RT campaign posters banned in London, REDACTED Second Opinion

RT campaign posters shown in some US cities have been banned in London as ''too controversial'' and ''provocative'' due to their ''political undertones''.

I know some of ATS owners and members aren't keen on RT but the message is true, there has to be a second opinion and IMO this is highlighting the lack of truth in society and media.

The current situation of Russia being blamed for bombing MH17 and sanctioned for trying to intervene in an associated land to help the ethnic Russians there also highlights the hypocrisy of the whole WMD invasion sham.

'Sauce for the goose', 'pot kettle' etc.

RT ads try to enter London

Looks like the *Western Empire / Eastern Empire* conflicts are still going after all the centuries.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Since when does RT have a right to post campaign posters regarding another country's Government? Has the BBC, CNN or even FOX news ran campaign posters in Russia? I'd think Russia would be foolish to allow BBC, FOX, CNN to run campaign posters in Russia.

Because this is what we are really talking about.

An official Russian Government mouthpiece campaigning in another countries business.

How is this different than the Fox News ads that attack left-leaning ideas?

Or MSNBC ads that attack right-leaning ideas?

a reply to: SLAYER69

You're using the wrong alphabet letters, CIA is the answer you're looking for. No need for western msm in Russia when the CIA has it under control.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: SLAYER69

You're using the wrong alphabet letters, CIA is the answer you're looking for. No need for western msm in Russia when the CIA has it under control.

Curious

So, where are these similar types of 'CIA' campaign posters in Russia?


Serious question

a reply to: SLAYER69

Posters? The CIA isn't gonna waste their time with posters.

a reply to: Swills

Ah, ok,

I see there aren't any.


Fair enough

The thing about this in IMO is that there appears to be few impartial MSM anywhere, in the UK, on C4 daily we see biased live tete a tete's, the BBC has been known for many discrepancies in bais and cover ups, the newspapers are known for their allegiances to political parties, the US media is not faultless in it's bias either. And they are all in the pockets of governments and corporations, they exist in their monopolies BECAUSE of their willing for bias.

Which sort of negates the fact that RT is Kremlin sponsored, seeing as Russia is still sort of communist in it's machinations and many things there are state run. The other channels in the UK and US if named more accurately might well show their own under the surface ''sponsorship''. Their 'true colours' per se.

The fact that RT broadcasts from it's London HQ and is making a statement about the perception spun by media and governments that potentially sways the voting population and the inhabitants of nations, instead of seeing the reality and truth of the matter, is a poignant statement and especially relevant now.

The fact the BBC, the police and government are now being uncovered for their involvement in and covering of paedophile rings is major IMO, it is something they should all be dragged over the coals for and held to account at the very least as some sort of justice for their victims and for the people of the UK that have been lied to and deceived for decades by perverted groups that basically ran our media, governments and security services is in itself justification for the RT campaign on truth and a ''second opinion''. there should be national outrage at the actions of those groups.

IMO, whoever it is trying to get the message across that a ''second opinion'' is a good idea should be allowed to say so, and the means RT used in this instance are less inflammatory than certain government campaigns and media bias that's churned to the population daily.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Yeah no posters, the CIA doesn't need them to influence an outcome in a foreign country.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
How is this different than the Fox News ads that attack left-leaning ideas?

Or MSNBC ads that attack right-leaning ideas?

Have those sources ever been banned before?

The adverts are in clear breach of Advertising rules which apply to anyone in the UK, not just RT. Only advertisements run by Political parties during election campaigns are exempt from the rules.

Section 2(p) of the introduction states that political ads as defined by rule 7.1 are exempt from the Code. Rule 7.1, however, mentions neither politics nor party politics. The ASA and the CAP Executive have interpreted rule 7.1 as excluding from the Code ads, whether party-political or not, that seem to have as their main purpose the influencing of voters in elections or referenda of a political but not necessarily party-political, governmental or legal nature. The elections or referenda do not have to be statutory ones and could include, for example, a ballot in which a public body seeks and agrees to abide by the opinions of the electorate. In 2013 an ad by a trade union made the claim “where hospital cleaning has been outsourced, we have seen … a rise in hospital infections”. This was challenged on the basis that the claim could not be adequately substantiated. The advertiser maintained that because it used advertising as part of its political campaigning work, to influence opinions and voting intentions, the ad did not fall within the remit of the CAP Code. The ASA considered that because the ads principal function was not to influence voters in a local, regional, national or international election, but rather appeared to be to highlight the advertiser’s opinions on the dangers of outsourcing hospital cleaning, it was subject to the CAP Code and the complaint was therefore investigated and subsequently upheld (Unison, 27 February 2013)

ASA - Advertising rules for Political messages

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
How is this different than the Fox News ads that attack left-leaning ideas?

Or MSNBC ads that attack right-leaning ideas?

In the UK, there are actually very strict rules regarding advertising in all forms - if you make a claim then you have to back it up, unlike in the US where it seems one can simply state their opinion and that is that. So in that regard, those very same advertisements, if tried in the UK, would also be banned.

a reply to: stumason

That code basically says there cannot be advertising that sways voters, which is itself contrary to true democracy. However the RT ads are not directly politically motivated, rather using politics as an example of where the truth should have been known, and a reaction to the possibility of their TV news channel being taken off air for apparently breaching standards, the very standards breached by the BBC etc often.

The ASA apparently denied banning the ads so perhaps it was other organisations. There has been far more offensive political and otherwise advertising than that demonstrating the fact that the truth should be known and that a ''second opinion'' is a good idea.

www.buzzfeed.com...

The UK Advertising Standards Authority told BuzzFeed News it had not banned the ads or even received a single complaint about them.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

No, that isn't what it says, in fact that is the opposite:

The ASA and the CAP Executive have interpreted rule 7.1 as excluding from the Code ads, whether party-political or not, that seem to have as their main purpose the influencing of voters in elections or referenda of a political but not necessarily party-political, governmental or legal nature.

However, Commercial and Charitable organisations are not exempt and nor are advertisements that are not intended to sway vote opinion, but rather simply convey the advertisers opinion. These adverts are clearly not designed to "sway opinion in an election", but simply to state an opinion that cannot be substantiated.

a reply to: stumason

The ASA didn't ban the ads.

If the ASA didn't ban the ads then they obviously weren't breaching any ASA codes.

The organisations banning the ads weren't disclosed apart from mentioning London Underground platforms and Telephone boxes. They were censored for OUTDOOR posting.

rt.com...

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

If the ASA didn't ban the ads, then they weren't banned.

However, individual organisations (such as those who own phone boxes) could have refused to carry them. Or maybe this is just a story from RT just saying they were banned, but they didn't even actually try to put them up and just ran the story to paint the picture they were "banned".

a reply to: stumason

They were banned for outdoor viewing by outdoor advertising companies citing the Communications Act 2003. though the ASA didn't ban them.

The ads can still be seen using an app and in certain 'wild' posting locations around London.

twitter.com...

London outdoor advertising companies have refused to allow the original images to appear on the city's telephone booths and underground stations, citing the Communications Act 2003, which prohibits political advertising.

originally posted by: Tucket
Have those sources ever been banned before?

Banned from what/where? Not sure what you mean.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

So, it's not actually a "ban" then, but instead a decision by individual advertising firms to not carry them?

It would appear you might need to then look at your thread title, because the only people who can "ban" adverts are the ASA. Organisations deciding not to carry the advert and actually being banned are entirely different things - it seems RT is making a meal out of this for political hay.

Also, I am struggling to understand what the Communications Act 2003 has to do with poster advertising. It is solely concerned with broadcast media. The only provision of the Act I can find that even comes remotely close is a ban on Political advertising on the radio and TV outside of an election, but that still doesn't fit the bill.

EDIT: Below is the only provision in the Act which covers Advertising (again, in a broadcast medium, not posters)

Supplementary powers relating to advertising

(1)The regulatory regime for each of the following—

(a)every television programme service licensed by a Broadcasting Act licence,

(b)the public teletext service, and

(c)every other teletext service so licensed that consists in an additional television service or a digital additional television service,

includes a condition requiring the person providing the service to comply with every direction given to him by OFCOM with respect to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).
(2)Those matters are—

(a)the maximum amount of time to be given to advertisements in any hour or other period;

(b)the minimum interval which must elapse between any two periods given over to advertisements;

(c)the number of such periods to be allowed in any programme or in any hour or day; and

(d)the exclusion of advertisements from a specified part of a licensed service.

(3)Directions under this section—

(a)may be either general or specific;

(b)may be qualified or unqualified; and

(c)may make different provision for different parts of the day, different days of the week, different types of programmes or for other differing circumstances.

(4)In giving a direction under this section, OFCOM must take account of such of the international obligations of the United Kingdom as the Secretary of State may notify to them for the purposes of this section.

Link to Act