It’s political.  But is it correct?

17 August 2006

The ASA did not uphold complaints about this ad placed by the American Jewish Comittee in the FT.

Last year, TV ads for the Make Poverty History campaign were pulled because they were deemed political.  This year, the ASA decided that a press ad that implied Iran’s nuclear missiles could threaten the safety of people from Mongolia to the UK was not scaremongering.  Just what is allowed in ads that touch on political sensitivities?

The first thing to explain is that different rules exist for different media.  Another thing to clear up before we look at the rules in detail is that “political” can mean party political but can also mean anything that is related to government policy, including influencing public opinion on controversial topics.  

Political advertising, in the wider sense of ads that seek to influence public policy, is forbidden on television and radio.  That means campaigning organisations have to use other means of getting their message across.  Similarly, political parties may not promote themselves through TV advertising in programme breaks although they are allowed to publicize their messages through tightly-controlled party political broadcasts. 

In non-broadcast media, political advertising, in both the party political sense and the wider sense, is allowed but the ads must comply with the CAP Code.  The only exception is for ads that are aimed at influencing voters in elections or referendums: they are exempt from the CAP Code. 

Political advertising on TV and radio

The ban on political broadcast advertisements comes from the Communications Act 2003 (it also existed in the earlier legislation on commercial broadcasting).  The intention, of course, is to prevent well-funded campaigns from using the powerful broadcast media to gain unfair political influence. 

The ban covers ads that are overtly political, in the wider sense.  It prohibits advertising by organisations whose objectives are “wholly or mainly” political, even if the ad is not itself making a political point.  The Make Poverty History campaign fell foul of both rules.  The claim made in the ad was a statistic: “somebody dies avoidably through poverty every three seconds”.  That does not look like a political comment but, because the call to action directed viewers to a website where they were invited to lobby for changes in trade, debt and aid policy, the ad was indirectly promoting a political objective.  Another reason for banning the ad was that, whatever the content of the ad or the website mentioned in the ad, Make Poverty History is an organisation whose objects are mainly or wholly political. 

Enforcing the Communications Act is the job of Ofcom.  In 2004, Ofcom contracted-out its responsibility for advertising regulation to the ASA.  Deciding what is a political TV ad is, however, still done by Ofcom, not the ASA.  That is why it was Ofcom and not the ASA who ruled on the Make Poverty History ad.  Click here to read the adjudication in full. 

The rules on radio advertising mirror those for TV advertising. 

Political advertising in other media

In non-broadcast media, advertisers may express an opinion about any matter; they should, however, be able to prove any claims that are presented as facts. The regulations for non-broadcast media are not focused on the subject matter of the ad, or who is presenting it, and are more concerned with how people read the ad. That depends a great deal on the audience and the context of the claim. 

Have a look at the ad placed by American Jewish Committee (above).  The ASA adjudicated that it was not scaremongering, offensive or likely to mislead readers into thinking that Iran was going to use nuclear weapons on any of the countries featured.  The adjudication mentions the ad appeared in the Financial Times, which had covered Iran’s nuclear programme in editorial pieces, and comments that FT readers were likely to see the ad as part of a continuing debate and a statement of one group’s opinion.  Considering the effect on the audience is generally the most important factor for the ASA when it adjudicates on non-broadcast ads about political or controversial subjects. 

Sometimes, even ads that obviously reflect the stance of a campaigning organisation can be misleading, if they include “facts” that are not supported by evidence.  See point four of the adjudication on Active Citizens Transform and Greenpeace for an example. 

When they are based on objective evidence but reflect the advertiser’s interpretation (which might not be shared by others), the important thing is to make sure that readers can recognise claims as matters of opinion.  That can present problems for advertisers who know a lot about the subjects they are discussing and are sure that what they say is true.  But the solution can be as easy as starting the sentence with “We say …” and advertisers are not expected to present the opposite point of view.  It’s a fine line between presenting an argument as a point of view and as factual information.  Have a look at the adjudications on Christian Aid and Transport Watch for more illustrations. 

Points to watch

So, the important things to remember are:

Broadcast

• You must not promote a political objective, (which includes promoting one side of a public controversy) in ads on television or radio.
• If the objectives of your organisation are wholly or mainly political, you cannot advertise on TV or radio, regardless of the content of the ad.
• For pre-transmission advice, contact the BACC about TV ads or the RACC about radio ads. 

Non-broadcast

• You can express an opinion about any matter.
• But you must make sure you hold documentary evidence to prove claims that are presented as facts.
• For pre-publication advice, consult the CAP Copy Advice team. 

Looking to the future, you might be interested to know that a campaign group, Animal Defenders International (ADI), has challenged the TV rules in the High Court.  ADI argues that the Communications Act, with its prohibition on advertising that seeks to influence public opinion on controversial matters, is incompatible with the Human Rights Act, which safeguards freedom of expression.  The judgement is expected in September or October and, if ADI is successful, could prompt changes to the regulation of political advertising on TV.  If it does, we shall keep you informed.