5 ms·

This story is super relevant in the uk at the moment because one of our super markets (Iceland) made a Christmas advert about Palm oil and it was banned for bei

This story is super relevant in the uk at the moment because one of our super markets (Iceland) made a Christmas advert about Palm oil and it was banned for being too political. Worth watching: https://youtu.be/oA10-oZi4Xc https://youtu.be/oA10-oZi4Xc

wastedhours 8y ago
Worth a caveat: it wasn't banned because it was political per se, but because it wasn't original content, re-purposed from a Greenpeace animation, an organisation who could be deemed a political advertiser. Had the same film been 100% produced by Iceland, it wouldn't have been banned.
- dools 8y ago
  It was banned exactly because it was political: “The advert wasn’t approved by Clearcast as it was seen to be in support of a political issue,” a spokesperson for Iceland says. -- source: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/iceland-advert-banned-christmas https://www.wired.co.uk/article/iceland-advert-banned-christ...
  - wastedhours 8y ago
    The organisation who banned it has explicitly said: 'it was deemed to be "an advertisement inserted by or on behalf of a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature".' 'for Iceland to overcome the ruling, "Greenpeace needs to demonstrate it is not a political advertiser."' --source: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/11/12/clearcast-clarifies-iceland-palm-oil-christmas-tv-ad-ban-misunderstanding https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/11/12/clearcast-clarifies-... Sorry if my point was too specific but I think it's a worthwhile one to press: The ad wasn't banned because it itself was political, had exactly the same creative been made by Iceland it wouldn't have been banned. It was banned because it was a re-purposed piece of content originally created by and used in partnership with a group deemed to be a politically-focused organisation. (and actually, it's worth pointing out that Clearcast can't "ban" ads by themselves, that's the ASA in most cases - they just really advise as to whether they abide by the rules) Given Greenpeace's status as an activist organisation, I can't bring myself to believe Iceland didn't expect this decision. Whether or not it was intentional, it's certainly achieved its purpose as an advert...
    - dools 8y ago
      So the distinction you're making is that the ad was not banned because it's political, it was banned because the creator of the ad was political. Fair comment.
      - wastedhours 8y ago
        Exactly - and I feel it's an important distinction to make in this context and the wider environment of manufactured outrage. Clearcast say the same: "The concerns of Clearcast and the broadcasters do not extend to the content or message of the ad, i.e. Clearcast does not consider the ad itself to be political." The advert itself carries an important, but easy to gloss over, message. They're exceptionally fortunate to now have a "Plan B" media maelstrom to help them cut through...
        dools 8y ago
        You lost me at "manufactured outrage".
        wastedhours 8y ago
        I'm unsure why "manufactured outrage" is an issue here? That's exactly what this is. It's obviously being use for a positive purpose here to advertise the use of palm oil, but they could very easily clarify the lack of clearance and address it, instead using that lack of clearance to their own ends. Again, I'm not judging their morality in using this tactic to drive awareness of palm oil - but this is pretty much the dictionary definition of manufactured outrage, pushing the notion their story is being silenced, whilst knowingly ignoring the issue is actually about a very specific technicality.
        freeone3000 8y ago
        If the ad isn't political, who gives a darn who said it?
        wastedhours 8y ago
  - rorykoehler 8y ago
    Technically everything is "political". Politics is life in a system 100% governed by a political system.
arethuza 8y ago
Just noticed that the BBC are reporting that 670 thousand people have signed a petition to request this add is shown on TV: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-46187070 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-46187070
dtf 8y ago
It's been an incredibly astute comms strategy from Greenpeace. They made this film, then did a deal with Iceland (who were keen to reposition themselves as a supermarket with green credentials). Both parties admitted they knew it would be "bannned" by Clearcast. Greenpeace are now riding the inevitable public outrage by drip releasing their palm oil research to put huge public pressure on big brands. It's very impressive.
- arethuza 8y ago
  And we might reduce palm oil consumption and everyone might eat less sweets. Win-win!
drb91 8y ago
God forbid politics actually be discussed!
rorykoehler 8y ago
Why was this banned? I fail to see anything remotely controversial in that video. We are really much deeper in the corporatist dystopia than I thought if this gets banned.

wastedhours 8y ago

Worth a caveat: it wasn't banned because it was political per se, but because it wasn't original content, re-purposed from a Greenpeace animation, an organisation who could be deemed a political advertiser. Had the same film been 100% produced by Iceland, it wouldn't have been banned.

dools 8y ago
It was banned exactly because it was political: “The advert wasn’t approved by Clearcast as it was seen to be in support of a political issue,” a spokesperson for Iceland says. -- source: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/iceland-advert-banned-christmas https://www.wired.co.uk/article/iceland-advert-banned-christ...
- wastedhours 8y ago
  The organisation who banned it has explicitly said: 'it was deemed to be "an advertisement inserted by or on behalf of a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature".' 'for Iceland to overcome the ruling, "Greenpeace needs to demonstrate it is not a political advertiser."' --source: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/11/12/clearcast-clarifies-iceland-palm-oil-christmas-tv-ad-ban-misunderstanding https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/11/12/clearcast-clarifies-... Sorry if my point was too specific but I think it's a worthwhile one to press: The ad wasn't banned because it itself was political, had exactly the same creative been made by Iceland it wouldn't have been banned. It was banned because it was a re-purposed piece of content originally created by and used in partnership with a group deemed to be a politically-focused organisation. (and actually, it's worth pointing out that Clearcast can't "ban" ads by themselves, that's the ASA in most cases - they just really advise as to whether they abide by the rules) Given Greenpeace's status as an activist organisation, I can't bring myself to believe Iceland didn't expect this decision. Whether or not it was intentional, it's certainly achieved its purpose as an advert...
  - dools 8y ago
    So the distinction you're making is that the ad was not banned because it's political, it was banned because the creator of the ad was political. Fair comment.
    - wastedhours 8y ago
      Exactly - and I feel it's an important distinction to make in this context and the wider environment of manufactured outrage. Clearcast say the same: "The concerns of Clearcast and the broadcasters do not extend to the content or message of the ad, i.e. Clearcast does not consider the ad itself to be political." The advert itself carries an important, but easy to gloss over, message. They're exceptionally fortunate to now have a "Plan B" media maelstrom to help them cut through...
      - dools 8y ago
        You lost me at "manufactured outrage".
        wastedhours 8y ago
        I'm unsure why "manufactured outrage" is an issue here? That's exactly what this is. It's obviously being use for a positive purpose here to advertise the use of palm oil, but they could very easily clarify the lack of clearance and address it, instead using that lack of clearance to their own ends. Again, I'm not judging their morality in using this tactic to drive awareness of palm oil - but this is pretty much the dictionary definition of manufactured outrage, pushing the notion their story is being silenced, whilst knowingly ignoring the issue is actually about a very specific technicality.
      - freeone3000 8y ago
        If the ad isn't political, who gives a darn who said it?
        wastedhours 8y ago
- rorykoehler 8y ago
  Technically everything is "political". Politics is life in a system 100% governed by a political system.

arethuza 8y ago

Just noticed that the BBC are reporting that 670 thousand people have signed a petition to request this add is shown on TV: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-46187070 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-46187070

dtf 8y ago

It's been an incredibly astute comms strategy from Greenpeace. They made this film, then did a deal with Iceland (who were keen to reposition themselves as a supermarket with green credentials). Both parties admitted they knew it would be "bannned" by Clearcast. Greenpeace are now riding the inevitable public outrage by drip releasing their palm oil research to put huge public pressure on big brands. It's very impressive.

arethuza 8y ago
And we might reduce palm oil consumption and everyone might eat less sweets. Win-win!

drb91 8y ago

God forbid politics actually be discussed!

rorykoehler 8y ago

Why was this banned? I fail to see anything remotely controversial in that video. We are really much deeper in the corporatist dystopia than I thought if this gets banned.