"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.
Our broadcast news channels are regulated too, i.e. there are no "right wing" or "left wing" news channels/programmes here in the UK because of this regulation.
Nigel ferage has his own radio show, and it’s very popular, and as you might have guessed, swayed towards reminding its listeners they are under imminent attack
But it's on a station (LBC) that has strong centre/left presenters too, such as James O'Brien. The whole station is a bit too much like Outrage Central for me tbh, but at least it's fairly balanced outrage.
> "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."
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.
This is not a valid argument for the BBC being an objective broadcasting organisation. One side can rightfully claim bias and then the other side can over-sensitively claim bias the other way because the BBC isn't 100% presenting it's view. The BBC could still be much more biased towards one side.
I'm not arguing they are perfectly objective evidenced by complaints from both sides. I'm arguing that they're not "government funded state propaganda" as GP claims, who would be expected to be pretty consistent in support of said government regardless of their views. :)
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.
I wouldn't say that that allowing fringe voices has been occasional. Nigel Farage has had a very disproportionate number of appearances on Question Time alone.
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.
Farage got his spot by being UKIP lead and seeking to cover the range of views and be unbiased. Which, of course, can lead to its own biases. Yes, he seemed to get far too much air time, yet we have someone else in this thread saying the Beeb was clearly pro-EU.
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.
It doesn't matter if the BBC is biased or not. There's no competition, so it's always possible to make the charge.
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 problem with American TV is you're blatantly being force fed opinions on everything. Being told what to think. Opinions are spewed at you with such a level of emotion and passion that you can't avoid feeling anything. Much as you try to brush it off, it affects how you perceive life.
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.
In my experience, the BBC tends to err on the side of opposition. It doesn't seem to matter who is in power... I'm speaking as someone who has lived in Canada for the past 18 years and has been subject to U.S. TV for that long.
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.
I don't think the BBC supports a political party, but support for certain positions is certainly evident. They are clearly pro-EU and anti-Israel, for instance.
I went to a "meet the senior managers" public feedback event at the BBC a few years ago. The Chairman, Director General, controller of BBC 1 and a few other top level people were there to hear the views of the public.
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.
Overall it has worked very well. Simply avoid the TV for 10 minutes when there is one of the approved election broadcasts from one of the main parties. Outside of those... No sound of axes being ground.
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.
The "American perspective" on something marginally related to the topic is always the top comment on submissions dealing with other governments. It's an unofficial Hacker News guideline, "How you feel as an American is always on topic."
People will tell you that consumers have the ability to cause change. They say that if we care enough we can just choose companies that are ethical. So this company has decided to be ethical and advertised the fact and it's offended people so it gets censored.
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.
It's not political, though, is it? Unless you think the decision to use palm oil or not is solely down to the government. And if that's the case then why is the UK government positively supporting palm oil?
If there is a palm oil-related item that is being voted on the ad may be thought to be supporting one side of that issue. It looks to me like it is advocating for education and conscientious consumption rather than a purely political message. This underscores the problem with the government being allowed to censor anything at all: it only works if the government is truly acting in the peoples' best interests. Historically that has tended not to be the case.
From the article: "“The creative submitted to us is linked to another organisation who have not yet been able to demonstrate compliance in this area.”
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.
Bullshit. Greenpeace has a political agenda, but without the Greenpeace logo it was merely calling for consumers to take ethics into account when choosing where to shop. It's not political just because a political organisation happens to support the same cause. Just about every other advert on TV is some company talking about their green credentials. That's not banned just because the Green Party would also agree with it.
Again, it's not about the topic. It's not about who else supports it. It's not about the benefits of a product. It's not about Iceland's policy on palm oil, or the virtues thereof.
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.
Having political ads banning is quite interesting. Here in the USA I have always looked at the avalanche of political ads as simply a "gift to the media owners" who must be collecting billions every election season. I look at that revenue as why we don't have saner political advertising regulation - the advertising lobby won't allow it.
Banning political ads is good. But IMO this ad is not political at all.
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...
That's the ticket! Define your opponents' views as "political", and hence not allowed, while your views are not political since they are just obviously true. And away you go!
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.
There is evidence to support one side of issues such as climate change. Those issues are very different from issues such as abortion or marriage equality that require an examination of one's views of morality and the role of government.
Yes, and there is evidence to support the other side of those issues too. Numerous, indeed most, political issues hinge on factual disputes, not just on moral judgements.
climate change happens and nobody is producing ads affirming that. they are producing ads however to influence human behaviour to take into account that. it is like having an ad to enrol your kid into maths classes. climate change is not a matter of debate where the bbc should have deniers on shows. only our response to it is a matter of debate.
The issue of climate change is not a yes/no question. It is quantitative - what is the MAGNITUDE of the effects of human actions on the climate. Talk of "deniers" goes with a failure to understand this. It is a failure that is deeply political.
As an advertisement, the piece is brilliant. I now know that a) there is a company called Iceland (still don't know what they sell -- but I now know of it), b) they put together a compelling story, c) they are environmentally aware and care for cute animals, d) that I might not know how to pronounce orangutang. Does not matter that the ad won't air in the UK. Major free press is free.
Their PR department and advertising agency needs a raise.
49 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 149 ms ] threadHeadline 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.
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.
Yes, it's that one without the last 8s of Greenpeace call to action.
Beautiful animation though, so well done.
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.
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.
Their PR department and advertising agency needs a raise.