LETTERS: Missing the point on offensive ads
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Advertising agency director Matthew Lonsdale asks the Advertising Standards Authority to "stand in the corner of the classroom until it has worked out the difference" between the shocking deeds of the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer and the plain telling of the story in a broadsheet newspaper, in this case an International Fund For Animal Welfare advertisement.
In his Another View column ("We have been misinformed," 5 October), he misses the point of the complaints upon which the ASA was asked to adjudicate.
The IFAW advertisement in question, promoting the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, juxtaposed the line that convicted Dahmer "graduated" from mutilating birds and animals with the line that torture of mammals goes on in Britain and opponents of the Bill were somehow comparable to Dahmer.
Upholding both the challenge as to whether Dahmer mutilated animals and the complaint that the perceived comparison was offensive, the ASA reported:
The authority understood Dahmer did not mutilate live animals but examined corpses of animals killed by traffic. It concluded that the use of Dahmer was inappropriate. The authority considered the irrelevance of the comparison ... shocking and had caused offence. It judged the advertisers had failed to justify using this approach.
That's fair enough, isn't it, Mr Lonsdale? People do not think the comparison appropriate, and complainants were offended. In which case it also seems fair and fitting that the ASA made the general criticism of certain pressure groups "misinforming people by exaggerating or stretching the truth, exploiting the trust that the public have ..." in them.
Your sincerely,
Rupert Mostyn
British Field Sports Society
London, SE1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments