Hi all CA students
Based on the following article, express your personal views and give comments on other students' views, if any. Please avoid merely repeating someone's views, and do organize your ideas clearly, concisely yet completely. Keep your comments to not more than 2 short paragraphs.
Please do post your comments directly on this blog by Monday, 22 Mar 2010, indicating your English name, Team name and Class at the end of your comments. Note that your post will only appear here upon my approval.
The article:
British ads banned over climate change claims
AFP - Wednesday, March 17
LONDON (AFP) – Britain's advertising watchdog has banned two government adverts for overstating the threat from climate change, it said.
The adverts used nursery rhymes including "Jack and Jill" to highlight the impact of global warming, but the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said they exaggerated the risk.
"Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought," read the copyline on one of the ads.
"Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense," warned the advert, commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).
The second advert read: "Rub-a-dub-dub, three men in a tub -- a necessary course of action due to flash flooding caused by climate change."
"Climate change is happening. Temperature and sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves will become more frequent and intense," it said.
And it warned: "If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different."
The adverts were part of a DECC campaign last year which attracted 939 complaints.
Upholding the complaints, the ASA said that forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "involved uncertainties" that the adverts failed to reflect.
Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband downplayed the problem raised by the ASA.
"The science tells us that it is more than 90 percent likely that there will be more extreme weather events if we don't act. In any future campaign, as requested by the ASA, we will make clear the nature of this prediction.
"We will continue to provide public information about the dangers of climate change," he added.
Source:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100317/tts-environment-britain-climate-advertis-cac1e9b.html
Week 12 reflection on news Harry
16 years ago
In my opinion, although the overstating ads are for the concern that the extreme weather events due to the global warming, real condition should not be exaggerated. Any ads posted to the public should be based on concise science research, otherwise misunderstanding will arise. I understand the well-meaning efforts made by DECC, but the only thing they need to add is the uncertainties of their prediction.
ReplyDelete-------Ivy( WIT Group F)
Although the ads are for the concern of extreme weather events caused by global warming, it should be banned for the exaggeration and overstating of the risk. I think any as posted to the public should be based on facts, science research should be conducted before announcing. I understand the well-meaning efforts made by DECC, but the only thing they need to add is the uncertainties of the prediction.
ReplyDelete------Ivy(from WIT group F)
Two British government adverts were banned by Britain's advertising watchdog for overstating the threat from climate change. Those two adverts warned that extreme condition such as heat waves will become more frequent and intense. In addition, they also claimed that if people don't take action, life in 25 years will be very different, which attracted 939 complaints last year. However the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said they exaggerated the risk. In response, ECC Secretary Ed Miliband said, they would make clear the nature of that prediction, and still continue to provide public imformation about the impact of climate change.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, those two goverment adverts should not be banned. Since no one can escape from the impact of climate change, and the action should be taken right now, those adverts will let people realized the serious situation and the responsibility they must take. The watchdog banned the adverts for overstating the impact, however I think it would be too late to state if the situation really goes to that level. Sometimes, proper exaggeration can get more attention from public, consquently provide higher efficiency of the action of saving the environment, which will benefit earth and human beings. That's why I think those adverts should not be banned.
By Kevin Demo Group C
I refer to Wednesday’s Report ‘British ads banned over climate change claims’ by AFP. I agree with Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband’s worry about the soaring rate of extreme weather events, if no action is taken. According to Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the two advertisements mentioned may have exaggerated the side effects of climate change. In my opinion, however, it is necessary that people are reminded of its serious results by watching these advertisements. To moderate the situation, I suggest that more solutions to climate change should be added into these ads, instead of simply warnings, under the premise that these advertisements should be allowed to be broadcasted in the first place.
ReplyDeletePosted by Mengyi,from Just do it,group F.
This article reminds me of ice damage in south China in 2008. Recent years the climate was being really strange not only in China but also other part of the world and natural disaster caused by climate change occured more frequently. However, the public did not pay enough attention on it. At least, the actions to protect climate seemed to be not enough. So I do not think the ASA did a good decision. Though the two government adverts commissioned by DECC may be exaggerated, they were tring to attract public's attention on protecting climate by visual shock on TV. If the adverts were too ordinary, who would realize that the big disaster caused by climate change may occur in the near future?
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, I hold quite different view with Chengxun. I do not think that "any as posted to the public should be based on facts". Common people may not have a comprehensive thinking on one thing. The adverts by government should be based on the most benefitial choice for people instead of the facts. Maybe that is why we need government.
-- Group F -- Pursuers -- Irene
i support ASA's action. the two adverts which are banned predicted the terrible life scene 25 years later.however this prediction cannot be proved 100% true.in my opinion,as government adverts,using these prediction to warn and scare the public,will just cause some panic among the citizens ,and even make itself an irresponsible to its people.
ReplyDeleteactually they are just wanting to show the serious situation of the climate change. i think there will be some better way to do this. for example, they can tell what the government has done and is doing, to f maintain a normal climate.citizens will realize the importance and urgency of protecting the environment from the government's policy and measures.besides, citizens will also trust the government more and more willing to support its policies on environment protection.
Group F---4 leaf clover--wendy
In my opinion, I think the worry of Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) towards those two adverts made by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is superfluous. Since it sure is that more and more extreme weather events occur, the public has the right to know how serious the situation is. As the authoritative government adverts, they are not overstating the threat from climate, on the contrary, I believe after watching the two adverts, the public will be more active to change their bad living habit in order to save the earth and also save themselves. I remember that there is a sentence said: the last drop of water will be your tear. It seems a little bit threat, but it do help us to save water from our daily life.
ReplyDelete---Peter ( from Demo, Group C)
After reading this article, I hold my opinion which is the same as Kevin and Mengyi's views. I cannot see there is any benefit in banning these ads posted by DECC. On the contrary, I think these ads do have positive effects and results. Through exaggeration and humor which are two essential methods for advertising, these adverts would definitely waken people's consciousness and draw people's attention to the climate change. Yes, maybe words in the adverts are a bit threatening and inaccuracy, but we should make it clear that these are only adverts, not news reports. These words are not for telling you the facts but for drawing public's attention, which is proved to be successful!
ReplyDeleteIn addition, 939 compliants should not be ignored as they represent some target audients' view. Thus I think that it needs to be stated that the adverts are just predictions.
Group C--Pinapple- Kyle
Firstly, slightly exaggeration is a kind of good way to make the ads more attractive. However, if the exaggeration is out of control, it would mislead to the consumers.Using climate changing with exaggeration to advertise is not a good way I think because it now is a sensitives issue to the whole world. Further more, the ads with exaggeration may cause a social problem because it may make people be afraid the climate change described in the ads, which will cause an unnecessary social instability. Lastly, it is misleading to the public and it should be banned. ---by Ryan (Dai Yan)
ReplyDeleteThe whole climate change theory has not yet got any substantial scientific proof yet. According to various sources, the temperature has been increasing since the last ice age ended, although it is more rapid nowadays. Besides, 3 Months ago, the Copenhagen scandals revealed that many atmospheric scientists were actually manipulating climate data to reinforce their climate change theory, which was like a complete hoax to everyone on earth. Stating these facts, I am not saying that the earth is not going to suffer the consequences of human pollution, but merely claiming that there is no need to emphasize on the climate change issue so much that it could make headline almost once a week. However, the British government’s actions is a violation of the freedom of the press and served as a suppression of human rights. I would not recommend it. If the theory is incorrect, people would ultimate know that they are tricked, just like the 2012 doomsday predictions. December 23, 2012 will just be as ordinary as any other days.
ReplyDeleteAlex (Harry's Porters, group C)
I partly agree with Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). It is true that more extreme weather events are occurring nowadays and the climate of the earth is getting abnormal. However, media such as the two government adverts will have negative effect on people rather than making the situation better. It is essential to make people understand the seriousness of climate change, but this process can be done in a more proper way, with less panic caused. The content of the adverts seem to indicate that life in the future will be probably horrible, which is unnecessary exaggeration because human beings are not doing nothing but waiting to see the disasters.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, in order to do something to save our earth, the government should try to make some changes in their policy. This is a much more efficient way to slow down the climate change comparing with publicizing those kind of adverts. Making citizens aware of the situation is necessary, but not the most important thing.
I refer to the article “British ads banned over climate change claims” published on Wednesday, March 17. This article showed that two government adverts had been banned by the Britain’s advertising watchdog for the reason that they exaggerated the threats of climate change according to the Advertising Standard Authority (ASA). From the description about the two adverts given by the author, personally, I can feel how serious our human-being’s situation is now, and I want to take some actions immediately. I think this is the information that the two adverts want to convey to people that we need improve our environment urgently. From my point of view, sometimes, the exaggerated pictures, words and statistics can attract people. Only when they realize the fact that they have been the victims or they will be affected, they will take steps to defend themselves. If we only provide the facts, we may not get people’s attention, at least, they will feel less urgent to take actions. All in all, I think such adverts should not be banned, on the contrary, we should create more adverts like that.
ReplyDeleteFrom He Yuyue(Vicky) Pursuers Group F
To me it is surely acceptable to exaggerate the risk of climate to change in the advertisement in order to highlight the potential impact of global warming. First, a lot of people still have not aware of the seriousness of climate change. It is obvious that the scientific evidence cannot establish a direct idea how serious the problem is among layman. All the figures, equations and model are meaningless to them. They think it is ridiculous to draw the conclusion which is human may dying out base on these data. However the advertisements can persuade all these people with image related to their daily life. It is of cause more convincing.
ReplyDeleteWhat is more, I think the overstating is necessary and will not cause mislead or public panic. As a science student I also believe if we do not take some significant action now, it will be too late. As long as the climate change developed into certain level the result will be inevitable. At that time what we do is all faint. The advertisements not only highlight the seriousness of the situation they also encourage people to take action. I think it is the most important part. All the exaggeration is on that purpose. Encourage everyone to take responsibility. When people feel the threat and start to concern about the issue. They will eager to know more about it then they can have a right view on it. So the exaggeration only pushes people to know rather than cause panic and misunderstand.
Zhang Zheqi（harry）
Harry’s porters
CA Group.C
I quite agree with Wendy's idea. I also support ASA's action because they are based on the fact. Although the climate change has already bought great effects on the earth, we still should see these effects in a right way. The government should be responsible to the citizens when they are making public announcement. They should respect the fact instead of exaggerating the fact. Otherwise, people will be worried and panic about the current situation and even lose faith of the government. I think it is better for the government to give suggestions how to prevent climate change instead of frightening the public.
ReplyDelete-------------GroupF W.I.T. Tonia
I don’t agree that the two adverts in British which exaggerated the climate change should be banned by ASA. To discuss this article, I think firstly we need to realize that these are government adverts, which are different from the government reports. Government reports should be 100 percent precise, and they should not lie to the citizen, however, not every ad needs to be accurate. The mean function of these two ads are let people concern about the climate change, and to let them realize how urgent it is to protect the earth. I quite agree with Irene’s opinion, I don’t think exaggerating the condition means that the government is lying to people, but it is an alert to the people’s conscious.
ReplyDelete---Geoffrey 365 Grp F
I refer to the news "British ads banned over climate change claims" on March 17. In my opinion, the ban of the two ads sounded reasonable but was unnecessary actually. Firstly, the serious consequences of climate changes in the future indeed cannot be proved 100 percent correct as ASA said, but any prediction cannot be completely accurate. If we just held the fluke mind that it won't happen in the future and refuse to act, the prediction will be proved 100 percent correct in the future.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, since the two ads showed the severity of the climate change, it would indeed cause a bit panic of public and already attracted 939 complaints last year, which ASA claimed. However, I think it is the unconcern towards this issue that leads the environment to today’s situation. A little bit threat would raise public’s consciousness. As a suggestion, I think the ad can be presented in another way. It can make a comparison between taking action and not. At the same time that showing the serious consequence of refusing to act, it should give people some hope as well as a guide what they can do to prevent the tragedy.
---Crystal (from Alphabet, Group C)
In my part,these two ads should not be banned at all. The climate change is mainly caused by peolpe's irresponsible behaviour. The ads can call up the awareness of pretecting the environment. The words is not exaggerated, on the contrast,it's telling the truth. The situation is so severe that we can not evede the fact.
ReplyDeleteGroup C Brian( Prophets)
I agree with peter's idea.The ads are not overstating the situation.And people have the right to know what the fact is.
I strongly agree with what Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) did to ban these two advertisements. Nowadays, there are many advertisements stating false information and mislead the audience. One of my friends suffered from it years ago. He was a little bit vertically challenging which really troubled his family a lot. One day, his mother found a kind of magic shoes on an advertisement and immediately bought a pair for him. It cost them a lot of money, but was useless. I don’t think it is proper for advertisers to claim these exaggerated statements and cheat the audience. Though, some people may say that it is not the same for the advertisement of climate change. In my opinion, it is truly the same. They are not scientifically proved. Science is the most important thing in the contemporary society. This undoubtedly goes against what we human-beings believe in. Moreover, these wrong statements may lead the society into a panic. People may believe in these advertisements and undertake more campaigns. Some activist may even try to comment a suicide to persuade the government to reduce carbon emission. All in all, I think ASA is right and these exaggerated advertisement should be banned.
ReplyDelete--- Corbin, Pursuers, Group F
I do not agree with what Advertising Standards Authority(ASA)has done. The intention of posting these advertisements is to remind people of the climate change. As a science student, we all know that the change in climate may cause some serious problems in the future. So, ASA cannot say they are exaggerated. On the contrary, I think it is necessary to tell the public what is the destructive outcome the climate change may cause and appeal them to protect our environment.
ReplyDeleteHolly, Just do it, Group F
I do not know whether this advert is a pubulic-interest ad or not, but exaggerating the fact to threaten the audience is really unnecesarry. Recently, any topic that is related to disaster and climate change becomes terribly hot, I think it is mainly becouse the media influence which is brought up by the Hollywood blockbuster 2012. In this film, lifelike film-screenshot and intense story give audience a hint or a assumpsion that 2012 may really be the end of world. So, no matter what purpose of this advert is, using unreliable source that leads a unnecesarry public panic is a funny business.
ReplyDelete---Tim Group F 365
I refer to Wednesday’s Report ‘British ads banned over climate change claims’ by AFP. I agree with the opinion that the world has emphasised on the climate change too much. Since the Kyoto Protocol till the Copenhagen meeting, the world has made the climate change as the bleach which would bring death to the world. However the possibility that climate change will end the world is very small according to anticipation. Too much attention to climate change has made the public too alert to the environment issue. People even insisted on countries’ reducing of green gas emission during economic crisis. But, they may choose some other better way to educate their people instead of just banning the advertisements since the over exhausting of green gas still need attention but just not that much.
ReplyDelete-Karl
I refer to the ‘British ads banned over climate change claims’ by AFP that published on Wednesday. I do agree with Secretary Ed Miliband that if we do not take adequate measures to tackle the problem of environment deterioration, we will be putting an ominous burden on our future. It is justifiable to stress the importance of climate change and raise public attention because everyone bears the moral responsibility to make this world a better place for all.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the advertisements on this issue render a great service to people who are unaware of this issue and are effective to alarm people who are jeopardizing our planet. Exaggeration is a common maneuver used in advertisements which aimed at arousing public attention. The content of the article successfully raised public concern and highlight the potential risk of the climate change. Therefore, the advertisements should not be banned.
I do not consider the advertisement posted by DECC as something exaggerated or improper. Suppose that the condition has been exaggerated or stated improperly. Even this, people are still looking down upon the importance of reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted and caring no consequences caused by the greenhouse effect. Then I do not dare to imagine the picture if the ads are expressed in a more gentle way. I do agree that some people may be bothered by the serious ads. But this kind of people must be the very minority and this tiny side effect turns out to be nothing compared with the terrible consequence caused by people's ignorance of greenhouse effect. People should do something to relieve the serious condition rather than conceal the bad condition and escape from reality.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is necessary to ban the two ads. Firstly, the topic of the two ads is quite unique which is about climate change so they are different from commercial ads. They should be treated differently from commercial ads which means that they should be allowed to have some exaggerations. Secondly, even if the two ads were over exaggerated, the influence on society could not be too much. They were public-interest ads so there was no fraud in it and I believe most people would consider the issue carefully and only few people may be frightened due to the exaggeration. However, every ad has negative effect on some people but you cannot ban all the ads so do these two ads. Last but not least, ads concerning environment are quite good comparing with boring soap or washing powder ads. I think it is better to ban the disturbing commercial ads. Anyway, these kind of climate ads are not bad so it is not necessary to ban them.
ReplyDeleteI partly agree with Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). It is true that more extreme weather events are occurring nowadays and the climate of the earth is getting abnormal. However, media such as the two government adverts will have negative effect on people rather than making the situation better. It is essential to make people understand the seriousness of climate change, but this process can be done in a more proper way, with less panic caused. The content of the adverts seem to indicate that life in the future will be probably horrible, which is unnecessary exaggeration because human beings are not doing nothing but waiting to see the disasters.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, in order to do something to save our earth, the government should try to make some changes in their policy. This is a much more efficient way to slow down the climate change comparing with publicizing those kind of adverts. Making citizens aware of the situation is necessary, but not the most important thing.
Phyllis HAPPY TREE, Group F
I think there is no need to ban these two adverts. Firstly, they are just advertisements but not the facts. It is reasonable to exaggerate a bit in order to raise public attention. Also, the probability for them to bring public panic is very small, since people know they are just adverts which are not so factural as the news reports. Secondly, it is the exaggeration that will awake more people to pay attention to the climate changing, to protect the environment. People need to know how serious the present situation is and we must realise they have to do something to save the earth. Otherwise, it will be too late for us to regret.
ReplyDeleteWhat is more, some people think the statements the two adverts give are not scientifically proved and give out false information to the public. But I do not think so. How to prove the statements? Waiting the terrible results to happen? Feeling regret with nothing to do when faced with droughts in the end? In my opinion, these adverts are there to alert people to prevent the terrible consequences and to avoid regrets.
Yvonne from Girls & Hill
Group C
The reason why the ads were banned is the they may cause panic among the public. However, I don't think these ads had suc serious effects. As the concerned ads are both written in nursery rhymes, they firstly created a relaxing atmosphere. Though they had some exaggerated discriptions of the climate change and didn't state the uncertainties of the prediction, it won't have a deterrent influnce as the serious tone. The situation is similar to that no one will be deeply scared by the bad guys in a fairy tale.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some comments that not every ad need to be precise. To some extent, ads are using exaggerated method to catch people's attention. As long as the content is not fake and illegal, some rhetpric skills can be applied in it.
I am in favour of Peter's view with respect to this news. Indeed, exaggeration is one of the most effective ways in advertising. Regarding this issue, the advertisements will successfully draw people's attention towards global climate change, leading people to take action to prevent the serious outcome brought by human pollution. Though the advertisements with exaggeration may cause some unnecessary panic in public, its beneficial impact overweighs its negative effect. At least people tend to be more active in protecting the environment and more responsible for our planet. However, another point which cannot be ignored is that some facts should not be excessively exaggerated. The reason is quite simple and everyone knows. Once something good is out of control, it will surely become a bad thing. So the government and the media should pay great attention to it, and had better mention some detailed measures to protect our environment.
ReplyDelete---Sonia, Pineapple, Group C
When it comes to the consequences of climate change, some people advocate that it is not as urgent and severe as mentioned in the British adverts. However, I deem that we’d better take it seriously. ASA banned these two adverts because “they exaggerated the risk”. The two adverts aimed to raise awareness of climate change, in a way that people can remember easily. If anything needs to be improved in the adverts, I would like to say that the lines could be more realistic and detailed, such as what exactly people can do to prevent the disaster from taking place. It is not wise for ASA to ban these adverts. These ads do not cause panic, but action.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alex’s opinion from Harry's Porters, group C, I consider 2012 as a science fiction movie but climate change as an undeniable truth. It is always pleasant to be optimistic about the future, but we should not overlook the facts. Human beings need some wake-up calls, don’t we?
-by Vera（SuQia）from four leaf clover, group F
I refer to the aricle 'British ads banned over climate change claims' published on 17, March. In my opinion, the ban of the two ads is resonable to some extent, however, it is not necessary. I understand that ASA thought the impact that could be caused by climate change has not been ensured yet, and exaggeration of the impact would possiblely result in panic. Nevertheless, the future impact can not be ensured 100 percent because they are things which have not happen after all. It is not proper to banned words related to impact of climate change just because of uncertainties involved. The aime of the two ads is to raise people's awareness of climate change which is essential for now and needs support. Since they are only ads, the content contained are not so precise as scientific reports. Therefore, I think, the ban of the two ads for inaccuracy is not necessary.
ReplyDeleteThe aim of drawing people's attention is good, however, some changes may make the ads more effective. Instead of using the frightening impacts the whole ads, some instructions related to people's daily behavior can be added so as to call for people's contribution towards prevention of climate change.
Catherine -- Royal Flush, Group C
I agree with the idea to ban the overstating advertisements.Firstly, the purpose of the ads is good ,but attracting the public attention by exaggerating the fact can not be tolerated.People have the right to know the truth, and no one can cheat the public for any reason.secondly, exaggerating the fact may cause undesirable panic, and the overstating ads may be used by people who want to cause the public to panic.Thirdly,exaggerating is a unresponsible reaction, they can only persuade people by facts and their actions but not lies.
ReplyDeleteHowever,we can see the problem from an other perspective. Their action is understandable since many poeple don't care about the climate change because they think that they are not going to be affected very soon. Numerous people think that it's the problem of the next generation and those low altitude and long costal countries. Comparing to the danger effects of climate change, they concern more about other problem such as economy, resources, technology, and other interests.That's why the climate change problem cannot be tackled properly.in conclusion, on the base of understanding why people are not concern about climate change,we need to think of more pursuasive ways to make people care about climate change instead of lying to them.
Rachel(Group C)
ReplyDeleteAdvertisements always use all kinds of methods to mislead people. Exaggeration is very common. So I never believe them without checking…These two advertisements at least seem to serve for a good purpose. There are much more advertisements cheating people for financial gain, but usually they are not banned because they know how to use misleading words in a legal way. So at first, I think that the ASA were too strict with these two advertisements. But when I saw that Corbin from group F said that some people may commit suicide to reduce carbon emission, I agree that the government should make everything clear to the viewers in advertisements (though I think those who commit suicide really need counselling…).
By the way, about the global climate change, there are many theories about it. I’ve even heard about a theory that it’s not caused by human activities so that actually we can do nothing about it. No one can be sure of the future before it comes. The influence of the climate change remains a question. But I hope that we will not be erased from the earth because of our own activities…
Climate changing has really become a hot issue, especially after the movie "2012" is shown. News, articles and video clips about "the world destruction" become extremely popular. I think the situation will lead to two kinds of results. First, people all over the world may be conscious of the importance of natural environment and start to protect it. On the other hand, it may also generate feelings of pessimism and sadness.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the ASA to ban the adverts. Nowadays, the consequence of natural disasters has been too much exaggerated. It is time to build confidence, and I think it is better to tell the public how to protect the environment to avoid "2012" other than how the world is going to be destroyed.
--- Jason, Four leaf clover, Group F
I my point of view ,the purpose is fine although the government did it in a wrong way .On one hand ,the the ads aim to educate and alarm people to pay more attention on climate change. even though it did overstate the coming threat , to some degree , it is an kind action . People may be shocked at the beginning ,but after that, reflection and attention will come as well . People will learn something from it .
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand , government is supposed to take the responsibility of every message posting on public . The untrusted ads will definitely make negative influence and cause certain difficulties on coming works .
CA GroupC Demo John
Personally speaking, I do not really agree with the behavior of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). To begin with, the aim of advertising is to propaganda its products or its thought to the public through a exaggerating way, and it seems to be no exceptive whether it is a business one or a charity one. So, it sounds to be reasonable for the existing of the overstatement in the ads. Next, it is generally acknowledged that the problem of global warming is becoming increasing severe. Consequently, it is quite necessary to awoke the public awareness. Exaggeration is undoubtedly a effective method to concentrate the attention of the audience and impress them deeply. Thus it would be more likely for the citizens to behave his or her behavior to prevent the aggravation of the global warming. Take, for example, knowing the severe results of global warming, there would be more tendency for the citizens to choose public transportation in order to reduce the emission of the carbon dioxide. Overall. I just think it is simply a way to enhance the pubic awareness.
ReplyDeleteI do admit that the audience have the right to know the truth, however, exaggerations should be acceptable in a certain range. If the merits obviously surpass its drawback, then, we should say, there is no meaning to stop this behavior.
Helen from Royal Flush(Group C)
Nowadays, slightly exaggeration becomes a way used frequently to make the advertisement more attractive.
ReplyDeleteThe intention which is to warn us the consequence of our irresponsible action is good, but the way to bring about unnecessary worry toward the seriousness of climate change.
To correct our bad habits such as adjusting low temperature conditioner remains a long way to go.
I understand the attitude Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) towards those two adverts. However, they also need to encourage them to go on remind people in an exaggerated way.
Nowadays our society lack people like that. They have strong sense of danger. Try think of nursery rhymes to help common people to understand better. I think the paramount thing is ASA can give them a clearer guide and a broader platform for them to express their concern
rainy from 365,group F
It is quite strange that the first thing appearing in my mind is the science fiction movie '2012'. In that movie, a crazy but foresighted scientist tries to tell people what all the governments in this world not willing to tell. It is immoral but quite reasonable for government to do so. Definitely, government officials and scientists are two different kinds of people. What the scientists need to do is exploring and finding. It is quite OK for them to make mistakes due to their in sufficient thinking. In contrast, government may want more stability than creativity. To some extent, government is the last straw of the whole society. If a government become panic or make its people panic, it would not last for a long time. So the government needs to ease its people and solve problems for its people. This relationship may sound like parents and kids and maybe what we need is fairytales.
ReplyDeleteBy Alex Group F
As far as I am concerned, though the contradiction exists between the government ads and the advertising watchdog, they both concern about the consequence on human itself. I can total understand why they hold different attitudes toward these exaggerated ads. With the science and technology developing, the competitions among all countries and domestic companies are increasingly keener which leads to the result that sometimes the advice of “building environmentally friendly society” merely comes into our ears but out of our mind. To avoid this short-sight view of human beings, one of the effective ways is to show how catastrophic the consequence could be. Therefore the adverts about the climate change overstating the threat were reasonable to be there for the advocators believe it works. However, as the advertising watchdog considered, this ads may cause undesirable panic hence it should be banned. I think there is no right or wrong about this issue. What really matters is how to slow down our step on the way to advanced technology world and really shift our human focus to environment protection. More and more natural disasters have happened by last few decades and I do believe this is a warning signal from the earth. This is more powerful than those adverts which we can complain and ban them. But we can never ban the real consequence caused by our behavior.
ReplyDeletevivian (happy tree / group F)
I agree with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that it banned the climate changing advertisements. In my point of view, to tell the truth means telling the true story and telling the whole true story. If the advertisements failed to tell the “involved uncertainties”, it is unfair for the audience to know only half of the story even though it is for the good of the public benefits. However, I understand the danger of the climate change and I am strongly supporting public taking actions to fight against the climate and save our earth. I believe most people have the same feeling as mine and we will get enough understanding from the believable advertisements with accurate statistics. We are expecting to be shocked or educated about the environmental issues but we are not expecting cheating or misleading. What the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) done will lose the trust from the public and drive the support away.
ReplyDelete-------By Joyce (from The future, Group F)
This news talked about two adverts banned because they exaggerated the risk of climate change. In my opinion, I do not agree on using exaggerated adverts to warn people of the risk of climate change, although it is affecting people. First, the exaggerated adverts mean dishonest. As a department of government, DECC should set a good example to show honesty. If not, how can people trust the department, and the whole government? Second, the overstated adverts may worry people. It reminds me of the rumour of an earthquake in Shanxi Province last month. The rumour had frightened millions of people in Shanxi and caused chaos. Compared to the earthquake rumour, although the exaggerated adverts are not serious to some extent, it may also cause anxiety among people, and affect their daily life. Therefore, the exaggerated adverts should be banned. However, it is common sense that the climate change has influenced people all over the world. I think there should be adequate data of this serious issue, and the Department has no need to exaggerate the fact. Just show the severe truth, and people will have an idea and may know what to do.
ReplyDelete----By Puluo from PINEAPPLE, Group C
In fact, I do not agree with Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). They banned these two government adverts because of over climate change claims.In my opinion, it was unnecessary. Firstly, since they are adverts,it was reasonable to use some exaggeration. To some extent, it is quite useful and helpful to increase the influence of the adverts on the public. As we know,the climate is getting worse and the climate problems are quite serious nowadays. If we do not attach great importance to these problems, the prediction of the adverts will be accomplished. Although these adverts has aroused some complaints and worry, it does be effective to warn people and influence them to take some action. Therefore, I think these two adverts should not be banned.
ReplyDelete----Amy From Alphabet,Group C
In my opinion, the ban of these two government adverts is necessary. If the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) did not ban them, the exaggerated adverts might cause a panic. It is good to let people know that climate change is happening and it does need attention. However, the turth is more important. People can have better understanding of climate change if they get the real information.I think the adverts especially the govenment adverts should not lead to misunderstanding. Therefore, I think these two adverts should be banned.
ReplyDelete---Seth (from Alphabet, Group C)
I cannot understand why ASA considered that the two adverts exaggerated the threat from climate change. See what happened to India last year. It was hit by the worst floods in more than a century after a protracted drought lasting for 40 years. Just as some climate experts predicted, extreme droughts, floods, and storms, would become commonplace in the future, and that these intense weather conditions would follow in close succession to each other, often in the same areas. Think about Tuvalu, a country will be swallowed up by the sea since global warming leads to the rising sea level. Almost 25 million people have had to leave their homes because of environmental problems. How could ASA be such squeamish that considered the two adverts overstating?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the two adverts are nothing but facts, telling us what we are facing. Climate change is causing frequent extreme weather, and people need to be aware of the seriousness of this. There will be nothing negative but great changes on environment if more and more people begin to care environmental problems and act to protect our only earth .
By Sally (from Demo, Group C)
I refer to the news: British ads banned over climate change claims on March 17. I do not support the British doing so. Since many product ads are always exaggerated and with uncertainty in order to attract people, I wonder why ASA allow those product ads but not the ads about the climate change. Besides, those ads relating to climate change are aimed to make people pay more attention to protecting the environment and this is absolute a significant thing for people to be reminded nowadays. However, banning those ads in order to reduce the claims is a stupid action in the long term, for letting people ignore the climate change can only make things worse. Therefore, I suggest that the British should reflect on this issue.
ReplyDelete----Iris, Pursuers, group F
I agree with Geoffrey’s idea that it is not wrong for the government to exaggerate the climate situation more or less in the adverts. The forecasts of the climate change do involve uncertainty, but the government has the right to show the public the worst possible condition, so that the adverts will be more effective in raising people’s attention and awareness to take action and protect our planet. In addition, not aiming at gaining profit, the public service advert is different from the commercial advertising, which needs to be as accurate as they can.
ReplyDelete------Joy (the Future) Group F
I think it is wrong for government to lie about the truth no matter what the purpose is.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the globle warming is a globle issue that concerned with every resident on the earth, and everyone should have the equal right to know what is the true situation we are faced with now. Neverthless, the government should take further action in this situation, like shut down some factories that discharge excessive carbon dioxide, generalize some climate-friendly technique and give more suggestion about what people can do to slow down the rate of globle waming in the daily life. BY joey group C
Recently the climate in all parts of the world is quite strange and unpredictable. The earthquakes happened here and there and the whole world is not stable. All these abnormal conditions make me think of the famous Maya prediction that the world will terminate itself in 2012. Nobody would be able to stop this from happening if it were true. As my point of view, there should be someone to remind the public of the dangers that they are facing now. As a supporter of the DECC, I believe the global warming is a really serious problem and people need to be reminded in daily life. But what the ASA did really made me confused about the world we are in. We are in danger, indeed. But the kind suggestions were not able to post on the wall and let people see it. People now need an alert to warn them that they need to make some action to protect our own planet.
ReplyDeleteEric-- from Group F JDI.
Two British government environment advertisements were banned for exaggerating the adverse effect of climate change. Here I would like to talk about this issue from several aspects.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the government carried out the environmental aiming to warning people being aware of the threat from climate change and calling for protecting environment by control over human activities. It was meaningful and necessary. They were expected to have good effects as environment ads, however, they got 939 complains for they overstated it. In fact, advertisement is an art involves certain exaggerations, by which they can make more audience get the information and react what they want them to.
I don’t mean I appreciate their overstating, especially the event that leading British climate change scientists were indicated data manipulation to strengthen the case for man-made global warming. Same as in the ads, their purpose was not bad, but they did something wrong.
We should regard this event more objective and clear-headed.
Unfortunately, people didn't pay full attention to protecting the environment but more to the exaggeration in the ads. Why people complained so much, was it only because they thought the ads were overstating?
To the second point, climate change is now a sensitive topic among the people. There are many unexpected climate changes and disasters now around the world. Even there came the prediction of doom 2012. Human activities have great impact on the environment and now the climate becomes capricious. Many people have realized this but they are probable to be a little frightened and do not want to confront the fact. The exaggeration in the environment ads made them uncomfortable more or less. Thus, they react so much that they demand to ban the ads.
Of course, it is too arbitrary to say the reason behind is just people are sensitive about climate change. It is certain that many complainants were guided by the sense of what is right and what is wrong.
It is a good way to continue to provide public information about the climate change and to be more careful and accurate in reflecting uncertain information of climate change.
---Commented by Erika
I don't agree with the behavior of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The fact is that human beings are undergoing an extremly difficult time. With more and more disasters happening around the world, people are more and more concerning about whether human will survive these catastrophes. It is the right of the government to tell his citizens what the worst situation can be. On one hand, people can be more responsible to our mother nature, and do less harm to her; on the other hand, people can get mentally prepared in case of big events. However, the ASA distorts the serious facts and still let the people unaware of the present situation. I don't think that the behavior of ASA is correct.
ReplyDeleteMa Xiao (Bob) from Group F, theFuture
I support what have been done by the watchdog authorities. Government ads are not nursery rhymes; they should at least fulfill its responsibility ---- to educate people with right guidance, using the tool of art, science and fact.
ReplyDeleteThis piece of news reminded me what happened on the Copenhagen Climate Conference, the global warming issue has been used by the United States for a reason of adding tax and setting export limits and financial burden on other countries. All these action were based on years of exaggeration on the effect of global warming with the help of the media groups. Most of the people were misled by the distorting publicity, it is time to cease this wrong phenomenon.
Francois from Prophets, Group C
The climate change has become such a hot sport, recently. Since the movie, 2012, has been published, people are really concerning about the climate change. Moreover, as there are more and more natural disasters happened in past few years, people are more scared. Will ‘the end of the world’ come? This is the question which keeps circling in our minds. Hence, more ads about climate change appeared on the mass media, such as the two on the Britain's advertising watchdog. However, they are banned because of the exaggerated expression.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot deny that the two ads appeared on the Britain's advertising watchdog about climate change really reflected the worry among people. They are useful to some extent. The climate change is such a great issue that the individuals may not so concern about it. The ads can help people know that it actually related to our lives and could influence our future. Since the improvement of climate situation cannot be done by a small group of people, the ads can act as a call for action and conjugate the might from every individual. However, the situations of climate are exaggerated. This may cause social chaos. Such as it appeared in the film, 2012, people may go on strike, rob the supermarkets or even commit suicide. It may become very serious. I think this kind of demagogic and exaggerated ads should not be put on the mass media. All the things mentioned are all predictions as the authority said. They should be more reasonable.I think that people should have rights to know what is happening on the earth, hence the ads to some extend is necessary. However, they should not be exaggerated and make people panic. They should be more factual and reasonable. If not, they should be banned.
By Brandy from Alphabet,Group C
Recently 2 government adverts were banned by the Britain's advertising watchdog because the ASA thought that they exaggerated the threat of the climate change in the adverts.
ReplyDeletewe need to consider this issue from two aspects. on the one hand, the government may try to emphasis the importance of climate change to the public so that they can take it seriously, which improves the efficiency of the adverts. on the other hand, the adverts themselves are threats in people's everyday's lives, it may cause anxiety and even panic to some degree if the adverts overstate the level of danger. this way, the side effect is very obvious and if it dominates the influence the advert is absolutely a failure. simlilar case can be like the movie 2012 which describes the doomsday was so impressive that many people were really worried after the show. of course that was not true but we can find how vulnerable people's minds are.
So be a responsible advertiser and the way you express is important.
by Lewis pineapple
17th Mar. two ads were banned by Britain's advertising watchdog since they “exaggerated” the threat of climate change. The ads indicated that there will be more frequent extreme weather conditions if people do not make any difference from now on. Also, the ads gave people a clear time limit – 25 years, which just seems to be tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me recall the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” -- all kinds of extreme weather events take place in several days, tsunami, storms, cold currents, floods… Maybe that is the exact impression the two ads gave to the public.
So it looks like the government has done something right, keeping the public from being panic and maintaining a good order. However, that’s also the main concern in most country’s chairpersons’ minds – “we will never take actions first because we need to maintain the GDP. So keep the public unaware of what’s really happening, and that’s the only way to achieve that under the limit of democracy. But what if the end of world comes some day?”
As a result, people must know the truth and what is going on. So indeed we need ads like that to call up people around world to do something for the homeland, the only homeland of human being.
Sometimes exaggeration can be a effective choice, giving people the sense of crisis and the will to contribute. And sometimes “exaggeration” is just an accusation from some politicians. ----Draco
The movement that British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) bans government adverts on climate change means a lot. It somehow shows that Britain is of high democracy, at least in the media field. The British government has the right to make adverts, while ASA has the right to reject the adverts. However, in some countries, government, or even some single persons, has the power to controll the media and dicide what information audience should receive.
ReplyDeleteWhat is more, the reasons why ASA baned the adverts were also worth argueing. ASA said the adverts overstated the threat while the maker denied that and declared further information would be provided to public. However, I agree with the former. Personally, I never believe that life in 25 years could be very tough. There are many big problems all round the world besides climate change, the financial crisis, poverty, population explosion, etc., and so far more attention should be focus on those problems, or life in 25 years could really be very tough.
William from W.I.T, GrpF
In my opinion, the warning advertisements are needed to make the public aware of the current climate situation. It is very important for governments to show people how serious the condition is in order to take worldwide actions to protect the environment. However, the advertisements should not exaggerate the true situation too much because it may cause some side effect such as social unrest. I personally think that it is acceptable for the DECC to overstate the situation a bit to get the attention from the public because people always realise the problem when the situation is really bad. Besides informing the public the bad situation, I think the government should also inform the public what they should do because it is of no use to tell people how serious the situations is without letting they know what to do. Furthermore, I think that the advertisements should be more logic and show some phenomena in normal life that can indicate terrible futural environment instead of keeping saying the danger of the climate change only. Also, I personally support Ed Miliband and I agree that these advertisement should not be banned if some moderations are made.
ReplyDelete--Shawn from Observers Group F