4 ms·

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

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?

porphyrogene 8y ago
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.
drcharris 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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.

porphyrogene 8y ago

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.

drcharris 8y ago

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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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.