with this ad campaign, but I find it atrocious that the government would have the unmitigated gall to use taxpayer money in order to convince the taxpayer that he/she should pay dearly to help the government live up to a silly commitment it made without first asking the taxpayer, who will then be asked to pay for the consequences.
Are you guys living in a democracy or in a banana republic?
TonyB and TonyN
I’ll put my advice regarding your current government in “New York-ese”
Get ridda da bums fa chrissake!
Max
Tonyb My son could use your report for his dissertation this year which is on this very subject. I’m happy for tonyN to give you my email address as well if you are happy to let use see the report
Peter Geany.
That would be fine.
Tonyb
Max and UK residents,
You write “You guys [in the UK] need a change of government fast.” The present UK government have been in charge for over 12 years and after that length of time, yes, there is nearly always a “time for a change” feeling. Although, I suspect that most UK contributors to this blog wouldn’t be able to support their argument logically. They wouldn’t get much further than expressing a dislike of their present government.
If there is a change in the UK, it will almost certainly be towards a Conservative government even though they only have minority support. Some UK contributors to this blog might be hoping for a different climate change policy. So, where do the conservatives stand?
http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Energy.aspx
“With our energy supplies increasingly sourced overseas, and with urgent action needed to combat climate change, it’s time to rethink the way we supply and consume energy in Britain. We urgently need to move to a low carbon economy in order to strengthen our economy, help guarantee our energy security and protect our environment for future generations.”
UK residents may be able this question. Is there any real difference between the Conservatives and the other main UK parties? The paragraph above wouldn’t be out of place in any European political parties election manifesto. But, maybe they are just adopting the line they feel will give them the best chance electorally?
It seems you lot are in “letter to the editor” mode at present. I thought I’d try and be helpful for once and I’ve composed a “model letter” for UK residents to send to that nasty PM of yours.
Dear Mr Brown,
I would like to express my outrage over political advertisements interrupting Coronation Street. Everyone knows, you just have to pick up a copy of the Daily Mail or Express, that it’s not getting warmer, it is the way that thermometers are placed too close to air-conditioners, or the wrong dates being chosen when drawing graphs, remember 1998, or if it’s not that it’s Cosmic rays. But if it was getting warmer, which it isn’t, it would be due to the sun, and it would be a good thing, as everyone likes warm weather, except polar bears and there are more of them than many people think, but if it was getting warmer, which it isn’t, then its certainly NOT due to increasing carbon dioxide, there was more of that around when we had dinosaurs, so it’s a natural gas and it is just rising because it is getting warmer, which it is, as everyone knows that Co2 increases lag behind temperature rises and they predicted that we would have an ice age in the 70’s and they couldn’t get that right. They can’t get next weeks weather right either and its cold outside now so it can’t be getting warmer, there is no empirical evidence, except just a bit warmer, enough to cause CO2 levels to rise but not enough to notice. I certainly haven’t noticed that the sea has risen a lot recently. I could go on but Coronation street has started again and I have better things to do with my time”
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells (or wherever)
……………….
PS to Gordon Brown,
“I’ve never voted for Labor anyway, but I wish I had now, so that I could tell you that I wasn’t voting for you next time!”
Max and Peter (tempterrain)
It’s fine to discuss party politics only to the extent that this relates to AGW, so lets be very, very careful. I want his thread to stay strictly focused on the government advertising campaign.
However if someone was feeling mischievous they might like to contact the Conservative’s press office and ask whether they approve of the way this advertising campaign is being conducted.
Peter:
Re politics and AGW - there is no political issue in the UK. See the quoted letter (under Section 4) in my letter quoted at post 6 above.
Please send my e-mail address to TonyB. His previous references to Green PR outfits etc and their non-democratic input to the political process have been very revealing. It seems anyone with a degree in environmental studies can call themselves a Climate Consultant and get the ear of Miliband and big contracts. It’s like Feng Shui with graphs.
to Manacker at #13
TonyN was perfectly correct, and not tongue-in-cheek, when he said:
“I think this advert is supposed to be seen in the same category as similar campaigns dealing with AIDs, smoking and drink driving”.
and particularly when he adds:
“That parallel doesn’t seem to work and I am having difficulty in defining why this is so”.
There is a problem with the dangerous AGW argument over and above the scientific argument. It’s in the structure of the argument, and probably belongs to the philosophy of science, or some abstruse corner of thought with which I’m not familiar. Instead of arguing from a particular cause to a particular effect, AGW science argues from particular causes to a global average cause to particular effects. Even if all the estimates of forcings and what-have-you were correct, the logic would still be dodgy.
It’s difficult enough to prove that smoking kills; proving that passive smoking kills is even more difficult. Now try and imagine proving that your smoking results in species loss on the other side of the planet; or that your not wearing a seatbelt contributes to an average global devil-may-care attitude which will result in accidents in ten years’ time. That’s the epistemological mess which climate science has got itself into, and tht’s why their ad is so unconvincing. They can’t make a better case, without stretching the science.
geoffchambers
Got your points (#25) on how the UK government climate ad was “supposed to be seen” and regarding the hyperbolic exaggeration “ad absurdum” of the AGW threat vis-à-vis the other examples of TonyN:
a) AIDs kills UK citizens and/or residents who get it (by not taking preventative measures)
b) Smoking kills UK citizens and/or residents who do it (at least it substantially increases the risk of contracting diseases that can kill)
c) Drunk driving kills UK citizens and/or residents who engage in this practice (along with a few innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time)
So these campaigns are directed at the UK public (taxpayer) to convince him/her to avoid behavior that can kill him/her.
AGW is touted as a threat to human society, to the survival of other species and to our planet, itself.
There are ample statistics on the human deaths caused by a) through c) above in the UK (and elsewhere).
There are no statistics on deaths caused in the UK by AGW. The threat is a paper hobgoblin that came out of a computer model.
This was my point on the absurdity of the UK government climate ad.
Then there is the outrageous cynicism behind it.
a) The government makes an unwise commitment to a costly plan to reduce carbon emissions in the future.
b) The government learns that the support of the public (taxpayer) for this unwise commitment is waning.
c) So the government decides to run an ad campaign to gain support of the public (taxpayer) for this unwise commitment.
d) The public (taxpayer) pays the costs of running the ad campaign.
e) The public (taxpayer) will be the one who pays substantially to implement the unwise commitment made by the government to drastically reduce carbon emissions.
In a democracy, what’s wrong with this picture?
Max
Peter Martin
Not to get too close to an “out of bounds” call by TonyN, but you wrote (#20) that the UK Conservative Party would likely rubberstamp the “climate policies” of the current Labor government.
Don’t be too sure about that, Peter.
Why do you think the government is running an ad campaign to gain support for its “climate policy”?
Could it be that polls are showing that the support among the (taxpaying and voting) populace for this policy (as well as for the current government) has waned?
How long do you think a new Conservative government would embrace the “climate policy” of the preceding Labor government that helped get it removed from office?
Use your head, Peter. In a democracy it will eventually be the (taxpaying and voting) public who decides who will govern and what their policies will be.
And, as I see it, this “climate policy” appears to be headed for the trash heap of history.
Max
I saw the ad on TV for the first time this morning (as opposed to watching it on YouTube) - Channel 4, around 9.25 AM.
Also, found an article about it on Brand Republic, which has the following:
“A spokeswoman for the Advertising Standards Authority also backed the campaign. She said: “The ASA has received complaints in the past disputing whether climate change is man-made or not; the ASA has dismissed these complaints in line with the overwhelming evidence of the majority of scientists who have studied climate change.”"
I haven’t yet found anything on the net to back up this quotation, or a name for the spokeswoman. If true, it would mean that the chances of our complaints being upheld might be rather slim.
Can anyone find another reference to this?
Follow up to Alex #28
The same source has a follow up article today here:
http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/946365/Government-climate-change-ad-attracts-203-complaints/
which says “ASA is expecting to make a decision in the next week as to whether there are grounds for investigating the ad”.
Max,
You’ve confused my question about UK Tory party climate policy with someone who has claimed that it would be a “rubberstamp” of the present governments.
You could be right and it could change. But I’m just asking the question of why the Conseravtives would change from what you claim to be an unpopular policy before an election to a popular policy afterwards?
Doesn’t it usually happen the other way around?
[…] please visit TonyN’s excellent climate blog Harmless Sky for news about this ad campaign and the views of some of us who oppose […]
An update on my ASA complaint.
On Friday I received this email from Karen:
So, after what seemed to be a notably quick response, I face a disappointing delay, while the ad continues to be shown. Here’s my reply:
Then I received an “Out of Office” reply - advising me she was away for a week but giving me a new contact if an “urgent response” required. I forwarded my last email to Karen to the new contact.
Watch this space.
Alex: you say (#28) that the ASA’s spokeswoman’s alleged comment that the ASA has dismissed previous complaints “disputing whether climate change is man-made or not” on the basis that they were at odds with “the overwhelming evidence of the majority of scientists who have studied climate change” would, if true, “mean that the chances of our complaints being upheld might be rather slim”.
I’m not so sure. The basis of my complaint (and I would hope others’) is not so much as to whether or not the dangerous AGW hypothesis is true, but that it misleading to say that the UK is experiencing “very very strange” weather or to say, without noting that some disagree, that scientists say this (non existent) “very very strange’ weather is caused by “too much CO2” or to say that “the effects [are] happening faster than thought” when they are not. Also my complaint is that the representation of CO2 as nasty black stuff is inaccurate as is the suggestion that one of the consequences of “too much CO2” will be the flooding of UK housing (and the consequential drowning of doggies). Moreover, I would hope the ASA would appreciate that my concern about potential emotional harm to adults and especially to children is valid whether or not the dangerous AGW hypothesis is true.
There again perhaps my hope is naïve.
Robin, just to say I hope you are right and that I’m proved wrong! It would be an absolute delight for us to win this.
Conservative MEP Roger Helmer also complained about this ad last week:
“Speaking in Brussels, Mr. Helmer said “It is scandalous that the government is spending tax-payers’ money on this deeply biased campaign, which seems to be aimed at frightening children unnecessarily, and promoting unsubstantiated scientific speculation as fact. It is equally scandalous that the government is pursuing a programme of wind energy which according to a recent OfGem report will increase energy prices by at least 14% and perhaps up to 60% in real terms by 2020″.”
Some may not be aware that the ASA is, in no sense, an official, Government or Parliamentary body. This is from its website:
In other words, it really is independent. As Christopher Booker said in his article yesterday,
I received a letter from my MP (Peter Lilley) this morning. He says that he understands my concerns and continues “I have taken up the points you raised with Ben Bradshaw, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. As soon as I have received a reply, I shall be in touch with you again.”
Bradshaw is an interesting choice of minister. I can understand it as this is a media matter. Nonetheless, I would have thought Ed Miliband (Secretary of State for Climate Change) or Hilary Benn (Secretary of State for Environment and Rural Affairs) more appropriate. I understand their departments are the sponsors of “Action on CO2″.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see the minister’s response.
Robin 36
You are obviously someone who understands politics, so wonder if you would like a copy of my article on the politics of climate change that I have sent to some of the others here on request.
If so please respond and tell TonyN you want him to send me your email address.
Tonyb
Thanks, TonyB - I’ll do that.
Robin, I must say I admire your tenacity.
Have you read Kafka’s “The Castle”?
Regards,
Max
Max: yes, I have - but prefer not to be reminded of it at present.
Anyway (to prove your point) I just received the following reply from the new ASA contact I referred to at post 32:
Hmm … that seemed rather unsatisfactory so I replied as follows:
Groan: I hope all this is worth it.
Robin
Emily says:
I seem to remember something in an earlier email from the ASA to the effect that they had yet to take a decision to investigate. If this was the case then it sounds as though a decision has now been taken.
Robin,
I seem to remember that you all previously protested strongly when I pointed out the link between far right politics and opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change. Didn’t you say at the time that you were a sensible moderate type of person?
I’m just wondering what are the political opinions of people like your MP, Peter Lilley? Or, MEP Roger Helmer? Or, the Czech president Vaclav Klaus? Are these all middle of the road types too?
I can understand that you might have had little or no support from the governing Labour party in the UK. But what about the Lib Dems, or any of the other half dozen political parties, who aren’t their friends, which are represented in the UK parliament? Have you received any support at all from them?
Peter Martin
I think you would be very surprised at the opposition to AGW amongst many politicians, or at the very least a desire for greater discussion and a little more in the way of democratic decision making. It is simply that they all feel gagged, and feel that in the face of an election it would be political suicide to rock the boat. The Lib Dems have AGW and climate change as the centre piece of some of their policies but it has not done them any good in the three key elections held this year. In fact they have lost ground as have the greens.
I believe that David Cameron and the Tories are going with the flow on AGW until after the election. They will not allow Labour to use this subject as an additional tool during the election, and don’t want the electorate distracted from the only issue that really matters here and that is the reduction in Public spending. Just watch unnecessary and frivolous spending on climate research dry up.
MP’s such as Peter Lilley are amongst that rare bread that have the courage to go with their convictions, and have never been afraid of speaking out, but this attribute will often leave them saddled with a left or right tag, tags that are completely inappropriate in this day and age. I just wish a few more were as forthcoming.
One more aspect of UK politics that is distorting everything currently is the crisis over expenses. This problem is set to run further and it will change the face of British Politics for years to come. It is going to take a great deal of hard work to rebuild the trust between politicians and the public. Social engineering of the type that the Labour Party has engaged in over the last 12 years will be consigned to oblivion. This however will not Stop Gordy boy making a fool of himself between now and Copenhagen as desperation steps in.
Peter G,
You write “I think you would be very surprised at the opposition to AGW amongst many politicians”. I’m sure we are all opposed to it pe se, aren’t we? That’s why we are calling for reduced CO2 emissions. But, well yes I probably would, if you mean opposition to the scientific consensus on the subject as represented by the IPCC. I’d be even more surprised if you could substantiate this. How “many politicians” would you say there are are? Who are they?
Peter:
As usual, you are displaying a lack of logic. You seem to believe that, because I hold a particular view on a particular topic and other people share that view, I must therefore share their views on other topics. Clear nonsense.
In any case, what connection has your comment with this thread?
Robin
Some of PeterM’s hobgoblins:
Hobgoblin #1: Runaway man-made global warming (the dark monster in the UK government TV ad).
Hobgoblin #2: Right-wing reactionaries who oppose progress as defined by the scientific consensus and, therefore, also reject Darwinism.
There are probably more out there, hiding in the bushes.
Max
Two more hobgoblins:
Hobgoblin #3: Greedy corporate oil and coal executives who spend exorbitant sums to squelch the scientific truth on AGW, as defined by consensus science.
Hobgoblin #4: Money-grubbing stooges of #3 who hide behind the cloak of rational scientific skepticism to spread a false message of AGW denial.
I know that we are marking time at the moment while decisions are taken by the ASA and Ofcom but lets not drift away from the subject of this thread. If you want to discuss the ‘left / right divide’ on AGW yet again, please do so on the NS thread.
TonyN: hear hear.
I had a telephone call from Emily just now (she was responding to a voicemail message I left yesterday - superseded by my email at 40). Anyway, she told me that my complaint had passed from the hands of the “Complaints Executives” (of whom she is one - as is Karen) into the hands of an “Investigations Executive”, from whom I would hear in due course. I commented that I’d heard there had been a few complaints about this ad. “Oh” she said “we’ve had lots and lots - and there are even more still coming.”
I’ve sent a complaint to the ASA citing both misleading content and the political nature of the advertisement. If anyone is interested, the text is here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/ASA_Complaint.doc
There is something interesting on Ofcom’s web site concerning political advertising. See note 4.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/reg_broad_ad/update/mou/section5/
TonyN at #51
Excellent letter, but I don’t think the political bias angle will work. Here’s why.
The Note 4 at Ofcom to which you link says, in part:
“In practice, should ASA(B) or BCAP have grounds to believe, either through complaints or through its own monitoring, that an advertisement may contain political content, it shall refer the matter as soon as practicable to Ofcom. Ofcom will investigate and determine whether the advertisement is political advertising, and therefore prohibited, or not political advertising, in which case the matter should remain within ASA(B)’s remit”.
which sounds to me as if the ASA is almost bound to refer the ad to Ofcom, given that they have received substantive complaints like yours that it may contain political content.
Ofcom apparently has only a simple choice, to ban or not to ban. Given that (as far as I know) the only parties opposing action on AGW are the BNP and UKIP, a ban would create a tremendous scandal, give a big boost to these two parties, and be a major slap in the face to the government, since voters would see that £6 million of their taxes had been spent for nothing. I don’t want to suggest that Ofcom would be anything other than totally impartial, but can you honestly see that happening?
If they don’t ban, the complaints come back to ASA, who must look at the other angles (scientific veracity, misleading treatment, and the effect on children).
Here I’m afraid the advertisers may have outwitted us. (Not surprising. They’re highly paid to do just that). On scientific veracity, they can simply quote the IPCC and the scientific consensus and frankly, our citing Yamal tree-rings or whatever won’t cut much ice. On the effect on children, which I thought quite a strong point, they can quote a thousand popular childrens’ books full of scary images. After all, there ARE floods and other disasters, dogs DO drown, and there is a whole industry of psychologists and educators ready to testify that children need to be exposed to the harsh realities of the world.
We are left with the argument that floods don’t happen in England because of CO2, and that the sooty monster depicting of CO2 is confusing this invisible trace-gas with smokey pollution. Here the ASA may rap the advertisers on the knuckles for a slight exaggeration, and everyone will be happy.
Sorry to be so pessimistic. I thought at first that the government had made a colossal mistake depicting AGW as a childrens’ story. In advertising terms, they may have been rather clever. I console myself with this imaginary headline in an imaginary serious mainstream newspaper: “Global Warming is a Fairy Tale - Official”.
Geoff:
You may very well be right, but I think it is still worth testing these arguments if for no other reason than to find out what criteria and arguments are applied in practice by both the ASA and Ofcom. So far as I am aware this was the first in a series of adverts.
PS: It also adds to the complaints count.
Geoff:
I think you’re wrong to say “the advertisers may have outwitted us”. The misleading statements have little to do with the IPCC or with the alleged consensus. Here’s why: (i) there is nothing “very very strange” (as is claimed) about the UK’s current weather and no consensus that it is; (ii) the IPCC does not say that CO2 emissions cause (or will cause) the non-happening “very very strange” weather; (iii) there is no evidence (and no IPCC claim or consensus) that “the events [i.e. the non-happening very very strange weather] are “happening faster than thought”, as is claimed in the ad; (iv) CO2 is not nasty black stuff, as depicted in the ad; and (v) the IPCC does not state that the UK will face “terrible consequences” such as severe floods (as depicted in the ad) – in contrast, it makes some “projections” about future temperatures and is ambiguous about possible flooding. Not so clever in my view. (But I’d nonetheless be surprised if the ASA didn’t find some way of wriggling out of an embarrassing slap in the face for the Government.)
Yes – and TonyN’s right: in any case, the more complaints, the better.
TonyN
I agree absolutely that it’s worth testing the arguments by complaining, as it’s worth getting in the maximum number of complaints in order to get this ad the maximum amount of bad publicity. If this is the first of a series, I urge everyone to complain about each ad as it comes out.
Robin
i agree absolutely with all your points and hope the ASA sees the force of your arguments. I was just playing devil’s advocate, suggesting that the fairytale setting, which I thought was an act of stupidity on the part of the advertisers, may in fact have been a cunning plan to deflect fact-based objections. (“The context makes it plain that this is a hypothetical scenario, bla bla …”)
We know there are a half a dozen serious well-argued objections from people here and at Wattsupwiththat. I wonder about the other 200. How many are from the BNP, for example?
Robin,
Logic? I was merely asking a few background questions, wasn’t I? Its interesting that I can be thought of as applying any logic at all, faulty or otherwise, when each sentence is completed in a squiggly line with a dot undermeath it, isn’t it?
As you know I live in that far away outpost called Australia where names - and which others, and not I, introduced into the argument - such as Peter Lilley, Roger Helmer and Vaclav Klaus aren’t exactly household names. In fact we don’t know much about them. I was just wondering where these guys stood in the political spectrum? Could they be fairly labelled as the sort of right wing wing types who I have previously accused of pushing AGW denial for political reasons?
Max,
Your comment on the nature of “Right-wing reactionaries who oppose progress as defined by the scientific consensus and, therefore, also reject Darwinism” isn’t quite correct.
19th century politics, in Europe at least, was largely defined by the clash between Conservatives who were reactionary and Liberals. Literally, Conservatives wanted to keep things as they were and Liberals (with a large L in the classical sense) were more progressive and wanted to develop Capitalism . They wanted to build railways over the landed estates of the Conservative gentry!
In the 20th century the meanings of the two terms became confused and lost. Its possible to be economically Liberal and socially conservative. The Americans are fond of the idea of ‘Liberty’ especially the liberty of the free market to operate in the interest of the Liberal capitalists. That’s a classical Liberal concept.
Its these right wing Liberal/capitalist types who are the main problem on the AGW issue. They are having a hard time accepting that the 21st century can’t be a re-run of the 20th century with population, consumption, and wealth increasing by orders of magnitude without a thought for the environmental consequences.
TonyN: Peter, see #49 above. Your last two comments have nothing to do with the subject of this thread
TonyN,
OK If you want to move the last two posts….
You did ask “However if someone was feeling mischievous they might like to contact the Conservative’s press office and ask whether they approve of the way this advertising campaign is being conducted”
I did a Google search on this and they seem remarkably quiet on the subject! Or maybe I just missed it? But if opposition to the scientific consensus on AGW is such a popular cause as some on this blog have suggested, I’m just wondering why they are shying away from a golden opportunity ?
Or have they got the next election in the bag and just don’t need to bother trying?
Just to answer my own question in the previous post, I’d say that the Conservative party probably already have the support of UK Climate change deniers so are wanting to appear more progressive than they really are on the issue, to avoid alienating Liberal and Labor supporters who may be thinking of switching over at the next election.
Does that sound a little too cynical?
TonyN: cannot you just move posts 56, 57, 58 and 59 to the NS thread? They have nothing to do with this thread.
Peter Martin
Will reply to your #57 on the NS thread.
Max
I’ve just had a look at the latest ASA adjudications, as it’s now Wednesday (21st Oct), but no sign of Bedtime Stories yet, so it could be they’re still processing complaints/investigating, etc.
In the meantime, I e-mailed some extra material over to them (would have posted it, but the Royal Mail is out of order due to strike action), and have put this on my blog.
Like James P (Comment #1) I’m wondering how the BBC will report it. I feel certain they will, whether or not the complaints are upheld - they reported the decision on the controversial Barnardo’s advert earlier; more recently, the Danone UK advert also made it into the national news, and this (according to the ASA’s website) received just one complaint. How they will report it, it will be interesting to find out, of course.
Geoff, re your #55: “We know there are a half a dozen serious well-argued objections from people here and at Wattsupwiththat. I wonder about the other 200.”
I found this thread on a motoring website called PistonHeads, which would account for some of these!
Also, Sky News reported this story yesterday.
“The Advertising Standards Authority has received 202 complaints about the ad and is processing a further 100, a spokeswoman told Sky News Online.”
I’ve emailed the ASA to ask what the present complaints count is.
Geoff (52)
a whole industry of psychologists and educators ready to testify that children need to be exposed to the harsh realities of the world
I’m not so sure about the educators. The BBC’s young children’s channel, CBeebies, recently bowdlerised ‘Humpty-Dumpty’ to show him being successfully put back together again, to avoid causing undue distress (!) on the viewers, despite the fact that it completely removes the point of the story.
In that climate, I think that the ‘upsetting children’ aspect of our complaint should carry some weight. It occurred to me today that we should also add ‘hypocrisy’, as it is reasonable to suppose that those responsible for the ad will still be using lights, heating, cars and aeroplanes, just like they always did (and probably more than most of us).
Perhaps the ASA could insist that the nannies reduce their own consumption before lecturing the rest of us…
Alex:
You might like to add this syndicated article by Lomborg to your file on the psychological damage that AGW may be causing to children:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/06/15/2003446178
I’ve emailed the ASA to ask what the present complaints count is.
Alex: I see from the Sky News item you mentioned that the DECC spokeswoman said that the ad was
Hmm … so they don’t claim that their policy is consistent with “the latest science” etc. (obviously it isn’t - there is no science that says the UK is experiencing “very very strange” weather) but that it is “informed” by it. Interesting.
Re: Peter, #58
Why not take the step that I suggested and email their press office for a comment? Could be fun.
Late thought - why does the ASA allow contentious advertisements to continue to be shown? I realise that complaints have to have some weight (Alex’s and Robin’s certainly do that) but if the process is so slow and the advertiser can carry on misleading/scaring/politicising the public, all the ASA can do is shut the door on a long-empty stable!
Re James P #69
You’re definately right on the empty stable bit. But it would set the precedent that no further ads could “carry on misleading/scaring/politicising the public” in such a way in the future. As well as being deeply embaressing for the government.
Tony, re your #66, very good article by Bjorn Lomborg. I’m looking into the surveys he cites, but am having difficulty finding source material for the Somerfield survey which was mentioned in the media in 2007. There’s a little more about it on the gmtv website (I would add the link, but have just tried it with another post and I don’t think the spam filter liked it!) [this is the missing link]
Here’s Somerfield spokesman Pete Williams, as quoted by gmtv: “Concerns over our environment dominate the media at present and kids are exposed to the hard facts as much as anybody. While many adults may look the other way, this study should show that global warming is not only hurting the children of the future, it’s affecting the welfare of kids now. By raising awareness amongst today’s young, hopefully we are improving our chances of reaching a solution.”
I think the point we’re all trying to make to the ASA is that kids are being exposed, not to the “hard facts” but to fiction that has been especially commissioned and designed to scare. I also found this line interesting: “this study should show that global warming is not only hurting the children of the future, it’s affecting the welfare of kids now.” But global warming itself (i.e., the climate) is doing nothing of the sort. Adults in the media and in classrooms endlessly talking about global warming are doing it, in this case by making them anxious and losing sleep. As Lomborg points out: “Children believe that global warming will destroy the planet before they grow up because adults are telling them that” (italics mine.) It’s all rather circular.
Robin, re your #67, yes it’s an interesting choice of words; possibly “informed by” contains a bit more wiggle room, if need be.
James P and Barelysane: good points re the complaints process. Is there a strict time limit for investigations, I wonder? Having said that, ad campaigns usually run for at least several months, and for £6 million, I’m sure they will want to get plenty more bang for their (or rather, for our!) buck.
[TonyN: You are right, the spam filter ate it, for no obvious reason. If this happens again then just post a comment on the ‘Admin’ thread telling me. As I get an email whenever a comment is posted I should see it quite quickly. Missining link added above]
I liked Lomberg’s piece, which summarised the problem well, but I was surprised to see this line: “A majority of people now believe — incorrectly — that global warming is not even caused by humans”
Does he think it is, then?
TonyN
I’ve emailed the ASA to ask what the present complaints count is.
The only email address I have for them (apart from their web form) is new.complaint[at]asa.org.uk
Do you have a better one?
[TontN: see the contacts page on their website. I’m still waiting for a reply]
Anyone who wants to take take this further (if we dont get satisfaction from the ASA for instance) might like to contact the Central Office of Information at http://coi.gov.uk/
They are the department responsible for commissioning government advertising, and are therefore in direct contact with ad agencies; market researchers etc. In my experience years ago they were a conscientious lot, acutely aware of their responsibility to put out public interest messages free of political bias.
This ad, besides being upsetting to kids and presenting the science in a vague and sloppy fashion which would be wholly unacceptable in an ad for an anti-wrinkle cream, say, seems to me to be faulty at a level which none of us have properly identified. Even if the IPCC science is taken as Holy Writ (and the government obviously does) saving lives by switching off lights is nothing like saving lives by fastening a seat belt. You can’t reasonably, logically, sanely, take even the worst credible scenario and turn it into an image of a dog drowning. The ad “works” because it takes a simple image of something which really happens (nasty floods) and associates it with something else which really happens (CO2 emissions) and places them side by side in a childrens’ book.
There is no logical link between the two and no responsible person would come forward and claim there was. I’m afraid the role of ASA, Ofcom and the COI will be to prevent “responsible persons” from having to come forward.
The BBC is now reporting this story.
From the BBC report:
Does anyone know any more about this? Perhaps Robin could ask Emily.
Everyone please read this carefully.
I have moved several comments to the NS thread. This thread is about the government advertising campaign. If you want to discuss Lomborg’s views on climate change in general, rather than what he says about scaring children, this is not the place. Nor is it the place to post interesting snippets from BBC blogs that just happen to have caught your eye.
How often do I have to explain this? It’s not exactly difficult to understand. All you need to do is think before you post.
Moving comments takes time and I don’t have time to waste at the moment. Any more OT comments here are likely to be deleted, which is a whole lot quicker.
From the BBC story:
the watchdog would be investigating whether the claims about climate change could be substantiated
Shouldn’t that sort of thing be cleared with the ASA in advance? I know it isn’t, but you have to wonder at a system where you can say anything you like unless and until someone complains about it!
It was fun to listen to Melvyn Bragg’s programme on R4 this morning, where he was talking to geologists. I’m sure he was trying to steer the conversation away from climate change (which came up several times) but someone managed to say near the end that what they were talking about was natural variation and nothing to do with AGW. I expect the producer is being brought round with smelling salts about now.
It was certainly interesting to learn that the UK had been an equatorial swamp a few aeons ago - it certainly puts the current hysteria into perspective!
Re: Geoff’s #74
I have sent the following message to the Central Office of Information:
The BBC report (buried in its “Politics” section) is interesting and, I suppose, slightly encouraging. But, note, it’s the government, not the ASA, that prevented it from being shown on children’s programmes. So this isn’t an ASA ban. The issue therefore is that, if it’s banned from children’s programmes, surely in logic it should be banned from other programmes that children might be watching? And of course, in today’s world, that means essentially any programme - and certainly any before the 9:00PM watershed.
As for my asking Emily (TonyN), I received a letter (yes, snail mail) yesterday from my first correspondent Karen (dated 16 October i.e. before she went on holiday looking a little odd in the light of her email also dated 16 October (see my post 32)) saying:
So it seems it’s now out of Karen’s and Emily’s hands - as Emily advised me on the 20th: see my post 50. (And how does she know whether or not I’m being patient? Especially as the ad continues to be shown.)
Robin:
I like the sound of ‘An Investigations Executive’. It seems that things are happening and that, eventually, a decision and explanations for that decision will be forthcoming. Don’t be downhearted!
The BBC report says:
“The government has already been prevented from screening the ad during children’s programmes.”
It would be very interesting to know who did the ‘preventing’ and, if it was the ASA were they acting on their own iitiative or as a result of complaints.
Yes, TonyN. You know, I may be missing something important here. If the government has only just decided to say that the ad was not to be shown on children’s programmes (as opposed to ab initio), that’s very significant - it would mean that it has be shaken by the numbers complaining and the ASA involvement and hopes such a move will defuse all that. (Remember also - I complained to DECC (and I expect others did so also) and to my MP is asking a question.) Obviously, the last thing it wants is a public debate about the issues involved. Interesting - and worth following up. If possible.
It sounds like a useful lever. If the ad has been pulled from children’s programmes, the ‘scare tactic’ element must be under fire. The attempt to schedule it then also undermines the notion that it is really aimed at adults.
I seem to have missed something too. According to the Guardian report, Joan Ruddock has said of the advert:
I failed to quote this in my complaint, which is a pity because this provides criteria for the ASA to judge the integrity of the advert without having to form an opinion of their own as to the scientific basis for what the advert says. They need only consider whether it is in line with the IPCC’s AR4, and it clearly is not.
When I hear form them I will add this point to my complaint.
I’ve emailed the ASA’s press office to try and find out more.
Robin (80)
thank you for your patience
I don’t think that means you have been patient - it means that you may have to be, as in ‘thank you for not smoking’… :-(
Not quite (TonyN - 84) - your emphasis ignores “and other international bodies”. Maybe they think (hope) that catch-all phrase provides their refuge.
And anyway, TonyN, the government policy is only “informed by” the IPCC etc. (See my 67.)
Re my post 82, I now see I’m not paying attention. When I read that BBC article again carefully, I see it says
So this was NOT a government initiative and my post 80 is quite wrong. So presumably it must have been the ASA wot did it. If so, when and why not include any programme a child might watch?
Robin:
This is what I’ve asked the ASA:
Unfortunately bloggers do not always receive the same attention from press officers as the ‘Genlemen of the Press’. On the other hand I assume that the ASA would prefer not to be seen as refusing to provide this information.
Prompted by my thoughts at 89, I called my friend Emily at the ASA - very interesting. She told me that the decision to prevent the ad from being screened during children’s programmes was taken by Clearcast - an organisation (see its website) that is “responsible for the pre-transmission examination and clearance of television advertisements”. So there you have it: it was neither the government nor the ASA that took the decision but Clearcast (like ASA, funded by the industry). See, in particular, its “Notes of Guidance” which follows the same numbering scheme as ASA’s.
Here are two of the (three) “intentions behind [Clearcast’s] Code”:
Both seem directly relevant in this case.
Three quick extracts:
5.2.1 there is a requirment to “obtain objective evidence to support all claims“.
6.2.10 “It is not acceptable for advertising to engender feelings of fear or anxiety in viewers without good reason.”
7.2 “During times when younger children are likely to be viewing, care should be taken to avoid transmitting advertisements containing material which might disturb or frighten them, e.g. pictures of monsters …”
Emily also told me that the BBC’s figure of 357 complaints was accurate but that more are still coming in. She agreed that different complaints complained about different aspects of (or attitudes to) the ad but that Investigations Executives did their utmost to deal with complaints individually. In this case, she thought that would be “very challenging”.
TonyN: I think I’ve just answered your questions at 90 (which I’ve only just seen).
Robin #91: Yes entirely, and that’s very interesting.
Robin #92:
From the ClearCast website
It would also be useful to know whether technical consultants were used in this case and if so who they were. FoE? The Royal Society? Jonahtan Porritt? Bob Watson or Myles Allen who both seem to advise Defra? Or in other words, where would you go looking for an independent and objective consultant to advise on this subject?
Thanks Alex #75 for the BBC link.
Congratulations TonyN #79 on the FOI request. They may refuse a blanket demand on grounds of commercial confidentiality, (though there are no market rivals to climate change, as far as I know). If they ask you to be more specific in your request, it would be nice to have the brief given by DECC to the COI and the brief from the COI to BBDO. This would tell us what the government hoped to get out of the campaign. Also, any market research results, since they will certainly have conducted two lots of research, one into attitudes to climate change, and a second bout to test the ad concepts before final production. (The market research will have been conducted by a company independent of the ad agency).
I’ve developed a talent for interpreting the likely market research behind ad campaigns, and I would guess the ad agency were told:
- concentrate on the future, where factually claims are more difficult to challenge
- concentrate on our children, since the future as an abstract concept is not motivating.
- concentrate on Britain, since we’re not interested in extreme climate events in foreign parts.
On the Joan Ruddock quote which you reproduce at #84, I note the careful formulation already remarked by Robin at #87:
“.. informed by … the IPCC, and other international bodies”.
“Informed by”, not “based on”. And among the “other international bodies”, expect quotes from the worthless recent reports from UNEP and the so-called Kofi Annan Report from the Global Humanitarian Forum.
Remember, £6 million is not a lot compared to total government expenditure, but it’s a big hole in the DECC publicity budget, and some people may be quite worried if the money is seen to have been wasted. The civil servants are there to protect their political masters from embarrassment. In my experience, the most frightening phrases to the good folk at COI and DECC will be “Press Enquiries” and “Questions in the House”. Keep up the good work everyone.
Recieved this reply to an email to the ASA I sent on Tuesday:
As it came from their press officer I assume that it’s pretty up-to-date. There may be other complaints that went straight to Ofcom.
Robin (32)
Karen’s letter to you of the 16th said: I am now on annual leave and I will let you know their response on my return to the office on 27 October.
Strangely, I have just had a letter from her, dated the 20th. How’s that for dedication?
I’d have been quite happy with an email, though. Still, she thanks me for my patience…
This is from the Clearcast website. I note that their ‘complaints’ link refers you to the ASA, so perhaps a direct complaint to them (that they are not doing their job properly) might be worthwhile…
Advertising is not all about selling goods and services; it is often about selling a good message.
Much of the advertising seen by Clearcast is public service advertising from Government departments which aims to sell healthy lifestyle, prudent behaviour or safety messages to the public.
Because of the nature of the ads, Clearcast often has long and complicated discussions with agencies over the acceptability of what can be very harrowing images and emotive voiceovers. In considering these issues, Clearcast has to balance the need to communicate important messages to the public with any likely distress and offence that may be caused by some very hard-hitting ads.
Particular care is needed to ensure that children are unlikely to be distressed by ads they are likely to see. To avoid this Clearcast works very closely with advertising agencies, has considerable internal debate and regularly seeks the advice of broadcasters on whether or not they are willing to transmit certain ads. Sometimes more than one version of an ad is made; one that will appear when children might be watching and another, generally with a stronger message and visuals, to appear when ads are likely to be seen by a mainly adult audience. That doesn’t mean that we apply a watershed restriction to ads with stronger messages; there is a whole host of timing restrictions available to Clearcast ranging from no restriction up to allowing an ad to be shown only after 2300. Our job is to judge which is the right restriction for each individual ad.
While we understand the need for public service advertising to communicate important messages to the public, Clearcast has to ensure that that a significant proportion of the audience will not find the messages unpalatable. This can be difficult when ads talk about, and sometimes show, death, road accidents in which people may be badly injured, the effects of smoking, unhealthy eating or irresponsible alcohol consumption.
As well as clearing ads that we think are suitable for the audiences likely to see them, Clearcast also needs to be satisfied that any claims made in public service advertising are true and substantiated.
Government departments, therefore, have to supply the same level of evidence in support of claims as all other advertisers.
Yes, James, I saw that. It must surely have been impossible for Government to supply “objective evidence” (my post 91) showing that the today’s weather in Britain is “very very strange”, that this is “caused by too much CO2″, that “the effects are happening faster than [the scientists] thought”, that CO2 is nasty black stuff and that the consequences of all this include the inundation of British homes. So how did they get round Clearcast’s unambiguous requirement that the claims made “are true and substantiated”?
Just to say I received a letter today from Karen Harms, dated 16th October, with exactly the same wording as the letter Robin received (”We have decided to pass your complaint to our Investigations Department for their consideration”, etc.)
I’m interested by Clearcast’s guidelines: “Sometimes more than one version of an ad is made; one that will appear when children might be watching and another, generally with a stronger message and visuals, to appear when ads are likely to be seen by a mainly adult audience.”
The only time I have seen the Bedtime Stories ad so far on actual television was on Saturday morning, around 9.25, and I didn’t notice anything different about it, so I’m assuming there’s only one version of it. It was on Channel 4, immediately before a programme about Madonna, so maybe not aimed at very small kids, but this is exactly the time on a Saturday morning when small kids are watching the cartoons over on ITV1.
If the government “have to supply the same level of evidence in support of claims as all other advertisers”, perhaps Clearcast could supply a copy. After, they must have it, mustn’t they?
Re: Geoff #94
I expect that it will be necessary to refine that the FOIA request, but casting the net rather widely in the first instance is a way of avoiding the infuriating ‘no information held’ response. Public agencies, as defined by the Act, have an obligation to assist in tracking down where information is held.
So far as the commercial confidentiality clause in the the FOIA is concerned it would not surprise me if this is cited in the first instance, but the CLearcast document that James P has quoted from makes a very clear distinction between general advertising and public service advertising.
Your insiders view of what is happening is very helpful: many thanks.
James P, #100:
I’ve noted that, but as Clearcast is a private company it may be a matter of identifying the government department which provided the evidence and then making an FOIA request to them. With luck it will emerge with other material held by the COI.
A mention of the advertising campaign in The Times here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6886363.ece
I am at a loss to know why the Milibands should think that either the TV adverts or an exhibition organised by Chris Rapley could possibly influence the outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit in December.
and also:
TonyB:
I have already made it clear that I do not want the differences in the UK’s political party’s policies on AGW discussed on this thread. I have therefore moved your most recent comment to the NS thread where if had become #7856.
You can sign a petition against the government’s TV climate change adverts on the Downing Street website here:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/climate-ad/sign
Please spread the word if you are commenting on other blogs.
I have just got off the blower after a long chat and update with my son at Uni. He reports that the advertisement has kicked up a bit of a storm within the politics department. As I have previously reported he has been until this academic year a lone voice at times over climate change. However this term has seen a subtle shift, with many of his lecturer’s actively encouraging him in his endeavours to get the subject debated, despite their own beliefs to the contrary. Seems most comment is not about the content of the advert as much about it being propaganda and misuse of public funds. This is good news as young people have been so apathetic in recent years and the fact that political students, who are in the main of an activist bent, are concerned is encouraging.
It seems that this is further evidence that the UK Government is way out of touch with their constituents and that this looks to be a desperate move that is looking more and more and more like a shot in the foot.
Here is an extract concerning a recent citizen’s referendum in New Zealand, my bold emphasis added, implying that public opposition does not necessarily sway government:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/new-zealand-referendum-backs-smacking-of-children-20090821-etqz.html
There’s been a development re my complaint to the ASA. Yesterday I received an email from Karen responding to mine to her set out in post 6 above. She says,
I look forward to hearing from Ms Alexander.
Robin:
Interesting that Karen’s message refers to ‘more information’ and not to a decision. Do you know exactly what the procedure for complaints handling at the ASA is?
TonyN:
The ASA complaints procedure is set out here. The most relevant part (re my complaint) starts at paragraph 23 on page 5 and then (I suppose) the complaint will be dealt with as a “Standard investigation” - or it might be dealt with as a “Complex investigation” (see below). Paragraph 30 is interesting:
Hmm … that might be tricky.
It’s interesting that, under paragraph 32 (referring to the draft recommendation being sent to the complainant) note 6 says,
If it gets that far, I wonder who the lucky complainants might be.
Note that (paragraph 41):
“Complex investigations” are those that, inter alia, require
I suppose that could well apply here (but, groan, the Met Office might well be seen as an external expert). The target for “Complex investigations” is 140 working days.
Paragraph 42 is interesting:
But there’s little prospect of it getting that far - or is there?
Finally, there is provision for either the complainant or the advertiser to request an independent review of an ASA adjudication. There are two grounds for review:
I could imagine circumstances where the latter might apply. However note that (paragraph 57),
Robin (107)
Whilst I was on leave..
I’m looking forward to my letter from Karen, explaining how she managed to send me one at the same time! (96)
Lord Stern was on R4 this morning, and while John Humphrys at least challenged him about cooling, he failed to mention the ad campaign. I have suggested to the BBC that they get David Whitehouse to pose a few questions next time…
Robin:
The possibility of the ‘advertising parties’ being required to produce documentary evidence sounds very interesting. I assume that complainants would have access to this.
The target dates for processing complaints seem excessive, given that this advert is apparently the first shot in a campaign.
I see what you mean about the Met Office, but surely no one could consider an agency funded by government as an independent consultant in a matter involving a government advert? But where do you find someone who is independent where AGW is concerned?
It seems very strange that Ofcom, which has statutory powers and duties and can impose sanctions, will only become involved if the ASA, which as I understand it is a non-statutory industry funded body, decides that it should deal with matters other than political advertising.
Concerning Section 42, I suppose it could spread some alarm in Whitehall if DECC were advised (and surely they will seek advice) that this could possibly happen. Even if Ofcom can be counted on to reach the ‘right’ decision, the publicity that would result from a referral would be very damaging.
And Peter Geany’s feed-back that his son’s fellow students recognised the political payload of the campaign is interesting.
So far I have heard nothing from the ASA other than very helpful replies to emails I sent to their press officer. These merely confirmed things that were known already.
I have now received an email response from Ms Alexander (with her detailed letter attached). I daresay this is also true of other complainants.
I cannot quote from it or even, I think, comment much on it as I am asked to “treat all correspondence as confidential until such time as a decision is published on our website”. I will say, however, that, although at first sight comprehensive, it does not deal with two of my most important complaints. There is no explanation of this. I have therefore emailed Ms Alexander for clarification.
Robin:
If you get the chance, please do ask her why the ASA want this information to remain confidential?
Robin and TonyN
Your ongoing exchange with ASA is interesting for me, as an outsider, to follow.
The ASA delaying tactic if dragging the feet while the ad continues to run and do its harm is annoying.
But I have one question.
If it now turns out that the ad is found to have truly violated the standards, will the ASA (or the government) be obliged to run a clarifying ad, conceding that the first one was in violation of the standards and should, therefore, be ignored?
Or will it simply be silently discontinued?
Max
Max:
Robin may be able to answer your question, but I am as perplexed as you are.
Max (re your 114): well, a broadcast correction is possible – see my 109 and the extract from paragraph 42 of the ASA’s complaints procedure: “It [Ofcom] can direct a broadcaster … to publish a correction or summary of a decision or adjudication …”
But is it likely to happen? Er, no – virtually impossible in my view.
Is Robin the only complainant who has been taken into the ASA’s confidence, or have other people heard from them? All I’ve had so far is confirmation that my complaint was received and saying that:
I’m in much the same boat as you, Tony. I have a letter dated 16th October from Karen Harms saying: “We have decided to pass your complaint to our Investigations Department for their consideration. An Investigations Executive may contact you in due course with more information.” The only other contact I have had is when I rang up much earlier to find out whether my letter had arrived (the post being somewhat capricious these days.)
On topic (sort of) - one thing I have to admire about the “act on CO2″ side is that they appear to be good at networking and that their ability to organise is often out of proportion to their actual numbers. On Twitter, for example, Greenpeace has 21,657 followers, 350.org has 10,296, even 10:10 has 1,731. Given that the Bedtime Stories advert will probably not be the last of its kind, it might be a good idea to have some sort of rallying point for concerted action on a platform such as Twitter or Facebook. (Even though being the kind of people we are, the action tends to be writing serious letters and e-mails rather than forming gigantic letters of the alphabet, prancing nude on glaciers, or blockading airports whilst wearing Edwardian costumes.) Just a thought.
Alex:
I think that it is a very useful thought, but unfortunately I have only the vaguest idea of what Twitter and Facebook are, although I do occasionally get notifications that links to posts at HS are being passed on via Twitter.
What do you have in mind?
Tony, I have limited experience of Twitter (have an account but haven’t used it much) and don’t have a Facebook page. I was thinking that eventually someone (probably someone much better at networking than me) should set up some sort of central hub for co-ordinating AGW-sceptical activities such as writing letters/e-mails of complaint to the ASA, BBC, Government, etc., and linking to resources. There seem to be lots of people like us who are doing these things separately, and there are possibly many more who would be more active if they realised that others were doing the same.
Here’s an example from the “other side” in the climate debate. Looking at recent FoE tweets, I can see a letter to The Times in support of Lord Stern, a speaker tour about “climate justice” and an invitation to a demo, among other items. And they have 12,739 followers who will receive these links and morsels of information instantly via the web or their mobiles. Looking at this phenomenon, I wonder whether we AGW sceptics are falling behind, in a sense.
At lunchtime today, the ASA had received 667 complaints, so the count still seems to be rising quite steeply. There are now 829 signatures on the petition at the 10 Downing Street website.
See the updates section at the bottom of the post at the top of this page for links if you have not complained or signed and wish to do so.
My letter from the ASA mentions print ads. Has anybody seen these?
Alex I agree absolutely about the usefulness of a facebook style clearing house. When Maurizio started a thread about the Science museum on Omniclimate, I felt the most useful thing I could do was to pass on a couple of links from here, for instance. On WUWT there are two commenters out of 300 with useful links which I can’t be bothered to find. Much as I like chatting to a select band of civilised human beings, I feel we would be better employed getting the message out to a wider circle.
In my post 112, I reported that I had received a detailed reply from Ms Alexander at the ASA. Essentially, it confirmed that my complaint was being referred for adjudication. I am unable to say any more as I was asked to “treat all correspondence as confidential until such time as a decision is published on our website”.
Without referring any more to the letter, however, I find that I am able to expand further on the matter by referring to data in the public domain. The ASA has usefully posted on its website the subject matter of the complaints being considered. Others who complained may be interested to compare the list posted here with the complaints they made.
In my case, at least 4 are not listed. They are (in summary):
(1) that it is untrue to state that today’s weather is “very very strange”;
(2) that it is untrue to claim that “the effects [are] happening faster than [the grown ups] thought”;
(3) that it is not made clear that it is a Government ad; and
(4) that it is clearly designed to create anxiety and guilt in the minds of adults (possibly causing emotional harm).
These are serious complaints and, in the case of 1, 2, and 3, easily verified. So it seems odd (to say the least) that they are not mentioned - surely it’s not for the ASA to ignore complaints? It may, I suppose, be relevant that the website says,
But do I really have to start again? Surely not.
Robin, we definitely match re 1) and 4) - will send them an e-mail to confirm whether these are being considered as well.
Geoff, I haven’t seen print ads yet for this, but will keep a look out. I just checked my Twitter account and FoE are now following me (!), hope they like book reviews.
Robin:
Forgive me if I’ve missed something, but have you considered this from the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code
Well no, TonyN, I haven’t referred to the BCAPTV code. But there was no need to do so as exactly the same provision appears in the ASA’s TV Code:
You’ll see from my complaint that I referred specifically to 5.2.6 - a point not, it seems, picked up by the ASA in its published list of complaints being investigated.
Robin:
There would appear to be a very real problem here. We seem to be dealing with two regulators who are using two different codes which are very similar, but not necessarily identical. I haven’t looked at the ASA’s TV Code, but the BCAPTV (Section 4) has some very interesting things to say about political advertising.
As I understand the letter that I received from the ASA, items one and four in their list of points to be investigated are the remit of Ofcom, and it is not clear whether this is in parallel with their own investigations or exclusively Ofcom’s remit. And if Point 4 is a matter for Ofcom, then why not Point 5? What distinguishes them?
It would seem that in some respects the ASA is simply acting as postmaster for Ofcom. Surely it would make more sense for complainants to be in direct contact with Ofcom over matters such as political content. For instance my complaint focused entirely on points 1 and 4, so why is the ASA writing to me about this and not Ofcom? As I had not seen the BCAPTV code when I sent in my complaint I did not refer to it, but now I would obviously like to cite it. Am I supposed to tell the ASA in the hope that they will pass this on to Ofcom who seem to be in the driving seat where the most egregious problems with the advert is concerned?
These are questions that I think would be worth sorting out with the two regulators next week.
TonyN: you’re right - the Ofcom/BCAPTV/ASA interaction is a “very real problem”. I can see the whole thing getting bogged down in a bureaucratic morass. Add to that, the complaints that have been ignored and this could drag on for months. Yet, in the meantime, the ad continues to be broadcast.
You say it “would be worth sorting [it] out with the two regulators”. I agree - but how?
Robin (128)
Back to Kafka…
Max
Harmless Sky is powered by WordPress | Using Tiga theme with a bit of Ozh + WP 2.2 / 2.3 Tiga Upgrade