« Wrong again | Main | Supreme Court to hear defamation case »
Right!
By Steven | November 24, 2008
And here’s a political ad complaint I think the Advertising Standards Complaint Board got right. Again, it’s against ACT. This time, it’s against ACT’s claim that:
“Safe” New Zealand is now almost three times more violent than the US
As usual, the ASCB invited ACT to substantiate its claim. It seems from the decision that ACT, despite being given two opportunities, could not. The party merely talked generally about how it depends on how you compare statistics. It seems that ACT didn’t supply any actual source for its claim.
Pause here. How staggering that ACT was happy to garner votes with this claim, but not prepared to substantiate it – even to a body whose self-regulatory nature ACT would presumably applaud.
So a majority of the ACSB upheld the complaint. Should we be troubled that the ASCB is upholding a complaint against political speech when it doesn’t actually know that the claim was false, and has taken no steps itself to find out? A bit, I think. I’m inclined to think this is yet another example of the ASCB applying its usual processes to a political complaint without thinking hard about whether different ones might be needed. But of course, the ASCB isn’t resourced to undertake its own investigations, and had very little time here. Also, the advertiser is surely in the best place to substantiate the claim. Ultimately, I think the ASCB’s majority got this one right.
But again, despite deciding the case before the election, voters weren’t told about the misleading advertising until after they’d voted.
Topics: Advertising Standards, NZ Bill of Rights Act | 54 Comments »
54 Responses to “Right!”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I felt an inkling to complain about another of their ads.
A perfectly sensible argument … until you remember George Baker killed while in custody…
November 25th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
[…] Steven Price reviews two decisions by the Advertising Standards Authority. […]
November 25th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Steven, I am the Party Secretary of ACT and can provide a little insight if you like.
I received the complaint (from memory) on the Wednesday morning before the election and told I had 24 hours to respond as the fast-track process was being used. Now I had no idea of what this was all about as I had no input into the wording of the ads: I am merely the fall-guy. I responded like you mentioned above, namely that the complaint was lacking in substance and clarity and I could not give a response based on the complaint, which was simply (not kidding here) “this is demonstrably false”. It’s like an assault victim walking into a police station and saying “I’ve been assaulted” and then walking out!
The ASCB replied saying as a complaint was received it would rule against us unless we could substantiate it. This is not law how I know it!
So in the limited timeframe I had, and remember with three days to go until polling day there was plenty of more important things I had to do, including Electoral Commission complaints, I simply asked the ASCB to ring David Garrett, who knows this stuff better than I, for a better response and provided his number. I spoke to David before the ASCB did (if it did) and he muttered to me about comparing statistics, which I passed on to the ASCB.
So when you say “ACT couldn’t substantiate it”, in my view the actual response required needed far more research and written argument than just a “you’ve got 24 hrs, and the clock’s ticking” threat from the ASCB. We simply didn’t have the time to substantiate it in the time available I don’t think.
That is my first dealing with the ASCB and it left a bitter taste in my mouth that’s for sure.
Thanks,
November 26th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Ahhh, Nick – shouldn’t one have their ducks in a row before they make claims such as that complained about to the ASCB?
Whoever in ACT made the claim in the first instance must have relied on some data to come to their conclusion. Why not provide that material? I could assume, of course, that manipulation (“deceit” is such a strong word) was the name of the game?
November 26th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Yes, JW. You’re right, and the data was studied. I am told many hours went into the precise words used based on that data. The problem was, as I alluded to, that *I* was asked for a response to be provided in a matter of hours just before polling day which, as I say above, was extremely difficult in that timeframe. I add that one member of the ASCB found in our favour.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
I’m Bruce Haycock and I have been right in the centre of correspondence between the complainant and ACT, well before the complaint ended up with the ASCB.
A perfectly robust defence is available over the issue of some election pamphlets making the ‘three times more violent..’ claim. The ASBC process, as Nick described, seems odd, the timeframe for me to supply Nick with a response was impossible to respond to, coming as it did in the final days of the ACT campaign and for which I had major operational responsibilities.
A summary; the headline in question was a header to a paragraph in a photocopied flyer, prepared while the formal campaign doc was at print. It originated from a comparison of official FBI stats and NZ Police stats, undertaken by a party member crime policy working group.
Over 1000 initial photocopies were made, these mainly distributed by a single candidate into their respective electorate. The complainant raised the claim with the candidate who then passed it to me. I raised it with the working group leaders who are a doctor working in public health epidemiology and an insurance professional – both statistically conversant industries.
The working group provided a robust verbal defense of their work to me, which satisfied me to reject the accusation of lack of integrity by the complainant. (also JW’s aspersion about ‘manipulation’) However the complainant returned with his statistical analysis from which I concluded we had an argument about statistics going on here and I was going to get the ACT campaign out of it.
So we pulled the header in question from subsequent photocopied production and just got on distributing many thousands until the printed crime policy version turned up, which was an entirely different style of brochure.
The complainant carried on with high handed threats to ‘expose ACT and its lack of integrity’ whereas from my corner, we had taken suitable action and moved on. I invited him to look at all ACT policies on our website and raise with me any issues of integrity that he discovered. Silence on this invitation
The ‘three times’ raves continued, he complained that the Herald wouldn’t listen to him and finally he got his ‘major expose’ into the Rodney Times (first week Nov), complete with my rebuttal of his integrity accusations
And then a day or two before campaign end the ASCB complaint turns up, surely the just and professional thing to do would have been to roll over the complaint to their next monthly meeting. Talk about a dogs breakfast coming from a piece of bone, sheesh.
I’ll talk to Nick if we should go for a rescinding of ASCB decision.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
ASCB decisions are appealable on several grounds, including new evidence.
But hey, ACT folk, I’m still not seeing any actual substantiation of your claim.
August 20th, 2020 at 2:43 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
August 23rd, 2020 at 2:42 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 6:07 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
August 26th, 2020 at 10:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
August 31st, 2020 at 4:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
September 1st, 2020 at 9:41 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
September 7th, 2020 at 4:33 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
September 21st, 2020 at 9:33 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
September 22nd, 2020 at 7:56 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
September 24th, 2020 at 1:59 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
September 25th, 2020 at 3:36 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 44568 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
September 25th, 2020 at 11:57 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 85538 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
September 29th, 2020 at 11:07 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
October 3rd, 2020 at 7:47 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
October 14th, 2020 at 11:00 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
November 6th, 2020 at 1:19 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
November 8th, 2020 at 1:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
November 14th, 2020 at 6:20 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
November 21st, 2020 at 12:12 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
November 25th, 2020 at 7:21 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
December 5th, 2020 at 3:02 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
December 13th, 2020 at 11:56 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
December 14th, 2020 at 1:46 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 71174 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
December 16th, 2020 at 5:28 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
December 16th, 2020 at 10:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
December 20th, 2020 at 7:43 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 17126 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
December 22nd, 2020 at 9:05 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
December 22nd, 2020 at 1:58 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
December 30th, 2020 at 10:19 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
January 4th, 2021 at 1:32 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 41272 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
January 17th, 2021 at 12:38 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
February 23rd, 2021 at 8:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
February 28th, 2021 at 1:35 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 30336 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
March 1st, 2021 at 6:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
May 22nd, 2021 at 8:21 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
May 30th, 2021 at 11:46 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 11:33 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 8:56 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 10:41 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 42675 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
July 16th, 2021 at 10:59 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
July 16th, 2021 at 2:02 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 6021 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
July 28th, 2021 at 10:28 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
August 3rd, 2021 at 3:14 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
August 20th, 2021 at 10:53 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
September 17th, 2021 at 1:31 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
October 19th, 2021 at 9:06 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]
November 9th, 2021 at 12:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=196 […]