Last week it became clear that the Advertising Standards Authority had launched an inquiry into the Government’s £6m TV advertising campaign aimed at climate change sceptics. Now it appears that the UK broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, will also investigate complaints that the advert is politically motivated and therefore breeches the ban on broadcasting political adverts. They would seem to have good reason for deciding to do so.
This is what the advert tells viewers about climate change:
(If the video viewer does not appear on your computer then use this link)
–
–
So far, the ASA has received over 650 complaints and rising. That score ranks with the most complained about advert of 2008, which attracted 840 complaints. According to a letter that I received from the ASA this morning the following points will be investigated:
1. The ad was political in nature and should not be broadcast;
2. The theme and content of the ad, for example the dog drowning in the storybook and the depiction of the young girl to whom the story was being read, could be distressing for children who saw it;
3. The ad should not have been shown when children were likely to be watching television;
4. The ad was misleading because it presented human induced climate change as a fact, when there was a significant division amongst the scientific community on that point;
5. The claim “over 40% of the C02 was coming from ordinary everyday things” was misleading;
6. The representation of C02 as a rising cloud of black smog was misleading;
7. The claims about the possible advent of strange weather and flooding, and associated imagery in the ad, in the UK were exaggerated, distressing and misleading;
They also say that:
Points (1) and (4) in relation to the TV ad may be subject to Section 4 of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code, which is administered by Ofcom. We will therefore be referring to Ofcom objections to the TV campaign raised in respect of ‘political’ objectives; Ofcom will in due course be publishing a Finding of its determination. When both bodies have concluded their investigations, we plan to notify complainants of both our and Ofcom’s determinations.
This is what Section 4 of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code says:
SECTION 4: POLITICAL AND CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES
No advertisement:
(a) may be inserted by or on behalf of any body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature
(b) may be directed towards any political end
(c) may have any relation to any industrial dispute (with limited exceptions)
Note to 4(c):
The Broadcasting Act 1990 specifically exempts public service advertisements
by or on behalf of a government department from the prohibition of
advertisements having ‘any relation to any industrial dispute’.
(d) may show partiality as respects matters of political or industrial controversy
or relating to current public policy
Notes to Section 4:
(1) The purpose of this prohibition is to prevent well-funded organisations from
using the power of television advertising to distort the balance of political debate. The rule reflects the statutory ban on ‘political’ advertising on
television in the Broadcasting Act 1990.
(2) The term ‘political’ here is used in a wider sense than ‘party political’. The
rule prevents, for example, issue campaigning for the purpose of influencing
legislation or executive action by legislatures either at home or abroad. Where
there is a risk that advertising could breach this rule, prospective advertisers
should seek guidance from licensees before developing specific proposals.
(3) The setting of standards and investigations of complaints in relation to
political advertising have not been contracted out to BCAP and the ASA and
remain matters for Ofcom. The ASA refers complaints about political advertising to Ofcom.
[my emphasis]
http://www.cap.org.uk/The-Codes/~/media/Files/CAP/Codes/BCAPTVAdCode.ashx
Note (2) has particular resonance in view of the imminence of the Copenhagen summit.
The ASA’s letter ends with the following rather strange request:
Please treat all correspondence as confidential until such time as a decision is published on our website.
Had I given an undertaking to treat whatever the ASA told me in confidence before receiving this letter I would of course abide by that commitment. But no such request was made and it would seem to me that it is in the public interest that what is happening should be in the public domain. In fact I can think of absolutely no reason for requesting confidentiality other than to spare the government’s blushes, and I certainly hope that was not what motivated the ASA. Both the ASA and Ofcom can take a very considerable time to reach decisions that appear on their web sites, so it is very strange to expect that there should be no public discussion of these matters in the meantime.
All this is very embarrassing for the government, and for Ed Miliband’s Department of Energy and Climate Change in particular. They commissioned the advert in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate change summit in December because opinion polls indicate that there is still widespread scepticism about global warming.
A report at the TIMESONLINE – apparently based on pre-launch media briefings – says that the advertising campaign ‘will be the first to state unequivocally that Man is causing global warming and endangering life on Earth’, and that is precisely what it does. But scientific evidence does not endorse that claim, as many of those who have complained to the ASA have pointed out.
In defending the campaign, climate change minister Joan Ruddock told the Guardian that:
‘It is consistent with government policy on the issue, which is informed by the latest science and assessments of peer-reviewed, scientific literature made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other international bodies.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/16/complaints-government-climate-change-ad
In fact neither the IPCC nor the Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of science and an international body of great repute, have made unequivocal statements about the causes or effects of global warming. The IPCC says only that ‘most’ of the mid-20th century global warming was ‘very likely’ caused by human influence. This leaves considerable scope for other, natural, causes.
A statement on climate change at the Royal Society website says that rising temperatures, changing sea levels, and impacts on global weather are a ‘possible’ consequences of climate change and that these changes ‘could’ have serious impacts. Far from claiming that there is unequivocal evidence of human influence they refer only to ‘an international scientific consensus’.
Then there is the growing realisation, now accepted by climate scientists and increasingly being reported in the media, that global average temperatures have failed to rise for a decade. The advert provides no hint of this but portrays global warming a growing threat which is entirely due to human activity, and preventable by changing our lifestyles.
So it is hard to see how the ASA can fail to condemn this advert as being misleading, but what about the political motivation that seems to underlie such an eye-catching initiative? This is not a matter for the ASA, but for Ofcom who are responsible for enforcing legislation that forbids political advertising.
The Copenhagen climate change summit in December could see the UK saddled with massive contributions to the annual payments that will have to be made to the developing countries, including China and India, if they are to be persuaded to cut carbon emissions. In the run-up to a general election, how do you sell that kind of commitment to a public that is by no means convinced that there is a problem, but is increasingly concerned about spiralling public debt?
The political stakes are high. Ed Miliband has been widely tipped as a possible successor to Gordon Brown as leader of the Labour Party. The foreign secretary, who is likely to play a major role at the summit, happens to be his brother David. He is thought to have his sights set on becoming the EU’s new High Representative (foreign minister) when the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. For both of them it is very important that whatever is agreed at Copenhagen should be applauded by the public when they return and not derided as an act of New Labour folly.
In a speech to the Major Economies Forum in London last week the prime minister, Gordon Brown, claimed that there was only 50 days left to save the world from global warming, and that there was no ‘plan B’ if the Copenhagen negotiations fail. He too is in desperate need of public support. A great deal of political capital is riding on the effect that those adverts may have, and this makes claims that they were politically inspired, and therefor illegal, all the more credible. The Copenhagen summit is beginning to look more and more like a political minefield where career-terminating damage may be inflicted if the government’s policies cannot be made to look sensible by mid-December.
The prime minister is fond of boasting that Britain leads the world in the war on climate change, and this is not the first time that our government has been spooked by lack of public support in the run-up to a war. What seems to be happening now is horribly reminiscent of the prelude to the invasion of Iraq, when scepticism about the need for military intervention was an obstacle to government policy.
Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell’s solution was the ‘dodgy dossier’, providing what appeared to be unequivocal evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and claiming that this was based on robust intelligence. Now it would seem that Gordon Brown’s administration is employing the same techniques to win support for policies for which they might otherwise be cold shouldered by the electorate as a general election approaches. The TV adverts are being funded by six million pounds of taxpayer’s money.
It will be interesting to see whether the electorate are as gullible the second time round, and just how independent and courageous the ASA and Ofcom prove to be when confronted with very politically sensitive decisions.
Update 02/11/2009: See comment #4 below for something new about this.
Ironically, a large proportion of those who opposed the war and marched, will be the same ones who are evangelising on global warming, nka (now known as),climate change
Congratulations to TonyB (NS thread #8021) for finding Ed Miliband’s moving defence of free speech:
“whipped up by the sceptics, nearly six hundred people have complained about [the ad] in a bid to get it banned. Don’t let the sceptics silence us”.
It’s on his official site (with Labour Party logo) where he also invites his readers to oppose Kenneth Clark, write to David Cameron, etc. So it’s perfect proof that the ad is party political. I think Ofcom should be told.
The text on Ed Miliband’s site appears to have been changed slightly overnight. The following paragraph appears to have gone:
“I know you care about climate change, but as we’ve seen in recent weeks, not everyone does. Indeed there are many people who still believe it’s not happening, or if it is, the activities of human beings have nothing to do with it.”
I’m sure it was there yesterday.
This is from a comment that Tony B posted on another thread:
This would appear to add weight to complaints that the adverts are linked to party politiccal activity and therefore infringe Section 4 of the Advertising Code that Ofcom are supposed to enforce.
These follow-up coments are also relevant:
But see also a comment posted later on this thread #3 here.
Well spotted, Alex (post 3) – those words have been removed. I wonder why? Could it be that they might be interpreted as suggesting that there might be another – legitimate – view on AGW?
TonyN: re your comments above, I argued (in an email to the ASA) that the ad was not political, even within their Code’s (the same wording as the CAPBTV code) extended meaning of “political” – see my post here. The ASA said they would consult with OFCOM about this. But I heard no more on the question.
I notice that Ed Miliband doesn’t invite comments on his blog, and that his ‘poll’ is of the ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ variety.
A ‘none of the above’ option might have been revealing, but as poor Professor Nutt knows, Zanulabour isn’t very interested in debate or dissent.
whipped up by the sceptics
OK – who’s responsible?
I’d love to know what he bases that notion on! He seem to forget that we’re not the alarmists…
James (6) – yes: did you stop beating your wife (i) today (ii) yesterday or (iii) the day before? I suspect young Ed has no inkling of the weight or extent of informed UK opinion that disagrees with him – see for example the results of that SM poll or the comments on this Times article.
Robin, it’s thanks to TonyB really for posting the entire text earlier, when it first appeared. Goes to show that revisions, amendments and deletions, no matter how small, can be very telling.
On that note, here‘s a website that might be useful sometimes; click on the “Revisionista” link to see BBC news stories which have gone through a number of versions (most probably for perfectly valid reasons, it must be said.)
to Robin at #6
Yes the Times article you link to provokes some healthy scepticism from readers. Though none of the commenters I’ve read make the point that Sir David King, who is warning against exaggerated claims on climate change, was recently telling us we’d all have to emigrate to Antarctica, a point made well by Delingpole in theTelegraph.
No doubt Ed Miliband thinks all these comments have been whipped up by Harmless Sky and Wattsupwiththat, and that TonyN and Anthony Watts are operating secret networks of astroturfers financed by Big Oil. Weird to see leftist politicians using the kind of “red scare” tactics used for so long against them.
Don’t let the sceptics silence us
I wish..!
[TonyN: I’m unclear about when you prefer contributors to post on this thread or on the original bedtime story thread. If this is in the wrong place, please move it.]
It’s interesting that the ASA has updated its web page about this ad. See this. It tells us that it has now received “over seven hundred complaints” – so it’s heading towards a record. (That’s not significant, however, as the multiple complaints tend to be turned down.) Note the comment at the end about inability to enter into personal correspondence.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, I believe four of my earlier complaints have been overlooked. Therefore, acting on the ASA’s advice in its penultimate paragraph, I’ve made another complaint as follows:
Robin:
I think that it is best if all comments are posted on the most recent thread dealing with the ads.
It will be interesting to see if the ASA’s web page is updated in the light of your new complaint.
Re your #5 above, we seem to take a different view on the political implications of this advert.
Although it is certainly possible to argue that there is little public controversy over the scientific evidence of AGW, it is also possible to argue the opposite, and that if there was no significant public controversy then there would be no need for the advertising campaign. What is certain is that measures intended to mitigate global warming are controversial:energy saving light bulbs, wind farms, carbon taxes, new runway at Heathrow, climate camps and direct action, etc, etc. These controversies are all contingent on belief that AGW is happening.
However Sec 4 of the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code, which Ofcom has a statutory duty to enforce, also says:
I do not think that it is possible for anyone to construct plausible arguments that this advert does not ‘relate to current public policy’, and it certainly presents a one-sided view of the extent, causes, risks and apparently inevitable consequences of global warming.
The advert is clearly intended to convey the DECC (government) view on climate change. At no point is there any indication that there can be any other point of view. It is the stated intention of the advertisers (in the persons of Miliband and Ruddock) to change the minds of sceptics. That they admit that there are sceptics, and a great many of them, acknowledges that there is another, and widely held, point of view on AGW. Indeed the very need for the advertising campaign, at a cost of £6m, confirms that this is the case. The advert is therefore one-sided, representing only the advertiser’s point of view, and if it is one-sided it must also ‘show partiality’
In any case I will be taking this up with Ofcom.
Just sent an e-mail to Jenny Alexander at ASA and have made similar points to Robin’s 1 and 4. I have also written this:
“I note that the first in the list of points to be investigated is: “The ad was political in nature and should not be broadcast”. In Section 4 (Political and Controversial Issues) of your TV Advertising Standards Code, the ASA states: “No advertisement: (a) may be inserted by or on behalf of any body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature, (b) may be directed towards any political end.” In the Notes to Section 4, the ASA states that: “The purpose of this prohibition is to prevent well-funded organisations from using the power of television advertising to distort the balance of political debate. The rule reflects the statutory ban on ‘political’ advertising on television in the Broadcasting Act 1990.”
It increasingly appears to me that, among its other qualities, this ad is mainly of a political nature and directed towards a political end. On Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband’s website http://www.edspledge.com there has (as of Sunday 1st November 2009) appeared this page (apologies for the long link): [link]. On this page, Ed Miliband urges readers to use a web form to tell their friends to watch the advert and join the Ed’s Pledge campaign.
This is what he writes: “The advert they are trying to ban. As part of an effort to raise peoples’ awareness of man-made climate change and what we can all do about it, the government had this advert made. Now, whipped up by the sceptics, nearly six hundred people have complained about it in a bid to get it banned. Don’t let the sceptics silence us – use the form below to tell a friend to watch the advert and join the Ed’s Pledge campaign.”
Ed’s Pledge appears to be definitely of a party political nature; recently, as you can see from the website (link @http://www.edspledge.com/success-letter) Ed Miliband has used this resource to muster co-signatures on a letter to David Cameron, urging him to persuade Conservative MP Ken Clarke to retract comments made about building wind farms. This campaign would thus appear to be wholly or in part about gaining political advantage over the Conservatives. As such, by linking the Bedtime Stories advert to Ed’s Pledge, on a political web page displaying the Labour Party name and logo, Ed Miliband (and by association, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, sponsors of the advert) would appear to be in breach of Section 4 a) and b).”
Also…
Found something interesting today, a post written on October 21st by Dr Alice Bell (Lecturer in Science Communication at Imperial College, London) on a website called The Science Project. Although she is not a sceptic (“I want to emphasise that I’m largely on the side of ACT ON CO2”) she is critical of the way DECC announced in its press release that the Act on CO2 campaign was based on “timely research” but this research is actually nowhere to be found.
Alex:
I really think that it would be worth sending that to Ofcom too. The political content of the advert falls firmly into their sphere of responsibility and I would be reluctant to rely on the ASA to act as a reliable forwarding agent in view of the way that points that both you and Robin seem to have disappeared. Also, Ofcom reply to correspondence; their Gudelines makes it virtually impossible for them to do otherwise to do otherwise.
The link to Dr Bell’s post is fascinating. From the DECC’s press release:
That is more than the IPCC, the Royal Society or any other responsible scientific body is prepared to do.
Just in time for the ‘pantomime’ season?
TonyN: note that the “timely research” that Dr Alice Bell couldn’t find was about the DECC “finding” that “over 50% of people questioned don’t believe climate change will affect them …” – as made public when the campaign was launched. It was opinion research, not scientific research about the causes of climate change. I couldn’t find it either.
As she says,
Agreed.
The adverts seem to be attracting criticism even from those who stand to benefit:
http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/948285/B-Q-chief-launches-tirade-against-CO2-ad/
Sent a separate complaint to OfCom this evening. Also received an e-mail from ASA’s Jenny Alexander with a link to a PDF file on the ASA site: ActonCO2QandA.pdf
Unfortunately I can’t get the link to work properly; has anyone else managed to access this? (Here’s the link.)
TonyN, re panto season, it could be argued that it has already arrived:
UK Gov: “Give us all the rest of your money, ‘cos man-made CO2 is the greatest threat the world has ever faced!”
UK sceptics (85% of population and rising): “Oh no it isn’t!”
UK Gov: “OH YES IT IS!”
UK sceptics: “OH NO IT ISN’T!”
(Repeat, etc.)
[…] re. climate change as well as the ASA. In case it’s politically motivated. As if, I ask you …. Harmless Sky – Climate, the countryside and landscapes Ofcom to investigate government’s ?dodg… "… Last week it became clear that the Advertising Standards Authority had launched an […]
Alex Reur 18, here is a copy of ASA’s pdf.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Why are the ads still appearing?
A: The rules say that advertising that breaches the advertising Codes should not appear. At
this stage, we are investigating to see whether the Codes have been breached. If the ASA
upholds the complaints on one or more points, we will take action to ensure they are
removed or amended, depending on the nature of the breach.
Q: How can I follow the progress of the case and when will you make a decision?
A: In line with our procedures, we have advised the Department of Energy and Climate
Change of the seven points we are investigating and now need to allow them time to
respond. The complaint that the TV ad is political in nature is a matter that falls outside our
remit. We have referred those complaints to Ofcom for consideration under their regulatory
powers and they will reach a determination on that issue separately.
At this stage it is impossible to say exactly when a decision will be made because that
depends on the response we receive and also on the outcome of Ofcom’s investigation.
Due to the high volume of complaints, we are unable to enter into individual dialogue or
correspondence with complainants about the investigation. However, we will inform all
complainants about the outcome of the investigation. Our final ruling will also be published in
full on our website.
Further information about our investigations procedures and standards of service can be
found at http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/about/standards/.
Q: My complaint was different from those you say you are investigating. Why are you
not investigating my complaint?
A: Many people have complained about similar issues but have used their own words. We
have summarised those points, but it is impossible to reflect the exact wording of every
complaint. If we do not seem to have covered a point you made, it is either because we
consider that it is sufficiently similar to be included in one of the points we are investigating,
or that the ads are unlikely to breach the Advertising Codes on those grounds.
If you have a point of complaint that you have not previously submitted, which does not fall
under one of the seven points that we are investigating, then please lodge it with us using
our complaints form: http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/.
Just to say thanks, Bob!
Concerning the first item in the FAQ, the ASA’s targets for completing an investigation are 80 days to 140 days depending on whether the issues are simple or complex. They have already said that this case is so complex that it may take a little longer.
Ofcom has the power to ban an advert pending investigation, but only in exceptional circumstances.
Further to my #12, I received an email from the ASA yesterday, saying that it had “passed your complaint to our Complaints team. A Complaints Executive will assess your complaint and will reply in full as soon as possible.” I was given a new reference number.
So I wait to hear.
Alex (your #14): I wouldn’t expect you to get anything more than a formal reply. Note this from the FAQs (#20): “Due to the high volume of complaints, we are unable to enter into individual dialogue or correspondence with complainants about the investigation.”
It may be best to make a new complaint.
I wrote to my MP (David Drew Labour Stroud) to complain about the advertising campaign. His first reply to me contained this quotation
and
and to finish
Needless to say there were precious few facts in his hurried reply, and a demonstration of a complete lack of understanding. My dilemma is do I engage with him and using conciliatory language and try and educate him or do I hit him with both barrels.
[TonyN: Thanks Peter. I notice that Drew’s majority at the last election was just 350. If that is the kind of letter he writes to his constituents I doubt whether it would even need a swing against Labour for him to collect his P45 next spring]
I will not be complaining about this ad, ridiculous though it is. IMHO, this kind of hysterical exaggerated scaremongering and blatant propaganda will have the effect of bringing more people over to the sceptic side.