CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Blatant Hypocrisy in the Culture Wars

Mar 9, 2017

Now this really bothered me when I saw it, and I would think that any fair-minded person would be equally upset – upset at the appalling double standards and rank hypocrisy. And I am absolutely dumbfounded at this clear case of censorship. It involves a pro-life TV ad which was pulled because it was deemed to be “political,” and not properly labelled as such.

Consider this news report about the ad:

The broadcast of an anti-abortion advertisement has been censured by the regulator for concealing its political nature. The television advert, made by the pro-life group Emily’s Voice, was found in breach of the Broadcasting Services Act because it failed to include the correct labelling required of all political matter.
The commercial for the Not Born Yet campaign featured a tradie talking about his fears when his wife told him she was pregnant four weeks after their wedding. “I was your typical bloke, a bit slow to grow up and I avoided commitment,” the man says before walking into his home to reveal his seven children, whom he has fathered over 17 years.
The ad ends with the children holding up ultrasound pictures of unborn babies and promoting the website notbornyet.com. It was broadcast by the Ten Network in Western Australia last September. Political ads must include the name of person who authorised it, place where office is, and name of every speaker in the ad.
The regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, deemed the ad was political matter as it sought to influence personal choices made by people experiences unwanted pregnancy, and also influence public opinion about abortion. Ten agreed to improve its commercials review process.

abortion tv adThe ad can be seen in the first link below.

Let me just state the obvious here. In one sense, what does abortion have to do with politics? It has to do with basic human rights. Without the right to life no other rights are possible. This is about one of the most important moral issues of our time.

Sure, the pro-life struggle can enter into the world of politics and so on, but it stands alone as a fundamental issue which impacts every single one of us. And the group behind it, Emily’s Voice, is not a political party, or a political action group – it is a pro–life organisation which does all it can to stand up for the unborn.

Their website says this about the group:

Emily’s Voice exists to help Australians fall in love with the unborn and encourage and support women facing an unplanned or crisis pregnancy….
The campaigns link to the www.notbornyet.com website to expand the discussion about life, by providing accurate, timely and helpful information and support.
The website contains links to organisations and resources that can provide this support and counselling, as well as featuring many other personal stories of women, men and in similar circumstances.
We also provide some financial assistance to practical pregnancy support services in areas where we advertise.

And sure, the ad seeks to “influence personal choices”. That is what ads do. As one person rightly asked, “Isn’t all advertising supposed to influence you to do something you were not otherwise planning to do?” Of course. All ads seek to convince people to do things or buy things or change their behaviour.

A Coles ad wants you to shop there, and not at Woollies. A Shell ad wants you to get their petrol, and not someone else’s. An ad for an upcoming TV show wants you to tune in to it. An ad put out by American tourism department wants you to travel to the US for your next holiday.

So of course all ads seek to influence our behaviour, seek to get us to buy something, or seek to get us to change course. Whether ads are political in nature or not is another matter. As mentioned, there appears to be nothing political at all about the pro-life ad.

But consider this absolute stinker of gross hypocrisy and double standards: All of you by now would have seen a zillion times over an obviously political TV ad – for homosexual marriage. It is played all the time on television. And of course it exists for one reason: to change the way people – and especially politicians – think about the political issue of homosexual marriage and its legalisation.

You can see the entire ad in the third link below. And guess what? Does it feature the mandatory “the name of person who authorised it, place where office is, and name of every speaker in the ad”? Nope, not at all! None of that is there, yet it is as blatant a political ad as you can get.

The TV ad finishes with these words: “Together we can achieve marriage equality” and then it provides a link to the website of the group behind it: www.equalitycampaign.org.au/

And what is the very first thing you see when you go to their site? You see this:

Let your MP know Marriage Equality is only fair
LGBTI Aussies are doing our jobs. It is about time politicians did theirs. Tell your MP: It’s time to vote for equality.
Take Action:
Fax your MP – that’s right, we’re going old school. Send a personalised message now your MP will actually read. First step: Enter your postcode to find your electorate and MP.

Um, if that is not 100 per cent political, I do not know what is. And consider a newspaper report about the ad when it first came out last October. Have a read of some of the things found in the article:

Marriage equality campaigners will launch a new TV commercial this week — to be broadcast on channels 7, 9 and 10 and Foxtel — featuring real people calling for the law to be changed. News.com.au has been given exclusive behind-the-scenes access to the commercial, and the people who volunteered to have their faces beamed into homes across the country. Advocates say the likely death of a plebiscite on the contentious issue means new tactics are needed….
But with the plebiscite a Coalition election commitment, a green light for gay marriage could be years away. LGBTI advocates say the commercial is part of a multi-pronged campaign to make sure that delay doesn’t happen.
Campaign groups Australians4Equality (A4E) and Australian Marriage Equality (AME) have joined forces to produce the ad. Executive Director of A4E, Tiernan Brady, said the ad was dreamt up knowing that the public vote would be unlikely to go ahead.
“If the plebiscite bill fails it’s really important all policy makers see very quickly that gay and lesbian people aren’t going to walk away from their dignity. This is isn’t a campaign that’s going to stop,” he told news.com.au. “All that energy that was built up right across Australia because of the spectre of a plebiscite is going to be maintained.”
AME Co-Chair and state MP for Sydney, Alex Greenwich, said the campaign would call for Australians to contact MPs directly to tell them to get on and give gay marriage the go-ahead. “We know that every political party leader supports this reform and we know that the public does too. So now we ask everyone to add their voice, join the campaign and finally achieve marriage equality.”

It is politics, politics, politics. So why did the Australian Communications and Media Authority not deem this ad to be political in nature, and pull it from our screens since it violates their own rules about having “the name of person who authorised it, place where office is, and name of every speaker in the ad”?

Please explain ACMA. We demand an answer. A generic pro-life ad NOT tied in to any current political campaign was pulled, but a pro-homosexual marriage ad directly tied to a major political campaign is given a free run. What is that word that starts with “H” and ends with “ypocrisy”?

Please contact ACMA and register your strong complaint, and demand of them that they answer why these gross double standards are allowed to go on. Contact details are found here: www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/Corporate/Structure-and-contacts/contact-the-acma-acma-1

www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/broadcast/antiabortion-ad-censured-by-regulator/news-story/325b8b65b1fe34304d5dd28cf4ae0d5a
emilysvoice.com/
www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/with-a-plebiscite-almost-certainly-doomed-marriage-equality-campaigners-employ-new-tactics-to-get-law-reform-passed/news-story/7c9a97f089bfb09a5b79aecf4b6c3b99

[1350 words]

22 Responses to Blatant Hypocrisy in the Culture Wars

  • Surely Bill it is time for some pro-life politicians to raise such an incident as this in Parliament, instead of always leaving it to us to do all the heavy lifting..the petitions, letters emails etc. which have little effect. This needs to be taken up by some friendly newspaper columnists…Emily’s Voice should, if not already, be pursuing this ..it may well be a winner…get one of those Queensland MP’s to raise it in Parliament…which might even trigger a campaign to insure the advert is screened…given freedom of speech is a topical issue these days..

  • Thanks for raising this, Bill. I am a supporter of Emily’s Voice, and I know of many cases where its very compassionate ads have given courage and hope to young women. I think it’s absolutely shameful that such a weak excuse has been used to shut down this ad, and the blatant display of bias and hypocrisy in allowing the “marriage equality” promotion.

  • Bill, what a useless organisation ACMA is if it cant apply the same standard across all adds. Does ACMA report to Mitch Fifield?

  • Pfft..everyone knows that practicing homosexuality is and always will be undignifiable, what are these nutjobs carrying on about? There is already equality in marriage, all life needs to be highly valued not deadend lifestyle choices like the practice of homosexuality, everybody knows male/female plugs are required to make a proper connection that actually carries a life source!! Pfft…who do these people think they are and why are they being justified in calling good bad and bad good??? This is beyond comprehension. God forgive them for they know not what the do!!!

  • Thanks Sandra. Problem is, most of these folks do know exactly what they are doing, and they are proud of it.

  • I believe that no television channel will agree to advertise for the pro traditional marriage campaign probably because of the terrible reaction towards them by the so called equal marriage side. Another blatant hypocrisy from the Television stations it seems.

  • It seems the main problem directed toward the “Emily’s Voice” ad is the attempt to curtail freedom of thought, belief, and speech as expressed via the press and the air waves. Yet, the gay community is allowed to express itself and promote its agenda without the same requirements for or hindrances to its publicity. Yes, this truly is hypocrisy!

  • Well I submitted a complaint to the ACMA about its double standards just now. I’m certainly not holding my breath as I wait for a reply. Thanks for pointing this out Bill.

  • Hi Bill,

    I tried to complain to ACMA last night, but because I now live in NZ (for some years) and because I no longer watch television (for even more years) I could not give any more detail about the truly political ad you mentioned. As is to be expected, they replied requesting the following:
     a description of the particular advertisement the subject of your complaint
     the date of broadcast
     the channel on which the material was broadcast and the location where you viewed the broadcast
     the nature of your complaint including the relevant code provision if known.
    The first and last I can manage from your description in the article, but the 2nd and 3rd are unknown to me. Are you, or any of your readers able to give me accurate answers to these?

  • Thanks Tom. In my article I answer those 2 other questions. The ad has been on for months now (starting last October), and seems to be on all the channels (7, 9, 10 as the article says, but I have seen it on SBS too). The issue of course is not what time and what channel a particular ad was on, but the fact that this ad is allowed while the prolife ad is not. We need to press them on this. Thanks for trying – keep at them!

  • Hypocritical and crazy. Just had a look at the website ( not sure where the link to the video is) and it’s really good.

  • Praying that this deception will stop, once and for all!!! Please join us www.PrayForAustralia.com.au www40daysofprayer.org.au

  • Dear Bill, Have you thought of organising a petition about this through Change.org ?
    With people being so busy these days, it would make it easier & quicker for people to just sign a ready-made petition, rather than them contacting ACMA themselves. It also then includes links to other social media platforms to spread the petition even further.
    God’s blessings to you.

  • The ad can also be seen here:

  • This situation reminds me of a Bible verse: “Satan’s kingdom is not divided.” The people wanting to safeguard the innocent unborn are being hindered, but the people following an ungodly and unhealthy lilfestyle are being promoted, with Satan and his evil being the root of the problem!

  • The LGBTIQ dictators are using abortion as an equaliser for “marriage equality”. Normal people celebrate the new life sexual intercourse can bring; normal people flush faeces down the toilet. The LGBTIQ agenda want people to flush dead babies down the toilet, and have sex with place faeces comes from. Part of the LGBTIQ success is because politicians and church leaders are too afraid to say what it is that they do.

  • ACMA responded with a fair reason (in their opinion) that the Emily’s Voice campaign was political. See: www.acma.gov.au/~/media/Broadcasting%20Investigations/Investigation%20reports/TV%20investigations/Word%20document%202017/BI-231%20-%20Advertising%20Network%20Ten%20Perth%20docx.docx

    The key issue is the double standard. If you’re going to contact the ACMA, focus on the political nature of the AME advertisement.

  • Thanks Daniel, but there was nothing fair about their reply. They put politics into the pro-life ad when none was there. But as you say, the double standards are appalling: the homosexual marriage ad was entirely political, yet they could see none in the ad!

  • Hi again Bill,

    I have tried again with several followups to ACMA, giving them all the information available in your article, but they are stubbornly insisting I give them the precise details they have requested, as I listed earlier. Since I don’t watch TV anymore, and since I can’t find anyone who has those precise details, the chances of getting them to proceed further seem slim.

    Our latest exchange includes the following …
    ACMA: “Complaints USUALLY concern material that has actually been seen or heard on television or radio by the complainant.” (my capitalization)
    ME: “Does this mean you REFUSE to investigate my complaint? Do your terms of reference PROHIBIT you from investigating a complaint such as I have permitted?”

    Are you aware of anybody who has submitted the details they required? And if so, how they responded?

    Tom

  • Sorry, I also meant to ask, is the offending ad still be shown? If so, perhaps someone can note:
     the date of broadcast
     the channel on which the material was broadcast and the location where you viewed the broadcast

    If someone can post those precise details here, I am keen to press them on this matter. Precision in the details will be most helpful in not letting them make excuses as to why they won’t investigate.

  • Many thanks Tom for all your persistence and concern about this. I wish others were as diligent as you are. But the sad truth is – as I and other have learned over many years – ACMA does not give a rip about your concerns or mine. It is basically in bed with the networks and shares their left-wing agenda. So justice is rarely forthcoming from ACMA.

    And I see that the homosexual activists now have a new marriage ad out, and it does have the bit at the end which it is supposed to be there. So ACMA will simply point to the new ad and say ‘no problemo’. Thus they are pretty much a lost cause. But thanks again for trying so hard.

Leave a Reply