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.
Hi Paul;
I think that you are probably right about the effect that the adverts will have but wrong about complaining.
Numbers seem to count in cases like this even if both the ASA and Ofcom say that this is not the case. There are likely to be some advisers at DECC who will be watching the steadily mounting score rather carefully and wondering what questions they may have to answer at the next departmental meeting.
And remember that the ASA published a list of the top ten most complained about adverts in their annual report last year. Will DECC top the list this year?
Paul:
I agree with Tony. Of course you’re right: the ads will probably “have the effect of bringing more people over to the sceptic side”. Nonetheless, it’s worth complaining for two reasons: (1) the ads are continuing despite the complaints (so the sceptic boosting will happen anyway) and (2) I suspect the DECC (and Ed Miliband) has no idea of the strength of rational dislike of these ads – more complaints must reinforce that. So go for it – complain!
As an outsider to UK politics, I hope you will permit me to comment anyway.
The statement (#4) by Ed Milliband (a paid servant of the public) exhorting the same public to support and circulate a propaganda advert directed at the public, which Milliband has sponsored and payed with tax-payer funds, is unbelievably arrogant.
It shows that he is totally out of touch with those who are paying his salary.
The exhortation:
Sounds like:
[But it looks likely that they will do just that.]
Max
Robin, TonyN, PaulM
There is no doubt that the ads “will have the effect of bringing more people over to the sceptic side” (as the SM poll is showing).
But so will the complaints (these are not “disappearing” into a vacuum).
It looks as though the only ones who are not “getting it” are Brown, Milliband, et al.
I believe that the recent world-wide public reaction against AGW has been caused largely by two factors:
– the exaggerated predictions of disaster (which never materialize)
– the arrogance of those making these predictions
And, as Einstein has remarked, arrogance and ignorance often go hand in hand.
Max
Further to Max’s 29,
I guess the more complaints there are, the more likely that the ad’ will eventually be banned. Also, if the government is forced to apologise to the public, that would surely increase the swing towards scepticism.
I also imagine that the media would give it considerable attention and maybe this would prompt some sources to follow-up and question other things. (even maybe considering the poll numbers for what the public opinion is)
Further to my 30:
(even maybe considering the poll numbers for what the public opinion is)
I guess too, that public anger would also increase, with follow-on effects.
For instance, I’ve just had an Email from my UK sister in-law, saying her partner;
…gets hot under the collar with all the global warming hysteria.
Peter’s letter from David Drew MP at #24 is a classic. And that’s just the first one? Can we have more please? After accusing a constituent of belonging to the lunatic fringe, he goes on about “carbon and other elements and gases that cause global catastrophe”. What would you say to a thirteen-year-old who wrote that in a chemistry exam?
Maybe everyone should write to their MPs and we could make an anthology of their replies. I don’t have an MP, but I once shared a flat with Diane Abbott. The last time I looked, her blog was full of penguins and polar bears. I think I’ll drop her a line.
Re: Alex Cull’s mention of Dr Alice Bell’s post on her experiences when trying to find out a little more about the adverts, there is now a link to an update here:
http://www.echae.com/scienceproject/archives/2009/10/open_access_research_in_advert.html
Hi all,
Considering the comments above you would all probably enjoy what happened in one of my (few) lectures. To set the scene in our lectures there are two people who really talk much. There is me and then there is a girl I call Blondie. Blondie and I only have the ability to argue well and a faith in democracy in common, the rest is almost directly opposite. I arrived early and set up the projector to play the Propaganda clip of theirs with the child in it.
The lecturer didn’t get a chance to stop the argument that unfolded as some poor soul said that, albeit a terrible advert (this was unanimously agreed) we should forgive it because it was promoting a good cause. This lead to the second time in my memory that Blondie and I united forces. We spent the best part of 15 minutes tearing advert to shreds (something the lecturer attempted to stop, but in the face of Blondie and I she couldn’t) pointing out the way it demonised those that didn’t act within government guidelines, etc.
How the establishment believes that they can get away with this advert when it unites climate change sceptics and believers in universal hate for propaganda is totally beyond me.
Thanks Leo.
This just happened to catch my eye today:
Is this the real motivation behind the advertising campaign? It certainly seems possible as I suggested in the header post.
If the public reject AGW hype, then I very much hope that it will not be for the reasons that Kronig gives, but rather in the spirit of the students at your lecture.
That is an interesting post, and one that I have seen arise in other German writings, although AGW seems to have found a comfy home in the German ideology so dislodging it from there will be a lengthy process (not that it isn’t taking too long over here).
Sadly though, I think that Krönig has got it right, people will reject the actual binding of their lifestyle not the idea that it is wrong to bind people. The arguments held in my pub are very very different from the ideological ones of the University.
Most of the questions I get in the pub centre around how it hasn’t materialised as they said it would and how they fear losing out over others. The University centres around if it is right or wrong to restrict our movement to ‘save’ the future generations.
I think that I would probably go with the people in the pub rather than the ones at the university, but not because I think that they are right about the evidence.
It would be a mistake to read too much into the present down-turn in temperatures, but at least the drinkers are questioning AGW on the grounds of observation and plausibility. If the students and their lecturers are only considering the ethics of mitigation measures then they would seem to have skipped the all important ‘Why are we doing these things?’ stage.
Of course both these attitudes can have politically potent effects on public opinion. However surly it is far better that people should reject the message of the government’s adverts because they don’t think there is a problem rather than because they don’t think the government should be telling them what to do even if there is one.
Here’s the text of a full-page ad in last Saturday’s Telegraph:
This was accompanied by a large colour picture showing poor Jack and Jill peering into the well and the empty pail. They are accompanied by a forlorn duck trying to get water from an empty glass and, on the surrounding hills, are the skeletons or two dead trees.
I think I sense another complaint coming on.
I’m intrigued as to why they put this in the Telegraph. This is not a mass readership paper and it’s certainly not going to reach the masses. Politically motivated rather than informing the public perhaps?
Robin, I think there are definite grounds for complaint about this print ad. It might be argued that much of the message the Bedtime Stories TV ad could be explained away as being hypothetical, i.e., something happening in a fictitious land somewhere. But this print ad has a pretty explicit statement – “For example, extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent & intense” – which is obviously meant to be describing our world, and has no room for doubt or uncertainty.
I think this statement can and should be challenged on the basis that the science indicates otherwise. Re “storms will become more frequent and intense”, I’m thinking of a recent NOAA study that concludes that a perceived increase in the number of hurricanes and tropical storms is probably due to better observation and analysis nowadays. There are also recent studies (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, European Environment Agency and more here on the CO2 Science website) which indicate that flooding patterns in the UK and Europe cannot simply be put down to “climate change”.
The sentence ” If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different” is just silly. Is there anyone who doubts that life in 25 years will be very different? It would be highly bizarre if life stayed exactly the same, in a time-warp lasting until 2034.
Peter, re the Telegraph, I wondered about that too. If they are targetting sceptics (The Times: “Climate change sceptics are to be targeted in a hard-hitting government advertising campaign…”), that may be the reason – could they be aiming this at readers of Christopher Booker and James Delingpole?
Thanks Robin for reproducing the text of this masterpiece. This confirms my suspicion that the government is well aware of the difficulty of getting any ad on global warming past the ASA. They have no facts, so they have to wrap the message in fairytales.
Alex is right. It makes sense to target the paper of Booker and Delingpole. It’s read by millions, and it’s an opinion leader, whereas the Sun is an opinion follower. Telegraph readers’ comments tend to be emotional rather than science based, so maybe the government thinks they can be won over with an appeal to fond memories of Mother Goose Rhymes. I’d expect something in the Sunday Times this weekend, though I think they’ll have to do better than this to win over Jeremy Clarkson fans.
Politicians have always been accused of making extravagant promises about a rosy future, so you have to admire them for this:
“If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different”. A sort of non-promise disguised as a threat: “Spend zillions or (horror) things might change”.
There is a new and very interesting update on Alice Bell’s blog about her quest for the opinion poll that Joan Ruddock referred to when the advertising campaign was launched:
http://www.echae.com/scienceproject/archives/2009/11/update_research_on_climate_cha.html
TonyN, the update on Alice Bell’s blog shows DECC in a rather odd light, IMO – secretive and rather amateurish.
Geoff, Robin, I’ll see if I can find the Jack and Jill print ad in tomorrow’s papers; in the meantime I’ve found a post about it here, in a blog devoted to copywriting. (The commentators don’t think much of it, even when they agree with its sentiments.)
Geoff, I like your phrase “non-promise disguised as a threat.” It sums up the government’s message very well.
Alex:
I don’t know whether the most recent comment I left at Alic Bell’s blog was there when you visited, but I will be putting in a FOI request for the ‘detailed research’ and following up the questions that I listed.
IMHO the the DECC press office earned their keep with that Oh-so-cosy telephone chat.
TonyN, yes I see what you mean now; it will be interesting to see what this reveals!
Alex: you say (post 40), “there are definite grounds for complaint about this print ad” as its statement about extreme weather leaves no room for doubt or uncertainty. Perhaps – but I think the ASA would say (see its “Important Notice“) that it’s already being investigated so “There is no need to lodge a separate complaint with us”. The relevant item from those under “formal investigation” reads,
Robin, I think you’re right there – I had missed something crucial in the first line of the Important Notice web page, i.e., that the investigation is covering “the ACT ON CO2 ads by the Department for Energy and Climate Change, including the TV ad…”, which would mean that the print ad would be covered too. So yes, no point in raising a separate complaint.
Alex: Mrs G has complained about the print ad yesterday. Here’s what she said (although in her introduction she did say that her first and fourth points appeared to already to be under investigation):
Congratulations to Mrs G for giving this jellyfish of a campaign another wack on the head.
But reading the ad again, I wonder whether we need bother. This ad is not only indefensible, it’s unattackable. It has no argument, no content, no logic. It’s mood music to accompany your inner nightmares.
Consider the sentence: “extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought”. A double tautology. Drought is extreme weather, which is climate change. Nothing is asserted. There is no assertion in the ad that CO2 is causing anything. No assertion that man is causing anything. It’s like a road safety ad stating “Collisions cause accidents” or an AIDS ad saying “sex causes fornication”.
The copy seems to have been designed specifically to avoid objections under the ASA rules, and to get you to go on the Act on CO2 website, which is presumably not covered by those rules.
A Labour leader once accused his own party of writing an unrealistically optimistic manifesto which he described as “the longest suicide note in history”. This campaign is an official government announcement that they can do nothing, the future is going to be horrible, and it’s our fault. Coming less than a year before a general election, it’s a plea for the right to an assisted suicide – the most expensive doctor’s note in history.
Good point, Geoff.
Also note that “drought” and “storm” are both anglo-saxon words from over 1000 years ago. I guess they had these words to describe events of the time – they did not just invent the words in readiness for the SUVs and plasma-TVs of future generations…