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’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.