Misleading Billboard

highdef

So I saw this billboard today (see the attachment) and immediately thought that the wording was very misleading by stating that 90% of down syndrome babies in the UK are aborted. By definition, a baby is a child who has been born and is outside of the womb. Before birth, it is a foetus.

I think that using the picture of the young child and the word "babies" is done deliberately because the word "foetus" would not be as powerful.

I had a quick look at advertising standards website (ASAI) and there is a message in it that says the following:

"Complaints related to


The 8th Amendment of the Constitution and related Referendum/legislation

Some individuals, representatives and interest groups may have concerns about the content of marketing communications and advertising regarding the 8th Amendment of the Constitution and related Referendum/legislation.

While the ASAI Code remit encompasses many areas of commercial marketing communications, the ASAI Code does not apply, amongst other things, to non-commercial marketing communications with the principal purpose of expressing an advertiser’s position on a political, religious, or social matter or on an issue of public interest.

The ASAI is therefore not in a position to address any complaints regarding advertising concerning the 8th Amendment of the Constitution and related Referendum/legislation unless the content specifically contains a commercial element, such as fundraising.

We therefore, ask that you please refrain from submitting any related complaints unless the marketing communication contains a commercial element, such as fundraising.

ASAI 31 January 2018"

So whilst this advert is obviously misleading, I'm unable to make a complaint about it so it looks like the people campaigning (for both sides of the argument) can say literally what they like, whether it is true or not. I feel that this is rather unfair to the general public.

This was the first time that I have ever attempted to complain to the ASAI and I can't even do so....:pac:

wexie

While the ASAI Code remit encompasses many areas of commercial marketing communications, the ASAI Code does not apply, amongst other things, to non-commercial marketing communications with the principal purpose of expressing an advertiser’s position on a political, religious, or social matter or on an issue of public interest.

So would that mean that political parties in turn also can't be held accountable for their advertising/marketing?

Is there perhaps some other body you could complain to? (Although if there was you'd think the ASAI might mention it in that message)

highdef

It's a funny one alright as the ASAI don't give any alternative agencies so it looks like the campaigners can pretty much make up and advertise whatever ever they feel like, including changing the definitions of words to suit their agenda.....as mentioned, this is the case regardless of whether you are for or against.

IRE60

It's the ASAI with no teeth again!

it's an interesting one - the cynic in me thinks that they were aware that there was no one to question the ad given that there is only one body the ASAI and they are out of the frame.

It shows a serious shortcoming where, possibly, an extremely emotive referendum can be conducted in publicity terms without a ref.

I note with some interest that the web addresses at the bottom of the billboard is a holding page on GoDaddy - no site as I write.

L1011

Pzazz will run anything - I believe the other billboard firms have declined again

http://www.thejournal.ie/griffith-college-ad-campaign-gone-wrong-2968278-Sep2016/

expectationlost

highdef wrote: »

So I saw this billboard today (see the attachment) and immediately thought that the wording was very misleading by stating that 90% of down syndrome babies in the UK are aborted. By definition, a baby is a child who has been born and is outside of the womb. Before birth, it is a foetus.

I think that using the picture of the young child and the word "babies" is done deliberately because the word "foetus" would not be as powerful.

I had a quick look at advertising standards website (ASAI) and there is a message in it that says the following:

"Complaints related to


The 8th Amendment of the Constitution and related Referendum/legislation

Some individuals, representatives and interest groups may have concerns about the content of marketing communications and advertising regarding the 8th Amendment of the Constitution and related Referendum/legislation.

While the ASAI Code remit encompasses many areas of commercial marketing communications, the ASAI Code does not apply, amongst other things, to non-commercial marketing communications with the principal purpose of expressing an advertiser’s position on a political, religious, or social matter or on an issue of public interest.

The ASAI is therefore not in a position to address any complaints regarding advertising concerning the 8th Amendment of the Constitution and related Referendum/legislation unless the content specifically contains a commercial element, such as fundraising.

We therefore, ask that you please refrain from submitting any related complaints unless the marketing communication contains a commercial element, such as fundraising.

ASAI 31 January 2018"

So whilst this advert is obviously misleading, I'm unable to make a complaint about it so it looks like the people campaigning (for both sides of the argument) can say literally what they like, whether it is true or not. I feel that this is rather unfair to the general public.

This was the first time that I have ever attempted to complain to the ASAI and I can't even do so....:pac:

CiarCuffe
‏ @CiaranCuffe
Feb 3
Replying to @suzybie

Contains a commercial element: their online store

?

pleas advice

How is it misleading though? Is the 90% figure wrong?

Jimbob1977

Would you also lodge a complaint if you saw factually incorrect information from the Repeal side?

For the sake of objectivity.

IRE60

Personally, I believe that any factually incorrect statement in advertising should be challenged - regardless of the product/serviced.

I believe that the 90% is under a bit of scrutiny and that the source attributed were not the originators of the statistic and shouldn't have been attributed with it.

The whole 'babies'/unborn (ie what constitutes either) issue is before the supreme court and a ruling should be given this or next month therefore the word babies have yet be be determined - under our constitution - not in common parlance.

c.p.w.g.w

pleas advice wrote: »

How is it misleading though? Is the 90% figure wrong?

Well an aborted lump of cells, isn't a baby therefore it's inaccurate

Effects

pleas advice wrote: »

How is it misleading though? Is the 90% figure wrong?

Yes, it's completely wrong. 0% of babies with Down's Syndrome are aborted.

IRE60

Effects wrote: »

Yes, it's completely wrong. 0% of babies with Down's Syndrome are aborted.

I;m out of here - what started as a genuine concern, and a legitimate one with media implications is now being eclipsed by the stupidity above.

highdef

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

Would you also lodge a complaint if you saw factually incorrect information from the Repeal side?

For the sake of objectivity.

Yes I would have lodged a complaint if there was factually incorrect information from the Repeal side. I had no intention to include any bias towards or against the groups' message that they were sending out.

highdef

IRE60 wrote: »

I;m out of here - what started as a genuine concern, and a legitimate one with media implications is now being eclipsed by the stupidity above.

I have to agree with "Effects". The message clearly states that 90% of babies with down syndrome are aborted. Seeing as they are changing the meaning of what "babies" is quite universally defined as, I think "aborted" can also mean "euthanised" because to me (and the vast majority of people), a baby is a child who has been born and is no longer in the womb. Therefore to state that this child out of the womb is aborted, I also use a play on words to say that they are euthanised.

But of course, I will be considered to be in the wrong for interpreting the inaccurate statement in this way :mad:

L1011

They omitted a vital bit of information from the statistics - 90% of those where a pre-natal test is performed - which is vastly less than 90%

They are also misrepresenting that the proposed legislation would change anything here, as the test results are not returned before 12 weeks and those who take the tests and chose to have an abortion currently go to the UK and will continue to go to the UK.

Lying by omission is still lying. Misrepresentation is also lying. And this from a religious body who's professed religion considers lying to be a sin!

highdef

L1011 wrote: »

They omitted a vital bit of information from the statistics - 90% of those where a pre-natal test is performed - which is vastly less than 90%

They are also misrepresenting that the proposed legislation would change anything here, as the test results are not returned before 12 weeks and those who take the tests and chose to have an abortion currently go to the UK and will continue to go to the UK.

Lying by omission is still lying. Misrepresentation is also lying. And this from a religious body who's professed religion considers lying to be a sin!

I didn't mention anything about the 90% because I did not whether this was factually correct or not. I was only concerned about the definition of a "baby" in my argument but very interesting to hear about your information, assuming that it is factually true.....and I would be way more inclined to trust you.

So the billboard looks to be factually untrue on several levels (plus the advertised website does not work) yet there is no avenue for complaint of this nasty piece of propaganda.

expectationlost

thejournal did a factheck on it http://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-babies-abortion-3823611-Feb2018/

Effects

L1011 wrote: »

Lying by omission is still lying. Misrepresentation is also lying. And this from a religious body who's professed religion considers lying to be a sin!

Ha, haven't you ever heard of 'mental reservation'. Worked well as an excuse for priests to cover up child abuse.