Solar Company's Ads Banned From Australian Television - SMH

[hatrack]

A free-to-air television watchdog has prevented the broadcast of commercials for an Adelaide solar shop, in which a prominent scientist describes climate change as the "greatest threat to mankind".

The Commercials Advice regulatory body had initially approved two 30-second advertisements for The Solar Shop - an Adelaide store that sells solar electricity products. One of the ads, sponsored by the Nine Network, features prominent South Australian scientist Tim Flannery describing climate change as the "greatest threat to mankind". The other commercial ends with the words "Solar Shop - we're doing Kyoto anyway".

The two advertisements were supposed to air from on Sunday night. However, Solar Shop managing director Adrian Ferraretto said less than 48 hours prior to the planned broadcast, the store was notified by email that Commercials Advice did not want them screened. "They said we want you to pull them because it says ... that climate change is the greatest threat to mankind," Mr Ferraretto said.

"They said `you can't say it's the greatest threat to mankind', there's no proof...'." But Mr Ferraretto said he felt the real problem may have been the statement about Kyoto. "We wonder if that statement has ruffled some feathers," he said.

EDIT

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Ad-banned-for-climate-change-claims/2006/02/28/1141020046778.html

[nicknameless]

1. How corrupt.

K&R

[nicknameless]

2. Could you re-post this in GD?

[hatrack]

3. Good suggestion - will do!

:toast:

[NNadir]

4. This an incredible story. K&R.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. WTF?

Morons.

[gulfcoastliberal]

6. K&R - NT

[mom cat]

7. Will the dying of the last amoeba be proof enough?

[Dead_Parrot]

8. That's a strange thought...

...life without FreeRepublic...

:D

[mom cat]

16. Only you could come up with that retort!

:spank:

[Dead_Parrot]

18. harder, harder...

:evilgrin:

[mom cat]

19. You are totally incorrigible.

Don't stop!

[depakid]

9. I don't know- I guess it depends on the general policy

If the regulatory agency is fair across the board about truth in advertising (unlike our toothless and pathetic FTC & FCC) then I don't have a problem with this. I'd say it might be a good idea to learn a little more about the usual Australian practices before jumping to conclusions.

Seems to me that if a few ridiculous and petty decisions were the price of removing all of the grabage and outright dishonesty that floods the American corporate media every day, that would be more than a fair exchange....

[htuttle]

10. Do Australian TV commercials require rigorous adherance to the truth?

Are advertisers allowed to say things like, "Red Bull Gives You Wings", as they are in the US? (when it most certainly does not give you 'wings'). How about 'The best part of waking up is Folgers in your cup'? That's OBVIOUSLY a subjective and leading observation. There are a LOT of good things about waking up, and I'd say few people think 'Folgers' is one of them.

Unless a company is making commercial claims that are clearly misleading/untrue, I'm surprised (oh, not really) that regulatory bodies would intervene on a basis like this.

How does one prove or disprove a particular thing is the 'greatest threat' or not? How is that not as subjective as whether the best part of waking up is Folgers? And if so, how can a commericial ad regulatory body make a ruling on the basis of it's objective "truth" or not?

[NNadir]

11. Actually global climate change is the most serious threat faced by

humanity.

Should humanity survive this threat, it will certainly do so with a great deal of pain and loss. The matter of this ad has the potential to stand as one of the most outrageous bits that our grandchildren, should they exist, will look back upon.

[htuttle]

12. Oh, I agree

What I wonder is on what basis this Commercial Ad regulatory body decided that it was not the most serious threat, or that there was even a way for them to gauge such a claim (such as whether Folgers is actually the best part of waking up, or whether a product is a actually 'Improved').

My point is that the solar company is not accused of making up objective facts -- they are accused of making an incorrect subjective judgement that something is the greatest threat to humanity. On what basis can the ad board claim it's incorrect?

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if some silly detergent commercial tried to say that ring around the collar was the greatest threat to home happiness, but nobody is going to call them on it and force it off the air -- it's a commercial, and it's a subjective statement (ie., a huge threat? a small threat? or the greatest threat?).

[NNadir]

14. Well some facts are more disturbing that others.

Ring around the collar was once a serious scourge to mankind.

Those of us who can still remember it, do so in terror and fear.

[htuttle]

15. Indeed -- I still remember the accusatory taunts of the crowds

"Ring around the collar! RING AROUND THE COLLAR!"

[depakid]

13. What you're describing is called "puffing"

and it's different than having scientists and other professionals coming on and making factual claims. Obviously, as I noted- this is petty and ridiculous- but on the other hand- people here are so desensitized by all of the bullshit that it's nearly impossible to winnow the chaff from the wheat.

If the Ozzies are consitently more hard-nosed about it- good for them. If not, I reckon there's some judicial recourse to deal with this decision.

[file83]

17. No such thing as bad publicity!! Business should be good.