The Women's Refuge is a highly politicised propaganda machine. In a welcome new development they have been taken to task for exaggerating about the number of New Zealand women "living in fear". I will not support this organisation on principle. That is unfortunate because there are women who desperately need the sort of help provided by the refuges. But the distorted image of NZ women, and by implication NZ men, they promulgate serves no useful purpose. In fact it is detrimental to their cause.
TV3 reports;
Women's Refuge breached advertising standards by claiming that "one in three" New Zealand women were "living in fear" because of domestic abuse, without having adequate proof, the Advertising Standard Authority(ASA) has ruled.
The ASA made the ruling in two separate decisons after receiving complaints.
The upheld complaints related to two separate advertisements, one printed in the Waikato Times and the other broadcast on television.
The advertisements were part of Women's Refuge annual appeal which was held in July.
Both complainants argued the advertisements breached standards because there was no evidence to back the claim, which asserted that one in three women needed help because of abuse, and the complaint about the print version also argued the advertisement discriminated against men.
"This is absurd and it's impossible that they can produce honest stats proving this," one complainant said.
Women's Refuge argued that it was not in breach of standards as the assertion was based on a World Health Organisation (WHO) study which concluded that 33 percent of woman in Auckland and Waikato experienced physical or sexual violence from a partner in a life time.
The ASA disagreed and said it was concerning that Women's Refuge had used a local study as the basis for national statistics.
The majority of ASA members also thought it was inappropriate to base the claim that "one in three" women were living in fear on statistics which concluded one in three women experienced partner abuse in a "lifetime".
The ASA did not uphold the complaint that the print advertisement discriminated against men.
The ASA found both advertisements to be in breach of basic principle four which says "all advertisements should be prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and society" and rule 2 which says advertisements should not make exaggerated claims or mislead consumers.
"In the Complaints Board's view there was nothing in the advertisement to indicate that it reached threshold to cause serious and widespread offence in relation to it's portrayal of men," the ASA's decision read.
A minority of ASA members disagreed that the advertisements breached standards in both complaints.
The minority members should be sacked.
Mum jailed for letting a 10 year old go for a walk
41 minutes ago
3 comments:
They should, because they're clearly incompetent. (As is the editor of their report, who puts an apostrophe in "it's portrayal of men.")
The bizarre thing about this decision is what they're basing it on - that it's wrong to present a regional study as giving nationally-applicable results. There's actually not that much wrong with it, because the likelihood that the situation of Auckland and Waikato women is radically different from that of other NZ women is remote.
What's really wrong with their ad is that it draws an unreasonable conclusion from the study. The study found 33% of women surveyed had experienced an incidence of sexual or physical abuse from a partner during their lifetime. Even assuming the definitions of abuse used weren't such that you're left wondering at all those people who supposedly haven't encountered any abuse, the idea that having experienced an instance of abuse at some point in your life means you're "living in fear" is ridiculous.
The people behind this are stupid - it's not like the facts don't speak for themselves, there's no need to try and fudge them and doing so only damages the cause they're trying to raise money for.
I'm curious as to how the ASA defines "social responsibility"
One in three? We men are getting worse. A few years ago it was one in eight. I predict that in twenty years time every single woman, including you Lindsay, will be living in fear.
Post a Comment