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.
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