UK supermarket TV advert on palm oil banned for being too political
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
A free market cannot exist without consumers having perfect knowledge. If we can't have perfect knowledge then we completely rely on the government to do the right thing.
No, it's been "censored" because there's a prohibition on political advertising on TV. It's nothing to do with the _content_ of the political message.
It's a Greenpeace video with the logo taken off. So it's political.
It's not about the topic of palm oil - it's about how much an advert can take content directly from an organisation that is a political organisation. Without this, you open a massive backdoor into all TV advertising in the UK.
The problem is taking, wholesale, content from a political organisation and using it in a realm that has laws about political content.
Removing the logo is, if anything, worse - it hides the origin of the video and ads dishonesty to the mix.
If Iceland made their own video about the consequences of the palm oil industry and advertised it, I'd be interested to see if ClearCast approved it.
Their PR department and advertising agency needs a raise.
Yes, it's that one without the last 8s of Greenpeace call to action.
Beautiful animation though, so well done.
Headline sounded a little surprising until I learned it was a rebranded Greenpeace short.
Nobody is trying to suppress the video, so talking about 'Streisand' doesn't make any sense.
They're just saying it can't be shown as an advert on TV.
It is about climate change and the impact on the environment and animals. It is like maths and physics and not a matter of debate. It is not associated with any political party...
Of course, things that are actually "not a matter of debate" do not need to be debated. Nobody is interested in producing ads affirming that, say, water expands when it freezes. Your statement is self-refuting.
Your comment seems intentionally obtuse.
As an American, some of the quotes from this this BBC News piece five years ago are really interesting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22238582
"Political adverts are - and have always been - banned on British TV and radio. That ban has wide support and has helped sustain the balance of views which is at the heart of British broadcasting - and ensures the political views broadcast into our homes are not determined by those with the deepest pockets."
"The US experience shows the only people who would profit from TV attack ads are moneyed interest groups, TV networks and paid political consultants. The biggest loser would be democratic debate in Britain."
I'm not quite sure how to evaluate those perspectives in light of more recent political events, but still a really fascinating difference in something I've taken for granted as an American.
On the surface, that's seems like nice sentiment, but on deeper analysis it's not. Firstly, all british broadcasts are already controlled by the people with deep pockets ( including the government funded state propaganda BBC ). Secondly, british media is extremely biased already. Thirdly, all this does is just helps the entrenched old money control the narrative. Fourthly, china, the soviet union, nazi germany, etc also banned political adverts.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. The people with the most money and power will win whether you ban political ads or not.
Democracy, whether here or in the UK, is controlled and managed and provide an illusion of choice.
Overall, over the decades, I find the Beeb make a reasonable fist of being unbiased. With the occasional ludicrous attempt to balance by allowing a fringe a voice. Some instances of which have been apologised for.
When an opposition gets into power they still complain, no matter who Paxman or Humphries has had a pop at lately. I think any preferences of the types of stories they run are a reflection of the times, and perhaps the sort of people who choose to go into the media rather than any overt bias. Thus for some they are viewed as biased centrist or centre left in always seeking balance.
More recently the BBC allowed Arron Banks to defend himself publicly against legal charges of election interference in a way which might well bias a trial.
The BBC might not be "government funded state propaganda" but BBC governors are chosen by the government.
The Arron Banks interview was indefensible, and I haven't yet heard a reasonable response there.
Since regulation was passed to Ofcom and the BBC board was created the government get to recommend only some. Not sure of exact number, but think it's a minority. Supposedly to further distance them from claims of state control.
For all its faults, I still prefer the American system better. It's not better in every way... commercials (especially political ones) are a plague... but I would rather err on the side of Free Speech.
The British approach to TV is "This is what's going on. Do with that as you will." It's presented as if it are objective facts, calmly and with a distinct lack of emotion. The only time you ever seem to be force fed emotional opinions are by sports commentators and Band Aid concerts.
I find the BBC really refreshing because they don't hyper sensationalize everything. The news is presented as if it's factual objective (not to say that it is, but it appears to be) and understated, much like the stereotypical English person.
When I watch British TV, I get a very definite feeling that I'm being persuaded to draw my own conclusions, whereas American TV, I'm blatantly being fed an opinion and told what I'm supposed to be thinking which I still after 18 years find incredibly irritating.
They were repeatedly, in turn, accused of being both pro-Israel/anti-Palestine and anti-Israel/pro-Palestine by various audience members, each using their own cherry-picked examples.
If you can attract that level of criticism from both sides of the argument, I think you can lay a reasonable claim to being fairly neutral. They certainly weren't "clearly" anti-Israel to some people.
Obviously the politicians try as hard as they're able to inject party messages in every topical interview or discussion programme, but there is a requirement to seek balance so they don't get their own way here either. Often this works well, sometimes the "balance" is having someone eminently unqualified to parrot "no" a lot. Nigel Lawson, the ex-chancellor, denying climate change springs to mind as a recent example.
Brexit rather broke the process. Ads on Facebook and similar were seeming to get around the limitations of political advertising with relative ease. The Brexit campaigns and some of the people are currently undergoing investigations, including criminal, for alleged breaches. No matter what may be found it's unlikely to change the result. Aside from that the "debate" on tv and radio was terrible by both sides throughout the whole referendum campaign.