Anti-nuclear group wants TV rule clarified

Press, 5 August 1976, Page 4

Anti-nuclear group wants TV rule clarified

By

KEN COATES

Campaign Half Million, the organisation which has had its television commercials rejected by both TVI and TV2, wai ts clarification of what is meant by the broadcasting guide-lines which precludes advertisements in a “controversial area.” The commercials show Spike Milligan, of "Goon Show” fame, warning against the use of nuclear power. They were filmed — Milligan giving his service free — when he was in New Zealand in May. Campaign Half Million is a national campaign, and petition to prevent nuclear power stations being built in New Zealand. Each of the advertisements has the same formula — Spike Milligan stands on a beach facing the camera:

“New Zealand can become the first nation on Earth to opt for a non-nuclear future,” he says. “Set a precedent and sign Campaign Half Million’s petition against nuclear power.” In another commercial he says that the wind is “going free,” and could be used to generate more electric power.

Rejecting the commercials, executives of both corporations noted that the advertisements were in a “controversial area.” Advertisements in this area, they said, were not permitted according to the Broadcasting Council guide-lines on advertising.

The council’s head of programme standards (Mr Alan Patterson) said the rule was in contrast to that in the United States, where anyone with money could advertise his cause.

This was especially so in the political, religious, ethical and moral areas—arguments in which New Zealand broadcasting advertising did not want to become involved. “It is felt better that these causes do not come under direct influence of money spent on advertising,” he said.

On the face of it, this policy might be seen as restricting civil liberties, said Mr Patterson. But this had to be balanced against the amount of free air time available to various causes through news and talk-backs. The national organiser for

Campaign Half Million (Mrs Raewyn McKenzie, of Auckland) agrees with Mr Patterson.

“But the issue is no longer over our commercials, because it will take too long to mount a campaign to have them screened,” she said. “The argument is now over whether citizens’ groups have the right to have advertisements shown on commercial time on television.” She said the problem was that the interpretation of a “controversial area” was being left to the television executives.

The “Speak Up” campaign might be said to be in a controversial area; there needed to be a definite ruling on what was “controversial.” A commercial promoting aerosol products, for example, would be seen as

“controversial” by some people. The way the rule was applied seemed to exclude organisations such as consumer groups for advertising, she said. Thus it was a question of commercial versus non-commercial interests, with a preference for commercial interests.

To preclude all advertisements was not the answer — a more sophisticated method of control would be to place a limit on money spent. Mrs McKenzie has a point, particularly when she asks whether the rule would be applied when a wealthy nuclear power company wanted to advertise the best nuclear power reactor in the world.

She said Campaign Half Million would ' have spent probably between $2OOO and

$3OOO on the series of 10second commercials. The series will now be screened in cinemas throughout New Zealand.

The executive director of the Newspaper Publishers’ Association (Mr Michael Thompson) says that no advertisements similar to the Milligan commercials had been submitted to newspapers. “Provided we could satisfy ourselves that the advertisement was factual, we would probably recommend to our member newspapers that the advertisements be regarded as acceptable for publication,” he said.

“We would add the proviso that the name and address of the organisation be included in the advertisement.”