The Advertising Standards Authority has partly upheld eight complaints about six parody billboards targeting the Green Party. Photo / Adam Pearse
The Advertising Standards Authority has partly upheld eight complaints about six parody billboards targeting the Green Party. Photo / Adam Pearse
The Advertising Standards Authority has partly upheld eight official complaints about parody billboards which targeted the Green Party and two of its MPs.
Six parody billboards that attacked Greens MP Tamatha Paul and her party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick have been ruled to have been misleading and therefore breached advertisingstandards.
But at the same time, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) did not uphold complaints that the advertisements had caused harm or offence, or were racially charged.
The billboards, organised and funded by the Sensible Sentencing Trust, were presented as “Vote Green” political advertisements with a message to defund police.
The Advertising Standards Authority has partly upheld eight complaints about six parody billboards targeting the Green Party and two of its MPs. Photo / Adam Pearse
In small print at the bottom of each of the six billboards was a promoter’s statement, saying the ads were “authorised by Louise Parsons, the Sensible Sentencing Trust" with a requisite address.
The digital billboards appeared in central Auckland and central Wellington. In an earlier statement, Parsons had said: “The objective of this campaign is to highlight what and who the Green Party stand for. Because it certainly is not victims.”
Eight complainants – all unidentified in the authority’s decision – cited concerns about the advertisements on a number of fronts, said the authority, including:
The advertiser’s identity “was unclear within the context of advocacy advertising”;
Consumers “would be misled into thinking it was a Green Party advertisement”;
The advertisements “misrepresented Green Party policy”;
The language and tone were “racially charged”;
The advertisements would “cause harm to the MP and the Green Party’s reputation”;
The advertisements “could incite anger which could cause harm”.
The authority said it considered the complaints with reference to five principles and rules in the advertising standards code – principle 1 social responsibility; rule 1(c), decency and offensiveness; principle 2 and rule 2(b), truthful presentation; and rule 2(e), advocacy advertising.
The authority‘s complaints board said the identity of the advertiser needed to be clearer to avoid confusion for consumers.
But the billboards did not breach decency and offensiveness rules, said the authority.
In a lengthy defence of the billboards, the Sensible Sentencing Trust said it had received advice from the Electoral Commission which, the trust said, considered the billboards to be compliant with law.
The trust said each of the billboards contained a promoter’s statement which was large enough in person to read. News coverage about the billboards also gave context.
The trust also told the authority that the Green Party’s colour, logo and font were not used in the creative.
“Tamatha Paul has been outspoken about her views on the police and justice system,” the authority said, quoting the trust’s position.
“The advertiser said the language is not racially charged and refers to Tamatha’s DJing job. The advertiser said New Zealand is a liberal democracy in which we should be free to criticise and mock politicians of all persuasions.”
But the authority’s complaints board partly upheld the eight complaints, saying the advertisements “needed a clearer signal about the true identity of the advertiser”.
“The complaints board said the identity of the advertiser in the billboard advertisements, which were contradictory in message and meaning, needed to be clearer to avoid confusion for consumers.
“The complaints board did not uphold complaints about the advertisements causing harm or offence.”
The authority did note that that the “Woop, Woop! Defund da police” versions were more creative and that a minority of the complaints board believed these versions were not misleading. The minority considered the takeout from these specific billboards were that they were a parody.
However, the majority of the board still agreed the identity of the advertiser in these versions was unclear.
One of the complainants wrote: “Use of intentionally incorrect English grammar evokes negative stereotypes about people of non-white ethnicity, such as lack of intelligence.
“The language ridicules those with left-wing political views. Together, I consider these likely to result in hostility, contempt, and abuse of racial minorities, and those who hold left wing political views, particularly Tamatha Paul, resulting in harm.”
The authority said in its decision: “The complaints board considered the complaints which raised concern about the language ‘Defund Da Police’ used in relation to MP Tamatha Paul as being racially charged and evoking negative stereotypes.
“The complaints board unanimously agreed the advertisements did not reach the threshold to breach the ‘decency and offensiveness’ rule in the context of advocacy advertising.
“The board unanimously agreed the advertisements were political and concerned a policy matter rather than anything personal.
“The ‘Defund Da Police’ wording was also used on images featuring Chlöe Swarbrick in other versions of the billboard campaign and the board agreed this was not a reference to the ethnicity of either MP.”
Authority chief executive Hilary Souter said original billboards that used images subject to copyright were removed by the advertiser prior to the complaints being heard by the board.
“The other billboards were removed at the end of the period the ads were booked for,” Souter told Media Insider.
“Since the complaints have been upheld, under our process, they must not be placed again by the advertiser or the media.”
Editor-at-Large Shayne Currie is one of New Zealand’s most experienced senior journalists and media leaders. He has held executive and senior editorial roles at NZME including Managing Editor, NZ Herald Editor and Herald on Sunday Editor and has a small shareholding in NZME.
