for
the
BROADCASTING
COMMISSION OF
(Phase
II)
on
Question 1: What are your views on
the
five objectives proposed?
Please provide a rationale for your responses.
As per
Family and Media Association (FMA)’s response to Phase 1 for the development of a General Advertising
Code, we
believe that the first 4 of these objectives are close to excellent. However,
once again, we believe that objective number:1 should be amended to
read:
'To ensure
that the citizen and consumer can be confident that commercial communication
(i.e. advertising, sponsorship and teleshopping) is legal, honest, truthful,
decent and neither offensive nor harmful.' (emphasis
added).
Our
rationale for proposing this amendment is simply that: the individual
should be able to expect to be protected from anything that is
harmful - as well as anything that is objectively
offensive. Whatever is dishonest, untruthful and indecent is also harmful
but the reverse is not necessarily true. Violent behaviour, for example, may, in
a certain sense, be accurately communicated commercially, however this limited
accuracy will not prevent that communication from being harmful. This absence of
an objective to protect against harm is also apparent in the later sections of
the code which contain no rule specifically preventing a commercial communication from
causing harm. The failure, to date, to
specifically protect against harm represents a ‘tragic flaw’ in the
code.
We endorse fully the 2nd, 3rd and
4th objectives for the following reasons: (2) If a commercial
communication impinges on the editorial integrity of broadcasts, it endangers
the broadcaster's effort to tell the truth without distortion and exploitation;
(3) Clear guidance to broadcasters on standards which must be adhered to makes
the ignoring of these standards less likely and easier to address successfully,
should they occur; (4) Guidance to the public increases confidence and the
ability to protect one's self, one's community and one's family from commercial
communications which could exploit them.
We are amazed at the inclusion of the 5th
objective which has come as a result of pressure from broadcasters and
advertisers (see BCI Statement of Outcomes, section 2.2, page 4) – broadcasters
and advertisers had objected to the objectives in that they were “weighted
unduly in favour of the Citizen Consumer”. On the contrary, FMA considers the
influence of broadcasters and advertisers over the entire Code preparation
process to be too great as it is: in addition to the public consultation phase
which allows broadcasters and advertisers to respond, as it does any other group
or individual, phase 2 also includes a “workshop with broadcasters” (see
consultation document, page 29). This is a surprisingly undemocratic approach
which runs contrary to what should be the main objective of the code: the
protection of the consumer/individual from exploitation by what is not
legal, honest, truthful or decent, and by what is offensive or
harmful.
Moreover these terms must be clearly defined and understood
if this objective is to be
realized.
Question 2: What are your views on each
of the
exclusions proposed in the draft code?
Please provide a rationale for your responses.
As per our response to Phase 1, we are concerned that in
being excluded from the definition of advertising, certain communications
perceived by the public as advertising
( see the inclusive definition of advertising used by the
Independent Television Committee (UK) and the rationale for this in General
Advertising Codes – a review of national and international practice, section
2.2.1) will also be excluded from the very positive requirements of the Code.
One such set of requirements is that of section 3.2:
(principle 3.2) - “(they) must not prejudice (respect
for) human dignity, cause harm or serious or widespread offence; (rule 3.2.1) - (They)
shall not include any discrimination on the basis of age, gender, marital
status, membership of the Traveler Community, family status, sexual orientation,
disability, race or religion; (rule 3.2.2) - (they) shall not be offensive to
religious or political beliefs or encourage behaviour prejudicial to the
protection of the environment or to health or safety … ”.
We would
propose therefore that none of the exclusions are applied to principle,
3.2. and its associated
rules.
Although the wording of question 2 does not seem to allow
for the possibility that there should be other exclusions in the Code, we would
once again (as per our response to phase 1) like to propose the
following:
Announcements regarding religious events or explaining the
position of a religious grouping with respect to actions or events associated
with that grouping.
Our rationale for proposing this exclusion is that it would
help to prevent the exploitation of such actions or events for sectarian
purposes and would, in turn, help to contribute to inter-cultural and
inter-religious harmony.
Question 3: What are your views on the
principles and rules proposed? Please provide a rationale for your
responses
FMA welcomes the inclusion of additional rules to give
effect to the principle of ‘Offence, Harm and Human Dignity’. We had expressed
the serious concern in our phase 1 submission that
“the application of rule 1 in section 5.2.2 (now
renamed rule 3.2.3 and section 3.2 respectively) is not capable by itself, of
bringing about the requirement that '(commercial communications) shall not (i) prejudice
respect for human dignity;(ii) include any discrimination on ground of race, sex
or nationality; (iii) be offensive to religious or political beliefs, or
encourage behaviour prejudicial to the protection of the environment or to
health or safety'.
The new rules 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 are taken directly from the
old form of principle 3.2 and give the principle some effect. Rule 3.2.2
could be strengthened by adding the
following:
“Commercial Communications shall not contain any
scriptural quotations or allusions to religious ideas or events, particularly
where their meaning is altered in order to promote a product, or such that they
may have the perceived effect of undermining a moral or religious belief
system”
Notwithstanding the structural improvements, it remains a source of great concern that although offence
is mentioned explicitly in rule 3.2.2, none of the rules mention human dignity
and harm. While some of the prohibitions are certainly implicitly against
some of what insults human dignity and otherwise causes harm there is no
specific rule protecting either against harm in general or against injuring
human dignity. This means that, with the code in its current form,
a harmful commercial communication
could be broadcast without breaking any
rules!
There is also no specific prohibition against commercial communications
containing material which are either sexually explicit or sexually suggestive.
Such communications would clearly be harmful if viewed by children or by adults
in high risk groups. FMA would therefore recommend that a new rule be created
containing such a prohibition. This rule would also seem to be required by the
principle that commercial communications must not prejudice (respect for) human
dignity.
We had also expressed the concern in our earlier submission
that:
“although care has been taken with some definitions, no
definitions are proposed for 'human dignity', 'harm' and 'serious or widespread
offence' (5.2.2). The lack of such definitions would probably make this
principle impossible to apply
successfully.”
We, consequently, noted with surprise the statement
that:
“A request to include definitions of ‘offence’ ‘harm’
and ‘human dignity’ was not considered appropriate or practicable since these
concepts are necessarily fluid and influenced by contextual factors such as time
of day, audience profile etc.” (BCI Statement of Outcomes 6.2.2 b(iii), page
11)”
Certainly, the amount of harm caused by a commercial
communication can be mitigated by audience profile however it is impossible to
know in advance what the audience profile is. The addition to rule 3.2.3 – and
to other parts of the Code (e.g. 3.4.2) – of the concept of having “regard to
channel/service type (when scheduling commercial communications) further gives
the false impression that children will not be watching what we do not want them
to watch. On the contrary, it is
precisely the children who are most vulnerable who are the ones most likely to
be watching ‘inappropriate’ channels at ‘inappropriate’
times. Although this may be a painful
reality for some adults to accept, sacrificing the right of children to a clean
advertising environment in order to indulge the tastes of some adults is not a
decent option for any right-minded
person.
Furthermore, the possibility of mitigating harm does not
mean that harm can be removed completely – unless the audience size is zero!
Poison is only entirely harmless if no one drinks it – even if children and
adults may metabolize it
differently.
Finally, although the harm caused by a particular
commercial communication will probably be greater to a child than to an adult,
there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that certain communications are
harmful to children. In this regard, social workers from Birmingham City
Council’s special task force on inappropriate sexual behaviour did not hesitate to blame sexual media content for the
over-sexualised behaviour
of 7 and 8-year-old primary school
children, behaviour which, they say, the children see on television and other
media and then imitate (Daily Telegraph, 18/7/2006). These concerns were echoed
even by the Brook Advisory Clinic.
With social scientists, on the one hand, and groups who
hold various contrasting ideologies, on the other, all seemingly accepting the
link between harmful media images/messages and harmful outcomes for children, it
would be tragic if Ireland were to let this crazy experiment continue, an
experiment where it is our children who are the guinea pigs. The primary issue
is neither about the broadcaster/advertiser’s right to make money nor about any
unfettered right of an adult to see whatever she/he chooses. The primary issue
is simply about the abuse of children, the pollution of their environment and
the robbing of their childhood with media images and messages produced by
adults.
With regard to the principle of transparency, FMA welcomes
the commission’s decision to retain the restriction on news presenters
presenting commercial presentations. This should help protect the integrity of
news programmes. However we believe that this restriction should also be
retained with respect to current affairs presenters. The rationale for this,
once again, is to protect the integrity of a type of ‘reality’ programme – in
this case, current affairs programmes.
Also, with regard to transparency, FMA believes that the
Commission is mistaken in not prohibiting the placement of commercial
communications voiced by presenters during programmes presented by them.
Although this is an existing practice, we suggest the reason it has not been
publicly identified as a significant concern for audiences is because it has not
been done with any great frequency to date. We would moreover suggest that the
degree of influence a presenter has in these circumstances is greater than is in
the public interest. The role of ‘honest broker’ which is one of the most
influential roles a person can acquire comes with the territory for a radio
presenter (Karl Hovland, ca. 1940). This role blends imperceptibly into the role
of predator/salesperson when a presenter voices a commercial communication on
her/his own show, creating confusion and ambiguity for the
listener.
FMA’s fears about the vulnerability of children and members
of other high risk groups to ‘adult’ programming are in no way assuaged by the
rules on ‘Assessment’ outlined in this draft Code. As implied above,
references to contextual factors such as time of broadcast and channel/service
type do little more than provide adults with the false sense of security that
children are not being harmed by a particular communication when, in fact, many
are.
The principle, ‘Protecting the Citizen/Consumer’, (3.1)
seems to us to be very closely related to the principle, ‘Offence, Harm and
Human Dignity’ (3.2). Perhaps the artificial separation of these principles from
each other is somewhat misleading.
We welcome the inclusion of rule, 3.1.7 in this second
phase but do not feel that it goes far enough in protecting the viewer/listener
from distracting/alarming/manipulating sound effects. The other rules of section
3.1 appear to be quite
complete.
Question 4: What are your views on the
advertising rules proposed? Please provide a rationale for your
responses
We broadly
welcome these rules as they appear on paper, at least, to go some way towards
respecting the dignity of the person. Our support for them presupposes
that they will be interpreted correctly and operated successfully, For FMA’s
views on the rules and principles relating to all commercial communications,
please see our response to question 3,
above.
Question 5: What are your views on the
rules proposed for new advertising techniques? Please provide a rationale for your
responses.
Split Screen Advertising:
We do not
believe that this should not be allowed at all because it gives the impression
that viewers are merely objects to be used for monetary gain whereas the main
purpose of television should be to educate and entertain.
Interactive Advertising.
In practice, we believe it would be impossible to protect minors from entering into a harmful situation through the availability of interactive advertising. We therefore believe that this technology should not be allowed at all. Again, we welcome any rules intended to control its use. As with split screen advertising we wish to point out the inadequacy of not allowing the use of interactive advertising during what is called “children’s advertising” (5.3.2) and, furthermore, question why it has not been disallowed during children’s programming in general. We accept that this may have been a typographical error as the ‘statement of outcomes’ document, (section 7.2.2, page 14) claims that such a prohibition is in fact present in the Code.
We also note in section 7.2.2 the following
statement:
“However,
support for interactive advertising was conditional on its prohibition during
children’s programmes and this type of advertising will not be permitted during
such programming. Concern was also expressed about the use of interactive
advertising for alcohol products as this type of advertising might facilitate
the purchase of alcohol by children. In this regard the commission was satisfied
that the rules in relation to alcohol advertising and the prohibition on
interactive advertising during children’s programmes would provide the level of
protection required of a broadcast code. Consequently, no amendment was deemed
necessary.”
We would
be very interested to know, particularly given the concerns expressed, on what
basis the BCI is “satisfied that the rules in relation to alcohol advertising
and the prohibition on interactive advertising during children’s programmes
would provide the level of protection required of a broadcast code”. Given the
absence, as far as we had been aware, of any evidence to support such a
position, we would also question what the BCI considers to be “the level of
protection required of a broadcast code”. Is this level of protection the same
as the level of protection which, for example, the majority of parents would
require of a broadcast code?
Virtual
Advertising
FMA is
opposed to the idea of virtual advertising for the same reasons that it is
opposed to split screen advertising. As well as these reasons, however, we are
also opposed to virtual advertising because it subtly blurs the distinction
between what is real and what is not, merely for monetary gain. Furthermore, we
believe special note should be taken of the implications for children who have
not yet developed the cognitive capacities of adults. These capacities are
needed to make distinctions between what is real and what is not real.
Similarly, people who live with schizophrenia may find being the object of this
technology inordinately challenging.
Given the challenges posed by virtual advertising, then, we are extremely
surprised at the absence of any rules specific to virtual advertising in the
draft Code.
As a general point surely there is no harm in
preempting new advertising techniques until such time as their potential
harm can be assessed. To do otherwise is merely to experiment on ourselves and
on our children
Question 6: What are your views on the
teleshopping rules proposed? Please provide a rationale for your
responses.
FMA welcomes the necessary TWF guidelines for channels
exclusively devoted to teleshopping. FMA also welcomes the restrictions
that the BCI has recommended and it proposes, furthermore, that teleshopping not
be combined with virtual advertising for the reasons outlined in our response to
question 5. FMA has the same concerns about teleshopping in relation to children
as it outlined for interactive advertising in question
5.
Question 7: What are your views on the
proposed sponsorship rules? Please provide a rationale for your
responses.
FMA does not see the need to permit sponsorship
announcements to make references to the products and services of sponsors.
We believe that this would have an 'invasive' effect on the
listener/viewer and on the programme being sponsored. Neither would it be
consistent with acknowledging the integrity of the programme and the dignity of
the viewer.
FMA also believes the prohibition on sponsorship for both
current affairs and religious programmes on radio to be highly desirable in
order to help support the highest standards of impartiality and integrity in
areas of deep personal and cultural significance. With regard to the issue of
current affairs sponsorship on radio, FMA does not believe that bringing
regulatory consistency to this area should be preferred over a desirable good,
namely the prohibition on sponsorship of current affairs programmes.
We would therefore ask for the adoption of the original
rules regarding sponsorship as outlined in phase 1 of the
Code.
Question 8: What are your views on the
proposed alcohol rules? Please provide a rationale for your
response.
We believe
there should be an outright ban on the advertising of alcohol. We are not
convinced by the argument made by Nelson and Young (General Advertising Codes –
a review of national and international standards (GAC), section 3.3.2.2) when
they say that removing alcohol advertising could result in an increase in
alcohol consumption. No evidence seems to be offered for that assertion. On the
contrary more recent research than that quoted in GAC, dating from January of
this year, has suggested that the advertising of alcohol does in fact increase
the amount of alcohol taken by children (Snyder et al, 2006). We include an
article by Reuters outlining some of these more up to date findings at the end
of this question. The following report from the Press Association (22 September,
2006) brings it closer to home:
“…Ireland is rated highest among the 35 European countries in terms of the number of adolescents who regularly binge drink," said Stephen Rowen, Clinical Director of the Rutland Centre.
"Problems experienced by adolescents as a result
of their drinking in
"In
"Binge drinkers are also more likely to become addicted later in life."
Dr Derek Freedman, specialist in sexually transmitted disease, said more than 60% of people who attend his clinic cite excess alcohol as a factor that led them into trouble or risk…”
With reference to the research quoted above we would
suggest that the aspiration contained in rule 8.1.1 is unattainable, namely:
“Commercial communications for alcoholic drinks must not encourage young people
or other non-drinkers to begin drinking”. The only way to stop commercial
communications from at least implicitly encouraging young people to begin
drinking is if they are not broadcast in the first place. To suggest otherwise
seems disingenuous, at some level, and is similar to the sorts of claims that
used to be made about tobacco advertising.
That being said, some communications will have a greater influence over young
people than others and certain types of communications even target young people
directly. Advertisements for ‘alcopops’ fit into this latter category. Given the
aspiration contained in rule 8.1.1, then, we do not understand why the Code does
not prohibit commercial communications for these drinks. An existing
voluntary prohibition (which can, after all, be revoked) on the promoting
of these drinks is no reason not to have a formal prohibition contained in the
Code. The following is the article referred to
above:
Study: Ads Boost Drinking Among
Young
January 3, 2006 (source:
Reuters)
Young adults as well as teenagers drink more under the influence of advertising for alcoholic beverages, researchers found.
A survey of young people aged 15 to 26 found that for each additional alcohol advertisement viewed per month, there followed a 1 percent rise in the average number of drinks consumed, said study author Leslie Snyder of the University of Connecticut in Storrs.
The study's findings counter industry arguments that only adult drinkers heed alcohol advertising, Snyder wrote in the journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
In the study -- released around the New Year's holiday that is often associated with toasts and excessive imbibing -- the researchers conducted four rounds of interviews between 1999 and 2001 with a group of young people, with the initial 1,872 subjects selected randomly.
Another finding was that for each additional dollar spent per capita on alcohol advertising in a particular media market, study participants drank 3 percent more per month.
In markets with heavy alcohol advertising of more than $10 per capita per month, alcohol consumption increased over time and reached a peak of 50 drinks per month by age 25.
The study measured advertising exposure on each of four media: television, radio, magazines and billboards.
"The results also contradict claims that advertising is unrelated to youth drinking amounts: that advertising at best causes brand switching, only affects those older than the legal drinking age or is effectively countered by current educational efforts," Snyder wrote.
In an
editorial in the journal, David Jernigan of
The study "calls into question the industry's argument that its roughly $1.8 billion in measured media expenditures per year have no impact on underage drinking," he wrote.
Snyder
doubted whether the industry was heeding voluntary guidelines that 70 percent of
the audience for its advertising be at least 21 years old, the legal drinking
age.
--Reuters
Monday, January 2, 2006
Question 9: What are your views on the
rules proposed for medicines? Please provide a rationale for your
response.
We agree
with all the rules referred to here due, in general, to the vulnerability of
susceptible viewers to emotional manipulation and also the potentially harmful
effects of such manipulation. Research carried out by Karl Hovland in the 1940s,
in particular, underlines to us the importance of not using those who appear as
experts to advertise medical products etc.
Question 10: What are your views on the
rules proposed for food? Please provide a rationale for your
response.
The rules concerning food seem helpful but FMA would
welcome their further development in a way which is consistent with human
dignity and the prohibition of harm. Please, also, see our response to question
12.
Question 11: What are your views on the
rules proposed for cosmetics? Please provide a rationale for your
response.
There do not appear to be any rules, per say. If the other
general recommendations we have made regarding harm, human dignity and sexual
content are adopted then this could possibly cover any difficulties that might
arise.
Question 12: What are your views on the
rules proposed for slimming? Please provide a rationale for your
response.
This is a very important area with great potential for
abuse. The fact that Bulimia Nervosa is a western ‘culture bound’ disorder not
found in other parts of the world underlines the need to regulate carefully
commercial communications in this area. For this reason and in addition to the
proposed rules, FMA also recommends that a rule be introduced which prohibits
the promotion, explicitly or implicitly of unhealthy body shape in any
commercial communication whether explicitly about slimming or not. This could
even extend to a prohibition on commercial communications promoting dolls which
are proportioned in a way which would be unhealthy for an actual human
being.
Question 13: What are your views on the
rules proposed for financial services? Please provide a rationale for your
response.
FMA
welcomes rule 8.6.2 recognizing the authority of the Financial Regulator
and the Officer of the Director of Consumer Affairs. We also welcome rule 8.6.1
and its prohibition on presentations which mislead, even by omission.
This acknowledges implicitly that the truth is not merely a question of
accuracy.
Question 14: What are your views on the
rules proposed for betting? Please provide a rationale for your
response.
Given the highly addictive nature of gambling for some people and given its
extremely
destructive effects for those same people and their families, we believe it is
not prudent to allow commercial communications for betting
services.
Question 15: What are your views on the inclusion of
prohibitions pertaining to:
i)
fortune tellers, psychic services,
etc;
ii)
cosmetic
surgery;
iii)
hypnosis, hypnotherapy, psychology,
psychoanalysis or
psychiatry;
iv)
smoking
cures
As per our Phase 1 submission, FMA supports the prohibition on advertising of the above named products/services because of: the vulnerability of susceptible viewers to emotional manipulation and; the potentially harmful effects resulting from such manipulation. Again, we cite Karl Hovland’s research in the 1940s which underlines to us the importance of not using those who appear as experts to promote such services/products. Commercial communications for the above constitute an unethical preying on the emotions of people in the areas
where they
are most vulnerable. In FMA’s view, the products/services originally prohibited
in phase 1 should, for the same reason, continue to be
prohibited.
Question 16: What are your views on the
appendix as proposed? Please provide a rationale for your response.
This seems
to be a sensible approach.
Question 17: What are your views on the rule proposed for premium rate
telecommunications services? Please provide a rationale for your response.
We welcome
the rule on Premium Rate Telecommunication Services as a needed protection for
the public in this area. We particularly welcome the high standard of truth
implied by its wording.
Contact : Donal O’Sullivan, Family and Media Association,
01 2789288 email: info@fma.ie mobile: +353 86 330
9724
Family and Media
Association www.fma.ie
01 2789288 086
3309724
info@fma.ie