It’s unusual for a Parliamentary report to signal in its very first paragraph that readers should prepare themselves for a cop-out. “This is a community responsibility which demands action by society,” begins the Senate report on the s-xualisation of children.
The recommendations that follow amount to nothing more than a polite request that advertisers and broadcasters might perhaps, if it’s not too much trouble, consider listening to community concerns a little more.
The advertisers could not be happier with the outcome and have roundly congratulated the Senators on their very sensible report. But they had to work hard to get the result they wanted.
As anyone who’s watched ABC TV’s The Gruen Transfer knows, the advertising industry is the master of spin and manipulation — that’s what they do. When confronted by a potential threat to its freedom to operate we would expect the industry to use all of its wiles to get the outcome it wanted.
In fact, I have been leaked a memo prepared by the peak advertising body which sets out the strategy to deal with the threat posed by the Senate inquiry. Marked “Highly confidential”, the document is dated 26th March 2008, two weeks after the Senate referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts.
The memo begins by noting that the community campaign represents “a significant threat to advertisers”. The organisation will “make its presence felt in Canberra” by lobbying key senators, reminding them that advertising is essential to a healthy media environment that is “vital to the political process including election time”.
Under “Actions” the memo includes the following:
- Work has begun on revising the advertising code of conduct to include reference to s-xualisation of children for the first time. This will be released in the course of the inquiry to demonstate [sic] our responsiveness and head off any push for stronger regulation.
- The Advertising Standards Bureau will be commissioning research designed to show that its decisions are in line with community attitudes. Focus groups will be asked to comment on ads that have been the subject of complaints. Favourable outcomes will be released well before the Senate is due to report.
- It may prove difficult to find appropriately qualified people to counter the views of many experts (psychologists, doctors and child development specialists) who will be critical of the industry. We anticipate that two or three well-known media academics will be of great help to our case.
- Sympathetic experts will argue that: there is no evidence that children are being harmed (although more research is needed); children are active and critical media consumers; the media helps children form healthy s-xual identities; parental guidance is the most important influence; and, children are naturally s-xual beings. Experts in support of our position should preferably have no association with the p-rn industry.
The memo goes on to list some “talking points” for industry representatives to use in media interviews to help “frame” the debate.
- We take community concerns very seriously. While we don’t believe the s-xualisation of children is widespread, we welcome the Senate inquiry and will fully co-operate.
- The industry is highly responsible and we have a very effective system of regulation in the Advertising Standards Bureau. (Note: there is no need to mention that it is an industry controlled body, but if asked, stress that the Bureau takes its role very seriously and its membership is chosen to reflect the range of community viewpoints.)
- While we do all we can, in the end it’s the responsibility of parents to decided what their children watch or read.
The March memo finishes by saying that “our experts” will also help frame the issue in the media by arguing that “the community concern is a moral panic, referring often to the more whacky complaints received by the ASB, and suggesting that those campaigning against s-xualisation are ‘wowsers’ who are out of touch with the mainstream”.
Cynical or just self-protection? However you view it, the strategy worked a treat. The Senators were snowed. Rather than help protect children from s-xualisation, the inquiry actually worked in favour of advertisers because it served to take the heat out of the public debate.
The reluctance of the committee to take any steps to prevent the s-xualisation of Australian children was reflected in the bizarre comment of inquiry chair, Labor Senator Anne McEwen, who told ABC radio: “I think most Australians would be very, very hesitant to have a Government that wanted to go down the path of imposing a government view on what should be community standards.”
Earth to Senator McEwen: This is what governments do, represent community standards. It’s why we have an Office of Film and Literature Classification, rules governing children’s television, and new rules to shield children from internet p-rn.
And what of Senator Lyn Allison, who instigated the inquiry with strong words? Rejecting criticism that the inquiry was a damp squib, she said: “This is a call to industry to shape up or we’ll get tougher”.
So, Ms Allison is going to get tough after she’s left the Senate.
I did not, in truth, receive a leaked memo from the advertising industry; but the fact that you’ve read this far suggests that it’s entirely plausible that such a memo could have been prepared.
Clive Hamilton is the former director of the Australia Institute, whose report ‘Corporate P-dophilia’ prompted the Senate Inquiry.
This wasn’t an article: it was a job application to the ‘peak advertising body.’ And if I were them, I’d give it to you. Now eher did I put that Media Watch number?
Honestly, why get all huffy and outraged about Hamilton’s ‘hoax’ and “dishonesty” ? Better to save it for the corporate players who profit from the sexualisation of girls. Hamilton’s hoax is actually representative of the dominant players and positions in this field. It’s of little surprise that the Australian Gov’t adheres to the myth of small government that will not interevene into family and private matters, and is not going to tell parents how to raise their kids etc. The whole good, engaged parental guidance/ home as haven mythology… letting industry completely off the hook, and abnegating any modicum of corporate responsibility. It misses the point – why are media (and some high artists) sexualising girls? What interest and power dynamics does it serve? What are the ethics? I don’t think it’s relevant how girls engage or resist these images, nor do we need empirical data to prove that it could be harmful (although … eating disorders anyone?) – the point is should girls have to, all the time, look at, take in, and decode these images? Why is it that it is entirely up to individual girls and their parents to deal with the proliferation of pornified female girlhood….
One of the main points of Senate inquiries is to enable people to put their case without having to resort to behind the scenes lobbying. The advertising industry doesn’t need a ‘secret’ memo – they put these points on the public record. Others had and have the chance to counter them. The Senate Committee heard the arguments of the advertising and media industries, various child advocacy groups, various psychologists and other media analysts and academics, and came up with a considered response. People can and will disagree with it of course, but just because the Committee didn’t agree with a more regulatory pro-censorship approach, it doesn’t mean they got conned. This was a unanimous report across all political parties – apart from Family First. It is also likely to be an ongoing work in progress.
Personally, I strong community responses have more impact on advertisers over time than the inevitable anomolies and heavy handedness that come with heavy regulation of media output. Public complaints and campaigns against particular practices or advertisements also mean wider public debate on the underlying issues, which is likely to have a better impact in the long term.
Given the widespread prevelance of sexual images in the adult world, there is only so much that can reasonably be done to screen children from this – and that’s before you start looking at the reality that children’s sexuality already starts developing before they hit 16. Based on the evidence presented to the Committee, I think more public debate and better education on sexual health and relationships – as recommended in the report – is likely to be the best antidote to exploitative advertisers.
If stronger evidence comes forward that suggests otherwise, I suspect many Senators are open to having their minds changed.
Here’s my dilemma, how do I criticise this article without looking like I’m apologising for the advertising industry? How about this?
Clive, you just did a Michael Moore: employing the same tactics you are being critical of while in the act of criticising those who employ them. Or, more simply, you can’t spin a big fat lie in order to highlight the lies of a group of big fat liars. Not if you want to have any credibility at the end.
Advertisers are evil, manipulative sleaze bags who are exploiting children to make big dollars for themselves and their clients. Point well taken.
And yes, it is feasible that their peak body did some serious lobbying in order to minimise the impact of this inquiry. And certainly you have every right to be disappointed that all that came of your original report turned into such a web fish.
But you’re smart enough to report the truth. Why resort to fabricating a memo to make a point?
I’m disappointed.
I read the recommendations contained in the report and found the memo you invented Clive quite believable even if it is a fiction.
The recommendations were along the lines that the advertising industry “could” do this or that. The committee was so pathetic it couldn’t even raise a “should”.
The community response is likely to be very strong against any ads that don’t listen to the Could. The Senators would have done well to consider why they set up the enquiry in the first place. The community angst was enough to get some political action. People like Clive Hamilton helped this enormously.
Kids Free to be Kids built on this start. Those who are genuinely concerned may be placated by the gentle recommendations if the advertising industry backs off. This is unlikely to last. There is tremendous concern in the community about the kind of world our children are inheriting. The senate committee’s recommendations are not helping and as Clive has pointed out the squib senators shave put impediments in the way.