LONDON (AFP) - The coalition at the forefront of a British campaign to fight poverty in Africa has been banned from advertising on radio and television after the nation's media watchdog decided it was a "political" organisation.
Make Poverty History, a coalition of more than 500 charities and social groups, said Monday it was "disappointed" by the decision from OFCOM, just days before world leaders gather in New York where the plight of the world's poor is on the agenda of the World Summit at UN headquarters.
Its advertisement -- in which the likes of rock star Bono and model Claudia Schiffer snap their fingers every three seconds, symbolising how often a child dies as a result of poverty somewhere in the world -- has been on the air for several months.
Despite the fact that no one lodged a complaint, OFCOM said Make Poverty History was "wholly or mainly political" in that it sought to "achieve important changes" to British and Western government policy.
For that reason, it said, the advertisement can no longer be aired.
Adrian Lovett of the development charity Oxfam, a member of the Make Poverty History coordination team, said the global poverty issue was not "party political", but seen by millions as "the great moral issue of our time".
"We're disappointed with this decision," he said. "This advertisement simply highlights the fact that a child dies every three seconds because of preventable poverty."
Make Poverty History was behind a large peaceful march in Edinburgh in July that called for robust action on aid, trade and debt from the Group of Eight leading industrialised nations to combat endemic poverty in Africa.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
In another attempt to try to reach some larger discussion here, I have a big problem with any type of censoring on the media. This is no exception. Let the marketplace determine what is proper and what is not.
Ending poverty shouldn't be considered political Ending anything bad should be welcomed by all. That is more humanitarian than political. Wonder how big of a backlash that will have,
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:45 am Posts: 1836 Location: Up Yer Maw
The market can't wholly dictate the content of advertisements. There are rules in place to restrict what can and can't be said in advertisement on national television and radio.
Now I agree this decision is open to considerable debate. But to suggest the market should completely dictate (i.e. anyone who can afford to have an advert on TV can do so) is pretty ridiculous.
How about extreme political groups? Al Qaeda or Neo Nazi groups etc. So long as they can afford to put ads on TV the marketplace has no mechanism to restrict them from purchasing air time.
The British body has a guideline of no poltical advertisments except "party political broadcasts" at election time.
I have to say I agree. Without these guidelines anyone with enough money can use national television as a forum for their politics. They do not provide an appropriate forum for political issues in my opinion.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
TS808 wrote:
How about extreme political groups? Al Qaeda or Neo Nazi groups etc. So long as they can afford to put ads on TV the marketplace has no mechanism to restrict them from purchasing air time.
If a station were to air such advertising, don't you think there would be quite a negative response from such a move?
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:45 am Posts: 1836 Location: Up Yer Maw
The situation in the UK is slightly different in that (until recently) there we relatively few TV channels. There were four main TV channels, only two of which showed adverisements. So an advertisement control body is necessary. There was a captive audience with potentially great political influence.
It is changing now as cable and satelite TV is far more widespread in the UK but that is background of the body.
Perhaps my point about Neo Nazi/AL Quada wasn't correct - I agree in a perfect market the station would suffer. You are correct. Do viewers perfectly make the connections between the advertisments and the channel? Will they definitely make the connection. Think of a less controversial group. the ideas are still given a hugely influential platform.
However, without restictions political advertisements are afforded to groups with the money to pay for them not with the best ideas for the country. To me this is unfair and unjust. Postions of politcal influence should be earned and not bought,
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:55 am Posts: 9080 Location: Londres
Someone should pull together a group promoting the brilliant exploitation of 3rd world factory workers in unsafe conditions, slap on a message called Make Poverty Cool, and see how long that lasts.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
Hinny wrote:
Someone should pull together a group promoting the brilliant exploitation of 3rd world factory workers in unsafe conditions, slap on a message called Make Poverty Cool, and see how long that lasts.
It seems to me that this is quite a travesty. But looking further into it, I have to agree with some of the above points. Unless political or what could be deemed as political advertising is restricted (or in this case it seems banned) anyone with enough money to purchase advertising space could promote their platform. And who's right is it to decide which political platforms are appropriate for a country? Sure, you could say that the market would decide not to watch those stations if they allow such atrocious advertising, but you'd better believe that a group like Al Queida has enough money to continue advertising on that station no matter how many people are watching. The only thing a station needs to stay in business is money from advertisers. They don't really need a majority of the population to be watching them. So if Al Queida felt it was a good marketing tool to essentially buy a tv station, don't you think they would do it? I would imagine that in a country of several million citizens, they would recruit more than a few people to their cause.
It's very sad that a good cause has to be silenced like that. The end result is that fewer people are reached. Maybe they could go grassroots... door to door?
_________________ Outside the rain is tapping on the leaves
To me it sounds like they're applauding us
The quiet love we make
Post subject: Re: 'Make Poverty History' message banned in Britain
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:48 am
Unthought Known
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
Between the search terms "Britain" and "England" for topic titles in N&D, there are only 6 hits. Using 'UK' as a search term yields none. Y'all need to represent yourself more vocally 'round here.
I was looking for a thread about surveillance, but I'll just chuck it in here for convenience:
Mosquito device divides opinion A high-pitched device that is generally only heard by people under the age of 25 and used to disperse groups of youths is causing controversy. Amid calls in England and Scotland for a ban on the Mosquito device, a shopkeeper and a teenager give their points of view.
ROBERT GOUGH, SHOPKEEPER
The device has dramatically reduced the problem, says Mr Gough
Robert Gough runs a Spar convenience store in Barry, south Wales. His was the first premises to use the Mosquito device.
We have had the Mosquito for two years. It was tested here.
The problem we have is large gangs of youths that congregate in the entrance way - hanging around, drinking, and I know other narcotics can be involved.
It ranges from them being annoying to intimidating customers and staff to outright physical assault.
One customer has been mugged for their alcohol, and in the time I have been here there have been three occasions where someone has tried to stab me.
The problem comes and goes. When it gets bad it generally lasts for three of four weeks.
At certain times before we counted over 40 people outside the shop.
The Mosquito has reduced the problem massively.
It still happens, but nowhere near the same amount. It has had a positive effect. Customers have praised us for it.
Where they have moved on to I'm not quite sure.
At the moment we have the device on a timer, but we can override it. Once it comes on in the early evening it stays on until the shop shuts at 11pm.
It's the hardest problem to deal with. With a shoplifter you confront them and they either run off or they stay while you wait for the police.
But when you have a gang of youths there's always going to be someone who, surrounded by the mates and showing off, will escalate the situation.
Even if they ban the use of the device I am going to continue to use it, it's just so important, there's no
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 4:37 am Posts: 3610 Location: London, UK Gender: Female
Although that particular decision is wrong as it should be considered a charity rather than political party, I'm really glad that political parties are not allowed to advertise on TV. (though I see why they came to that conclusion, if you apply the rule strictly, they're not asking for money or volunteers, but for a change in public policy.. it could open the door to far less savoury 'causes' doing the same, I'm thinking about anti-immigration in particular)
Unbelievable the ridiculous amount of money that's wasted in the US elections, in big parts through TV advertising, which is very expensive. Plus the fact that as a result, people are able to BUY influence on a candidate because said candidate need insane amount of money to get a chance of actually getting elected (that already happens as it is with party funding! e.g. the peerage scandal) and the fact it reinforces the bi-party system, stopping anyone not already 'in' from even being heard, let alone win. and finally, there's not too much negative campaining as a result.
yes a campain cost money here too, but that money is public (well, as long as you get at least 5% of the votes), so part of the problems are avoided.
_________________ 2009 was a great year for PJ gigs looking forward to 2010 and: Columbus, Noblesville, Cleveland, Buffalo, Dublin, Belfast, London, Nijmegen, Berlin, Arras, Werchter, Lisbon, some more US (wherever is the Anniversary show/a birthday show)
Post subject: Re: 'Make Poverty History' message banned in Britain
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:17 pm
too drunk to moderate properly
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
LittleWing wrote:
What a disgusting violation of freedom of speech.
I don't get to agree with LittleWing very often, so .
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Post subject: Re: 'Make Poverty History' message banned in Britain
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:24 pm
Unthought Known
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
LittleWing wrote:
What a disgusting violation of freedom of speech.
Yeah... I really see no 'upside' in prohibiting political adverts, unless of course one is convinved that the establishment is perfect and has all of your best interests in mind.
Post subject: Re: 'Make Poverty History' message banned in Britain
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:33 pm
Stone's Bitch
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:43 pm Posts: 7633 Location: Philly Del Fia Gender: Female
simple schoolboy wrote:
Between the search terms "Britain" and "England" for topic titles in N&D, there are only 6 hits. Using 'UK' as a search term yields none. Y'all need to represent yourself more vocally 'round here.
I was looking for a thread about surveillance, but I'll just chuck it in here for convenience:
Mosquito device divides opinion A high-pitched device that is generally only heard by people under the age of 25 and used to disperse groups of youths is causing controversy. Amid calls in England and Scotland for a ban on the Mosquito device, a shopkeeper and a teenager give their points of view.
ROBERT GOUGH, SHOPKEEPER
The device has dramatically reduced the problem, says Mr Gough
Robert Gough runs a Spar convenience store in Barry, south Wales. His was the first premises to use the Mosquito device.
We have had the Mosquito for two years. It was tested here.
The problem we have is large gangs of youths that congregate in the entrance way - hanging around, drinking, and I know other narcotics can be involved.
It ranges from them being annoying to intimidating customers and staff to outright physical assault.
One customer has been mugged for their alcohol, and in the time I have been here there have been three occasions where someone has tried to stab me.
The problem comes and goes. When it gets bad it generally lasts for three of four weeks.
At certain times before we counted over 40 people outside the shop.
The Mosquito has reduced the problem massively.
It still happens, but nowhere near the same amount. It has had a positive effect. Customers have praised us for it.
Where they have moved on to I'm not quite sure.
At the moment we have the device on a timer, but we can override it. Once it comes on in the early evening it stays on until the shop shuts at 11pm.
It's the hardest problem to deal with. With a shoplifter you confront them and they either run off or they stay while you wait for the police.
But when you have a gang of youths there's always going to be someone who, surrounded by the mates and showing off, will escalate the situation.
Even if they ban the use of the device I am going to continue to use it, it's just so important, there's no
LOL. This "Mosquito" frequency issue came up here about a year or so ago. Not because it was being used to disperse crowds -- but because kids were downloading it as a ringtone to use at school, assuming that their teachers couldn't hear it.
Kiera Coultas was also banned from driving for five years A motorist who was texting on her mobile phone when she hit and killed a cyclist has been sentenced to four years in prison. [url]Jordan Wickington, 19, died from head injuries when he went through a red light and was struck by Kiera Coultas' car[/url]in Southampton in February 2007.
Coultas had earlier been found guilty at Southampton Crown Court of causing death by dangerous driving.
The 25-year-old from Hythe, Hampshire, was banned from driving for five years.
Following the crash, Mr Wickington, of Netley, Hampshire, who [url]had not been wearing a helmet[/url], was taken to Southampton General Hospital where he later died.
Sgt Alison West, of Hampshire Constabulary, recommended drivers switched off their mobile phones during journeys.
"It's pretty routine nowadays at the scene of these serious or fatal accidents to seize drivers' mobile phones, and to have them analysed to see if the phone has had anything to do with the driving standards involved," she said.
"In this particular incident, it transpired from a phone analysis that there was phone use close to the time of the incident."
Eh, I'm not convinced that four years was really warranted here. If anything, this should be a cautionary tale of why bicyclists should follow the rules of traffic. Friggin bicyclists, thinkin' they're too cool to stop. *grumble grumble*
Post subject: Re: 'Make Poverty History' message banned in Britain
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:43 pm
Got Some
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:50 pm Posts: 1663 Gender: Male
The fact that people do dumb shit like skip red lights is exactly why you shouldn't do things like text whilst driving. Really seems unlikely that the message was so important that it was worth risking potentially killing someone rather than pulling over first. Obviously guy shouldn't have jumped the light but I guess dying was sufficant punishment for that.
_________________
David wrote:
You've gained weight, that beard doesn't suit you, you need a hair cut and I'm not entirely sure I like your new songs
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
.
