Why on those government/elections ads...

[StygiaN]

...do they have to say "Authorised by so and so, spoken by blip and bloop"?

[Norm]

Yes they do.

[StygiaN]

But why?

[dwarfthrower]

Because otherwise you could have anybody putting ads on TV saying any old shit and purporting to be the official word from anybody else.

[The Cunt]

"Because otherwise you could have anybody putting ads on TV saying any old shit and purporting to be the official word from anybody else."

Authorised by The Cunt, spoken by Dwarfthrower.

[Uther Pendragon]

I did a media course at university and I was told by our lecturer that there are different rules for political advertisements. For example you can't knowingly lie in an ad that is put on tv for normal items, for example:

BUY ONE GET 10 FREE SALE AT K-MART!!!!! when there was no such sale on at all would be illegal

however political parties aren't required to tell the truth at all in their ads.

Could have been bullshit but thats what they told me

Can anybody confirm/deny ?

[Girl.]

I did a media course at university and I was told by our lecturer that there are different rules for political advertisements. For example you can't knowingly lie in an ad that is put on tv for normal items, for example:

BUY ONE GET 10 FREE SALE AT K-MART!!!!! when there was no such sale on at all would be illegal

however political parties aren't required to tell the truth at all in their ads.

Could have been bullshit but thats what they told me

Can anybody confirm/deny ?

As far as I understand it, this is true -- the misleading and deceptive conduct provisions in the Trade Practices Act and other legislation prohibit certain actions (like your KMart example), but politicians (and political parties, I think) are exempt from the legislation -- so if KMart advertises a sale when no sale exists, this would be illegal, but when John Howard lies, it's not.

[Juice Biscuit]

So they can attack someone without having to do the dirty work themselves.


When the person the ad is for talks it is usually positive to help put forth the idea of a person with a positive plan that is likely to succeed due to their winning attitude.

Bagging the other side is better left up to the faceless voice over guy that people can't then focus on as simply a whinger.

[Aurelius]

Another simple rule to remember is: If they have those comments on the end, it's because YOU paid for the ad.
Remember that. The current regime has spent more than a BILLION dollars in less than ten years on government advertising. Most of it for 'speculative advertising' - advertising not things the govrnment *has* done, but things it wants to do (ie. GST "Unchain your heart" ads, the current workplace changes ads etc)

[Aurelius]

But the 'authorised by' crap at the end means it is an ad covered by the rules of the Australian Electoral Commission and has been deemed political advertising.

[Aardvark]

When a policy is good and will effect positive change, it sells itself. When a policy is bad and will result in the detriment of society, the economy and the world at large, the only way to get it through is to market it

[Dym]

so if KMart advertises a sale when no sale exists, this would be illegal, but when John Howard lies, it's not.

How do people manage to justify that?

[BlueBoy]

Welcome to democracy, kid.

[Aurelius]

How do people manage to justify that?

Um, they write the rules. Of course it's structured to suit them.

[Dym]

I kind of was hoping for more specific answers than that.

[Scumbag]

Another related question:


Around election time, Telegraph poles and walls alike are plastered with local candidates for the various political parties that are running in the local electorate.

My question is, does this violate the legislation which was passed through the NSW government just before the Olympics in 2000, banning unauthorised advertising on telegraph poles, such as the ones you see advertising garage sales, nightclubs, etc ?

And if it does, where can I lodge complaints to persue penalising of the offending poster / or party responsible ?

[Aurelius]

I kind of was hoping for more specific answers than that.

Sorry Dym, but you'll find that a lot of legislation exempts political organisations for no other reason than they want to do what others cannot do.
For example:
Political parties can fundraise and hide the source of political donations from the AEC, and the AEC is powerless to stop them.
They have exempted themselves from the Privacy Act and the anti-spam legislation. As well as the anti-telemarketing laws.
The political parties maintain databases on every voter. It's using a modified version of Access, called Electrak. This is not viewable by voters, can contain incorrect or liberlous material and cannot be seen, editted or supervised by anyone.

I'm sorry I can't give you reasons like "The political parties exempt themselves from certain legislation because it is necessary to maintain a free and open democracy" Dym, but I can't. They exclude themselves from the laws, simply because they don't wish to be hindered by it. And whomever is in government is assisted in this by the opposition, because the opposition parties are wanting to do it as much as the government parties want to.

I'm not one of those "All the politicians are evil so it doesn't matter who you vote for" loonies. I belong to one of the parties and was an advisor to a senior pollie once. But the fact is that some rules are cynically exploited by my side as much as the other side. Don't deceive yourself that anyone's as pure as the driven snow.

[ShinymetalASS]

Righto - my understanding

If you "authorise" the poster/advertisement you are essentially responsible for any claims or assertions made therein. If it is defamatory (and remember this has to be untrue) then the person authorising the placement is the person to whom you would direct any action.

If the poster is unauthorised though, there is no recourse.

Insofar as the parties not being prevented from lying, well, they are if they "authorise" the advertisement. Easiest trick around this (and commonly practiced in student politics) is just to leave any reference to a party off. The defamatory statements are made, the damage is done. This may or may not be a well-used Liberal party tactic.

It really has nothing to do with TPA.

[Aurelius]

Shiny,
While it might not have anything to do with the Trade Practices and such, the reason these ads carry the 'disclaimer-like" thing at the end is because they are paid for publicly, and the Electoral and Audit rules say they must have them.

[ShinymetalASS]

Indeed. Different legislation entirely :)