ASA Adjudication on Action For Children

Ad

A TV ad for the charity Action for Children began with a long piece of red material on screen that spelt out the words "My story. Dan." A child's voice-over described his experiences of autism and the help he had received to deal with it. While he did that, an animated creature waved its arms around and bared its teeth in a concrete, urban setting, but gradually changed into a drawing of a composed and smiling boy in a field by the end of the ad. The child's voice-over stated "I used to lash out if somebody pushed my buttons or I wasn't able to do something. Things that wound me up were if they'd insulted me - I would physically hurt that person. My parents sought out help with my autism because it was becoming a pain for them. I went to Action for Children school. I started being a bit more friendlier with people. Thanks to the carers I was able to correct a lot of errors in my behaviour and become a better person. I feel a lot more confident and it's thanks to them. I feel a lot more at peace with myself." Text at the top of the screen gave Action for Children's registered UK charity number and website address. At the end of the ad, an adult male voiceover stated "We're here for as long as it takes. Action for Children." Action for Children's logo, title and the text "meet Dan," followed by their website address, appeared on screen.

Issue

The ASA received complaints from 61 viewers and Autreach, a network of groups working to support autistic people and campaign for autistic rights.

1.  All the viewers and Autreach challenged whether the ad was offensive and distressing, particularly to autistic children and their families, because of its negative depiction of an autistic child as a monster.

2.  31 viewers challenged whether the ad was offensive and misleading because it portrayed autism as a behavioural problem that needed to be corrected or because it implied that an autistic person chose to behave in the way they did and could modify their behaviour if they wished.

3.  11 viewers challenged whether the ad was misleading because it suggested autism could be cured.

4.  Six viewers and Autreach challenged whether the ad condoned bullying because "Dan" appeared to believe it was his own fault that he was bullied.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Action for Children said they were one of the largest children's charities in the UK and that they helped nearly 170,000 children, young people and their families through nearly 450 projects.  They said that, during the last 10 years, they had become a major provider of services to disabled children, in partnership with local authorities, and that they had projects that provided support to children and young people with autism and behavioural difficulties, including schools and specific kinds of therapy.

They said "Dan's Story" was the second of three ads intended to raise awareness of their organisation (they had changed their name from NCH to Action for Children in September 2008) and their work.  They said the ads told the stories of young people in their own words because Action for Children believed they had a responsibility to tell their stories through their own eyes, not through the eyes of parents, carers or adults.

They said many parents struggled to get support for their children and that their organisation was committed to raising the issue that support was available through their advertising and campaigning, despite that being uncomfortable for some.  They said "Dan" (not his real name) was now an adult who was therefore able to give informed consent.  They said they had no plans to use "Dan's story" again but they did intend to use similar ads based on the stories of other children.

Clearcast said that, at pre-production stage, they had been informed that the stories told in the ads would be real case studies using children's own words.  They considered the ads were extremely sensitively made and that the animation of the "monster" symbolised, in a child-like drawing, how a child felt when he felt out of control.  They believed "Dan's" story was an uplifting one about how a boy who felt unable to deal with his autism could find help and support from Action for Children.  They said the phrase "errors in my behaviour" and the statement that he was a "pain" for his parents were "Dan's" own words.  They said the story was a personal one (it was titled "My story") and was not intended to be representative of how the condition affected everyone; that the statement that "Dan" felt more at peace with himself was not intended to suggest that his condition was "cured;" that he did not say it was his fault that he was bullied but was illustrating how Action for Children had helped him to learn to react more appropriately to it.

1.  Action for Children said "Dan" talked in the ad about his feelings of anger and frustration when he was not getting the help and support he needed; that those feelings were commonly felt among young people and were depicted in the ad as something that controlled and isolated him.  He was not able to connect with the world in the first half of the ad but, in the second half, he overcame those feelings and was "more at peace" with himself.  They said most of the ad was taken up with showing that there was indeed a young boy inside the "monster."  They said they had received supportive comments on the ad from senior government figures and members of the public.  They quoted the Rt Hon Hilary Armstrong MP, latterly the Minister for the Cabinet Office and for Social Exclusion.  She said she disagreed that the ad portrayed autism as dark or evil; that it was the effects of autism that had left "Dan" feeling angry and isolated but that, with the right kind of support, it was not nearly as bad for him; that "Dan" was not "cured" of autism but had learnt how to deal with it with sensitive help and support.  She said she was aware of a section of the disability lobby that believed the behaviour of those with a disability should not be "interfered" with but she believed that view should be challenged.  Even if wider society tolerated the behaviour "Dan" described, it was painful for him.

2.  Action for Children said "Dan" had approved the concept and the drawings as how he had seen himself and what he had felt he needed help with.  They said he felt strongly that he now had support to help him with aspects of his behaviour which previously he had not understood and which had created difficulties for him in his relationships.  They quoted the principal of the school "Dan" had attended:  "'Dan's' inability to cope with the daily complexities of life resulted in outbursts of extremely difficult behaviour ... we understood the need to provide 'Dan' and his family with consistency and the support needed for him to make positive changes ... 'Dan' changed from being an anxious boy who would lash out, shout and break things into a young man who could voice his opinion appropriately, work positively with others and was a pleasure to teach and spend time with."  They quoted Dame Jo Williams, DBE, until recently the Chief Executive of Mencap, who said she supported the ad "because it raises awareness of some very complex issues that are frequently misunderstood by the general public" and who said awareness of the lack of services available needed to be raised.

3.  Action for Children asserted that it was not possible to cure autism.  They said the ad showed "Dan" shedding his anger and frustration but referred to their comment above that he was still on the autistic spectrum at the end of the ad.  They said there was a wide range of opinion on almost all aspects of autism and that some groups disagreed with showing autism as any kind of problem for those diagnosed on the autistic spectrum, or their families.  Action for Children said they knew, however, that people and families who experienced autism also experienced problems and that they did not feel they could shy away from difficult or sensitive issues for fear of upsetting a small minority of people if they were making a case for the good of the children and young people with whom they worked.

4.  Action for Children said the ad quoted "Dan" as saying "I used to lash out if somebody pushed my buttons or I wasn't able to do something."  They said that contextualised his feelings of anger and frustration in that they were not just in response to other people - he was also generally frustrated with things around him.  They said the crucial aspect of Action for Children's support was that it allowed "Dan" to be "more at peace with himself" and less likely to respond with violence to things that perhaps did not warrant that response.  Action for Children said they did not condone bullying or cruelty but that, nevertheless, children and young people found bullying was a common and profoundly damaging experience.

Assessment

1.  Not upheld

The ASA noted that the depiction of an autistic child as a "monster" had been seen as a negative depiction by the viewers who had contacted us.  While not doubting the distress they described themselves as having felt, we considered the "monster" appeared to represent "Dan's" anger and frustration at his situation rather than representing a child with autism as a monster.  We considered viewers were likely to understand the "monster" as representing issues that "Dan" had wanted to address; that he had found it difficult and painful to do so but that, with help and support, he had been able to.  As a result, he felt more confident, in control and at ease with himself.  We acknowledged that autism was a complex and sensitive issue and that views on how best to address the issues it raised might differ.  We acknowledged that Action for Children's wish to raise awareness of the condition involved using an approach that some might consider inappropriate.  We considered, however, that they had taken pains to represent autism and the issues it raised in a way which, in their experience, was accurate and truthful, and that the message of the ad was positive.  We concluded that the ad was unlikely to result in widespread offence or to have the effect of undermining the dignity of autistic children and their families through its depiction of autism.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence), 6.6 (Harmful or negative stereotypes) and 11.3.4 (Charities - ethical responsibility) but did not find it in breach.

2.  Not upheld

We noted the concerns expressed by the viewers and the points made in defence of the ad by Action for Children and Clearcast.  We considered that, while views on how best to address the issues autism raised might differ, the story told in the ad centred on one person's - "Dan's" - experience; on the difficulties he considered he had experienced as a result of his behaviour and his reactions to his surroundings; his wish to address them and the difficulties he had experienced in doing so until he received help and support.  We did not consider the ad suggested an autistic person chose to behave in the way they did or that they could simply choose to modify their behaviour if they wished.  We considered the ad did, however, tell the story of how "Dan" had wanted to deal with his situation and how, with the right help and support, he was able to do so.  We concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause offence or to mislead viewers by portraying autism as a behavioural problem or because it implied that an autistic person chose to behave in the way they did and could modify their behaviour if they wished.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising) and 6.1 (Offence) but did not find it in breach.

3.  Not upheld

We considered that the story told in the ad centred on one person - "Dan's" - experience; on the difficulties he considered he had experienced as a result of his behaviour and his reactions to his surroundings; his wish to address them and the difficulties he had experienced in doing so until he received help and support.  We considered that, just because issues or a situation could be addressed and supported, it did not necessarily follow that they were completely resolved or, in this case, "cured."  We considered that views on how best to address the issues autism raised might differ and that, while the ad told of the experiences of how one person had been helped to address the issues they considered the condition raised for them, it did not suggest that the condition was one that could be cured or that "Dan" had been cured.  We concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead viewers by suggesting the condition could be cured.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising) but did not find it in breach.

4.  Not upheld

We noted the concerns expressed by the viewers and the points made in defence of the ad by Action for Children and Clearcast.  We noted that the ad referred to "Dan" being insulted and reacting to that by being physically violent to the person concerned.  We considered that, while "Dan" regretted reacting with physical violence and wanted to be able to deal with the situation more appropriately, the ad did not suggest that "Dan" considered it was his own fault he was bullied or that bullying behaviour was acceptable.  We concluded that the ad was unlikely to be understood as condoning bullying.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 7.4.1 (Mental harm - children), 7.4.3 (Bullying - children) and 11.3.4 (Charities - ethical responsibility) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)