Yesterday, I broke the story about how a regulatory body of Canada’s private broadcasters was apparently holding back advertising produced by the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association (CRFA).
The reason for the rejection of CRFA’s advertising? Insufficient size (and duration) of a disclaimer describing who produced the ad spots as TVB categorized the commercials as “Issues and Opinions” due to the buzzworthy nature of renewable fuels.
However, CRFA was given another bizarre reason for the rejection of one of their ads: a two second clip of Stephen Harper stumping during the previous election on a renewable fuels promise needed a “letter of attestation” from the Conservative leader in order for it to appear in the commercial. In other words, CRFA needed Harper’s permission to use Harper’s image even though the use of such an image was from a public event and without media restriction. The clip was used by CRFA to remind Canadians of the promise made by the Conservatives during the previous election on renewable fuels.
CRFA cried foul and rightly argued that such a stipulation for advertising would mean that public figures that debate and write legislation for the public could have an automatic veto over any commercial that they don’t like that featured their image. It should be noted that the issue of ownership of the video content was never in dispute, but rather that the subject of the video (Harper) had not signed off on it’s use.
This got me thinking. Surely there are other examples of commercials produced using the images of elected officials. Election advertising and especially attack ads come to mind.
During the closing days of the previous election, I doubt that Stephen Harper signed off on the blurry, war drum fade-in of his image while Liberals warned of “soldiers with guns. In our cities. We’re not making this up”. Why would he give his permission for such a spot? Further, if TVB is responsible for editorial control over commercials that air on private broadcasters, why on Earth did a spot showing women hunched over cowering while a voice-over falsely accused Harper of being an ideologue that would prevent a woman from her right to choose get approved, while Corn Cob Bob got canned for using an innocuous clip of Stephen Harper (for about two seconds on less than 5% of the screen).
The TVB apparently greenlighted obviously slanderous ad copy while rejecting a happy-go-lucky ad about renewable fuels.
During the last days of the 2006 election, after the Liberals made those war drum spots (we’re not making this up), the Conservatives responded with their own ad with clips of Liberals saying the soldier ad was a “bad idea” etc and a clip of Paul Martin admitting that he approved the ads. The Liberals were quick to condemn the ad in a press release dated January 15th, 2006:
Conservatives Called on to Withdraw TV Spots
January 15, 2006
The Conservative Party of Canada has produced new television ads which the Liberal Party of Canada believes are in violation of Canada’s Copyright laws.
The Liberal Party of Canada calls on the Conservative Party to withdraw these ads.
Here’s the ad:
The Liberals lobbied to have the ad pulled because they claimed that the Conservatives violated CBC copyright by using a clip of Paul Martin admitting that he approved the controversial Liberal attack ads. A CP story from January 16th, 2006 gives us some more perspective:
OTTAWA (CP) — A new Conservative TV ad is reminding voters some of Paul Martin’s own candidates disapproved of a controversial Liberal attack which some say implied a Tory government would send tanks into the streets.
The Conservative ad recycles quotes from prominent Liberals including John McCallum, former defence minister, who last week called his party’s ad a mistake.
The 30-second Liberal spot was based on a campaign promise by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to station 500-member battalions of Canadian Forces personnel in major cities for deployment in emergencies.
The Liberal ad outraged military personnel, who said it implies the Tories were advocating some form of martial law.
It was quickly yanked from the Liberal party’s English website, but a French version aired on television in Quebec.
Martin has said he gave an initial go-ahead, then changed his mind and pulled the ad, which McCallum and Keith Martin, a former Reform party MP and now a Liberal incumbent, later criticized.
The Liberals called on the Conservatives to withdraw the ad in a statement Sunday, saying they believe it violates copyright laws by using CBC footage which they did not have permission to use.
But the Conservatives said all their ads were approved by the party’s legal counsel and Telecaster, the Canadian advertising authority. They added they haven’t received any complaints about the ad from the CBC.
Telecaster (TVB) initially approved the ad for distribution, however, the Liberals complained and the ad was subsequently pulled.
TVB’s greenlight of controversial Liberal ads, the rejection of CRFA’s ads which favourably portray Harper’s environmental policy, along with the pulling of the previously approved Conservative response ad during the past election after Liberals complained raises a few red flags.
As with other elements of our democracy, the approval of private advertising of election ads (and non-election advocacy ads) should be accomplished on a level playing field. Why should one party (whether Conservative or Liberal) have an advantage over the other when trying to get advertising approved for consumption by the public on private networks? Of course, private networks are free to do business with whomever they choose, but would it be a scandal if the umbrella group that is is in charge of editorial content control for these networks controlled for preferred partisanship rather than what they are supposed to control for? (hate speech, indecency, promotion of unlawful acts)
According to the Television Bureau of Canada’s website, the president of the organization is a man named Jim Patterson. In this document we find out that Jim Patterson also goes by the name James and that his middle initial is D.
I decided to search the Elections Canada donations database for donations from people named Jim/James D. Patterson. The following results describe one individual who, according to Elections Canada, lives in Lakefield Ontario with the postal code K0L 2H0.
|Name of contributor||Political party / Return type / End period||Date received||Class of contributor / Part # of the return||Contribution transferred to (leadership contestant)||Monetary ($)||Non-monetary ($)|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Annual / 2005||Dec. 31, 2005||Individuals / Part 2a||450.00||0.00|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Annual / 2005||May 25, 2005||Individuals / Part 2a||250.00||0.00|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Annual / 2005||Dec. 20, 2005||Individuals / Part 2a||450.00||0.00|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Annual / 2004||Jun. 30, 2004||Individuals / Part 2a||500.00||0.00|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Annual / 2004||Sep. 29, 2004||Individuals / Part 2a||1,000.00||0.00|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Quarterly / Jun. 2005||May 25, 2005||Individuals / Part 2a||250.00||0.00|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Quarterly / Dec. 2005||Dec. 20, 2005||Individuals / Part 2a||450.00||0.00|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Quarterly / Sep. 2006||Jul. 27, 2006||Individuals / Part 2a||83.34||0.00|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Quarterly / Jun. 2006||Apr. 28, 2006||Individuals / Part 2a||83.34||0.00|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Quarterly / Jun. 2006||May 30, 2006||Individuals / Part 2a||83.34||0.00|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Quarterly / Jun. 2006||Jun. 30, 2006||Individuals / Part 2a||83.34||0.00|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Quarterly / Mar. 2006||Jan. 31, 2006||Individuals / Part 2a||83.34||0.00|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Quarterly / Mar. 2006||Feb. 28, 2006||Individuals / Part 2a||83.34||0.00|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Quarterly / Mar. 2006||Mar. 31, 2006||Individuals / Part 2a||83.34||0.00|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Quarterly / Sep. 2006||Aug. 31, 2006||Individuals / Part 2a||83.34||0.00|
|Jim D. Patterson||Liberal Party of Canada / Quarterly / Sep. 2006||Sep. 29, 2006||Individuals / Part 2a||83.34||0.00|
|James D Patterson||Lloyd, Diane / Liberal Party of Canada / Peterborough||Jan. 11, 2006||Individuals / Part 2a||250.00|
Is this the same Jim/James D. Patterson that is the head of the Television Bureau of Canada, the private regulatory body that has editorial control over “Issues and Opinion” advertising?
If so, should a partisan be in charge of approving ads during a time sensitive period (such as an election) where parties depend on television advertising for their most critical rapid responses? Also, would it be appropriate for a partisan to have an advanced look at a competing party’s ads?