Pearl advertisement results in apology

Press, 3 December 1985, Page 1

Pearl advertisement results in apology

By

CINDY BAXTER

Objections to an advertisement in “The Press” resulted yesterday in an apology from the advertiser and confirmation that it would not be published again. •_

Christchurch women’s groups asked for an apology after the advertisement was printed in “The Press” on Saturday and in a colour advertising supplement with “The Press” yesterday. The advertisement, promoting pearls, depicted the top half of a naked young girl in erotic poses, and wearing pearls. Mr Jamie Tulloch, the managing director of Nicolas The Jewellers, apologised for it later in the day and said that it would not be repeated. Mr Tulloch said he was “surprised and disappointed at the adverse reaction to the advertisement” “All who worked on it — and the various stages of production involved many people — regarded it as completely innocent. “Certainly most of the comment I have heard supports that view. However, it does appear that a number of people have been accidentally offended and I apologise for this. The advertisement will not be used again in its present form,” said Mr Tulloch.

A spokeswoman for a number of women’s groups, Ms Sandra Hamilton said the advertisement was

“totally offensive.”

“The little girl is only about five or six years old, and is pictured in two extremely erotic poses. They are not the poses of a little girl dressing up.” Ms Hamilton’s comments were supported by the director of the Child and Family Guidance Centre, Dr Karen Zelas, who said that the advertisement was “exploitative of children by portraying a child as an adult sexual object.” Dr Zelas said this kind of advertising encouraged the notion that it was all right for adults to see children as sexual objects, and encouraged the sexual abuse of children.

“It is soft porn,” she said. Dr Zelas, who deals every day with children who have been sexually abused, and with the offenders themselves, said: “The centre is trying to educate the public to become more aware that children are children and to make appropriate distinctions between the way children are treated and the way adults are treated.” The only sanction against the publishing of the advertisement was an economic one, said-the member of Parliament for Selwyn, Miss Ruth Richardson. People should take their business elsewhere, she said. In a letter to the editor of “The Press,” the co-ordina-tor of Media Women Canterbury, Ms Felicity Price, said: “Kiddy porn advertise-

ments like this can be held directly responsible for fuelling adult male fantasies about sexually abusing young children, and they should never be published.” Commenting on the complaints, the editor of “The Press,” Mr Binney Lock, said: “Apart from any other consideration, it can be assumed that advertisers want good will and do not wish, even inadvertently, to annoy potential customers. Therefore, this newspaper tries to guard against advertisements that are likely to offend or cause harm.

“If we perceive such an advertisement, we will advise against it Ultimately, if we consider an advertisement to be harmful or in bad taste, as we think it would be judged by the community generally, we will refuse to print it. “Letters and telephone calls received after the advertisement was published may not be representative of a general public attitude, or of the widest perception of the advertisement Nevertheless, I agree after closer inspection of the advertisement that however unintended, the effect could be that a youngster was mistakenly used here and the advertisement might be harmful.

“I am told that the advertiser had no intention of repeating the advertisement In any event, we would not have accepted it” said Mr Lock.