
UK supermarket TV advert on palm oil banned for being too political - cirrus-clouds
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/09/iceland-christmas-tv-ad-banned-political-greenpeace-orangutan
======
black-tea
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.

~~~
M2Ys4U
>it's offended people so it gets censored

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.

~~~
black-tea
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?

~~~
drcharris
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.

~~~
black-tea
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.

~~~
drcharris
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.

------
rabboRubble
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.

------
PanMan
How can this article not link to the video? I guess it's this one?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQQXstNh45g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQQXstNh45g)

~~~
alistairSH
It's right there at the top? Is your ad blocker removing it?

------
bsenftner
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.

------
crtasm
Streisand that orangutan!

Headline sounded a little surprising until I learned it was a rebranded
Greenpeace short.

~~~
chrisseaton
> Streisand that orangutan!

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_.

~~~
crtasm
Thanks for the correction.

------
PunchTornado
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...

~~~
radford-neal
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.

~~~
porphyrogene
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.

Your comment seems intentionally obtuse.

~~~
radford-neal
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.

------
7000skeletons
See, I used to make jokes about the Fun Police in this country. But it seems a
lot less funny, these days.

------
Brian_K_White
What exactly distinguishes a political end from any other kind of end?

------
callahad
...I had no idea that political advertising was banned in the UK, but there
you go.

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](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.

~~~
djhworld
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.

~~~
sbhn
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

~~~
djhworld
I'm not sure if radio is subject to the same regulations or not

~~~
NeedMoreTea
I am guessing it probably counts as entertainment not news and current
affairs.

