The cultural & ethical impact of Political Advertising

ADV20001: ADVERTISING ISSUES: REGULATION, ETHICS AND CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS | ASSIGNMENT 3

The Cultural & Ethical Impact of Political Advertising

ELLA MALLETT 102145848 HANNAH CAWTHRAY 102103655 MATHISHA MAHAWALAGE 101942954 SARAH HEARN 102118840

Content Introduction The Political Parties Ethical framework Campaign Analysis Focus Group Findings Conclusion References

THE CULTURAL & ETHICAL IMPACT OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Introduction Australia is a representative democracy, meaning eligible Australian citizens have the right at the least every three years to elect members of parliament that share common ideals and motivations that the public believes will best run the Government. The federal election for the 46th Parliament of Australia runs during May. The purpose of the following analysis is to identify and critique the cultural and ethical impacts imprint by current federal political advertising campaigns across the 2019 federal election in Australia. This essay compares and contrasts political advertising campaigns; these include the Australian Greens party, Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, United Australia Party and the Liberal Party of Australia. Additionally, these ads published through digital media and out-of-home media communication forms. The ethical framework recommended aims to provide an ethical method of evaluating political advertising in order to ensure transparency and best practice in political advertising. Therefore, a focus group was conducted to evaluate whether the recommended ethical framework assists in differentiating the ethical stands of political advertising. Despite the identified limitation of the regulations for the political advertising system, this essay will present an argument for the recommendations of evaluating ethical and cultural framework process.

THE CULTURAL & ETHICAL IMPACT OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Liberal Party of Australia The Liberal party is one of the two major political parties in Australia, which has been recently re-elected as the party to govern Australia. The Liberal party a centre-right political party in Australia that is the largest coalition with the National Party of Australia. The party's leader is Scott Morrison, and its deputy leader is Josh Frydenberg. In the current Government election, the Liberals have unearthed victory by attacking competitor parties, more specifically, their primary opponent the Labor party in their out of home campaign 'The Bill Australia Can't Afford' which attacks the Labor party's exorbitant and costly economic policies.

Scott Morrison

United Australia Party The United Australia Party, led by Clive Palmer, is a right-wing political party. It was formed in 2013, by Palmer, as an alternative right-wing party to the Liberals. In this current election, Clive Palmer spent $60 million on advertising United Australia's policies and campaign. His 'Make Australia Great' billboards are throughout Australia as a way to get his image and name known to the public. Palmer's attack advertisements on Bill Shorten and the Labor Party were found on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, claiming that voting for Shorten would be a mistake.

Clive Palmer

THE POLITICAL PARTIES

Pauline Hanson's One Nation The Pauline Hanson One Nation party is a nationalist, right-wing populist party that was founded in 1997. The political party generally focus on speaking the truth about taboo issues resulting in the equality for all Australians. Their core values includes affordable energy and cost of living, Asylum Seekers and Refugees, Australian Jobs and Infrastructure, Citizen Initiated Referenda and Family Law and Child Support. Their main audience are rural and regional lower to middle class Australian supporter, with a focus on bringing back Australian values. In the current election, One Nation utilised Pauline Hanson ideologies to reflect their policies therefore the political advertisement is determined as an argument.

Pauline Hanson

Australian Greens The Australian Greens, commonly known as ‘Greens’, is the third main political force and a minor left-wing party in Australia. The party’s leader is Richard Di Natale, and its deputy leader is Adam Bandt. This political party generally focus on environmentalism and human rights as the heart of their movement. Their core values include Environmental Sustainability, Social and economic justice, Grassroots democracy and Peace and non-violence. Their primary audience is a middle-class supporter with positive moral obligations towards their future generations. In the current election, the greens have promoted argument forms of advertising using factual information in out of the home campaign and stating youth’s opinions in a digital advertising campaign called ‘Unf#*k Our Future’.

Richard Di Natale

THE CULTURAL & ETHICAL IMPACT OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Ethical Framework The following developed ethical framework provides benefits for the public by ensuring best practices in political advertising and marketing communications. The practical implementation of most of the following recommendations depends on the public perception of the regulation and self-regulation bodies allowing to raise trust and making the system more efficient.

The recommendation of advertising to the public under the code of ethical conduct during the election campaign should be as follows:

Summarised Ethical Framework 1

Factual Representation

2

Authorised Statement

3 4 5

Covered by ACCC and AEC legislations Covered by The Broadcasting Services Act 1992

Language and literacy

Covered by AANA code of ethics Regulations

Projection of Propaganda (Manipulation)

Covered by ACCC under False or misleading statements

Intellectual Property Crime

Covered by IP Australia

ETHICAL FRAMEWORK

Part 1 : Factual representation Identify the accuracy in reporting factual information and stating opinions used in the advertisement and evaluate whether the advertisement campaign is misleading.

A. The messages must accurately represent in a manner that is clearly understood by the public. There should be a clear distinction between reporting facts and advocacy or stating an opinion.

B. The content of the advertisement should not be misleading or deceptive. Misleading and deceptive conduct in ads enforces when it concerns promoting open or incorrect voting.

Misleading includes, deceptive advertising examples such as lying, creating a false impression, making false or inaccurate claims about themselves or the other political party. Authenticity ensures to build trust and hold accountable for people’s statements and actions.

ACCC covers a false or misleading impression, and AEC legislations cover the truth in advertising, misleading and deceptive conduct, and defamation of other people.

Part 2 : Authorised Statement Identify the disclosure or disclaimer statement in the advertisement and evaluate whether the advertisement campaign includes this required particulars to broadcast.

According to The Broadcasting Services Act 1992, all political advertising must include a disclosure or disclaimer statement indicating the sponsor of the message which must incorporate before they authorise for publication. The 'required particulars' include the broadcast of political matter and the name of the person or organisation who authorised the broadcast. The Broadcasting Services Act ensures the authorisation is inserted at the end of every advertisement, or in the right place for print advertisements.

Paid Political advertising in digital media platforms must disclose the post to include 'Sponsored' or 'Ad' tags. Providing these statements will ensure to improve transparency and accountability concerning political messaging. Additionally, it will ensure that listeners and viewers are informed about who is trying to persuade them to think or to act in response to political matters.

THE CULTURAL & ETHICAL IMPACT OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Part 3 : language and literacy Identify the language and content used in the advertisement and evaluate whether it contains any discriminatory language or vilifies a person or section of the community.

A. AANA code of ethics 2.5; Advertising or Marketing Communication shall only use language which is appropriate in the circumstances (including appropriate for the relevant audience and medium). The strong or obscene language shall be avoided (AANA code of ethics 2018).

B. AANA code of ethics 2.1; Discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, disability or political belief (AANA code of ethics 2018).

In social media, profanity can be used as an expression or as an attack. Therefore, it is essential to monitor this content, which may have an unintended effect within the younger audiences. According to YouTube community guidelines, the use of sexually explicit language or excessive profanity in videos or associated metadata may lead to the age-restriction of those videos. Furthermore, Facebook has a restriction on sexually explicit language to prevent violence, hate speech and to ensure safety, Integrity and Authenticity.

ETHICAL FRAMEWORK

Part 4 : Projection of Propaganda Identify how this ad is being framed (through messages, visuals, tone and placement).

Evaluate whether the ad contains true or false, beliefs that reflect propaganda (a deliberate attempt to manipulate).

Propaganda is a rhetorical source that avoids presenting rational moral discourse and real conditions in order to limit the audience's choice. In addition, it provides a narrow conclusion to affect awareness and understanding. According to Cunningham (2002, p142), advertisement directed at the audience's emotions rather than their reason, or whether it plays on our weakness is considered to be manipulation taken as covert persuasion. It is used in advertisements to manipulate and 'change the public's attitude about a particular person or subject.' Therefore, it is unethical as it may manipulate an individual's emotions and damages opposing candidates reputations if used in political advertising.

Part 5 : Intellectual Property Crime Identify whether the advertisement uses content that are trademarked ‘signs’ or copyright content from an opposed political party. Evaluate the whether if it is plagarised by a party to discriminate or villify a person or a section of the community.

Intellectual property (IP) act protects the creation of the mind: inventions; literary and artistic work; and symbols, names and images used in commerce. (WIPO 2012) Trademarks are “signs” that operate as a “distinctive mark” enabling consumers to identify goods and services between one owner from other competitors. The term ‘sign’ is broad and includes letters, words, names, signatures, numerals, devices, brands, headings, labels, tickets, aspect of packaging, shapes, colours, sounds, and/or scents.

Copyright act 1969 protects the original expression of ideas. The moment an idea or creative concept is documented, on paper or electronically, it is automatically protected by copyright. Generally includes books, films, music, sound recordings, newspapers, and magazine artwork (IP Australia 2019).

THE CULTURAL & ETHICAL IMPACT OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Out of Home (OOH) Media The Liberal Party billboard (Figure1) is identified as attack form of political advertisement towards their competitor. The campaign 'Your Family Can't Afford Labor' was a primary source of Out-of-home research found on bustling Dorset road in Croydon. The Out-of-home advertisement is successful with its standalone approach, not having to compete with the clutters of other environmental aspects or advertisements. The Liberal Party's advertisement does, however, possess some unethical critical standards. The Greens party also incorporated Out-of-home advertising (figure 2) with an argument promoting their want to raise tax for the 'super rich' and big corporations. The billboard shows no critical ethical impact that could lead to the termination of the campaign.

A common component of Greens and the Liberal party is the factual information displayed through their advertisements. Without knowledge and research, the public may be susceptible to false information. The Greens advertisement is an argument ad that operates under ethos, which is neither misleading or inaccurate as the information on the billboard is just an outline of one of their promised policies. The Liberal party is an attack advertisement on their contender, that operates under pathos. The Greens disclose the authorised statement as opposed to the Liberal party. Therefore, the accuracy of the factual information would be questionable. Whilst, the advertisement does discriminate the ‘super rich’ or those making over $300,000 a year and work hard doing it. The language used with the term ‘super rich’ is undefined in the advertisement, which could ultimately create confusion amongst voters and where they stand financially. The billboard had a disclosure statement in fine print in the bottom left hand corner and doesn’t contain any plagiarisms or copyright issues.

Figure 1 : Liberal Part of Australia billboard Advertisement

ETHICAL ANALYSIS

Figure 2 : The Australian Greens Party Billboard Advertisement The Liberal Party’s advertisement incorporates their competitor’s trademark and images.

Utilising Labor party’s distinct colour and their leader’s image throughout the content breaches the intellectual property Act. Additionally, the Liberal party does not disclose an authorised statement, which is a critical requirement under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Therefore, the public is unaware of authorship of the advertisement which influences or persuades them to think or act in a certain frame. The advertisement attacks both the Labor party for their exorbitant tax rises and growing debt, but also residents with a low to medium socioeconomic statuses who are unable to afford the growing tax rises. The advertisement is a fine representation of pathos as it ultimately manipulates the audience through emotional persuasion, by bringing in the idea of ‘family’ - a topic that many put in high regard before anything else. The language used negatively frames the Labor party to be a ‘weak’ choice. The results of the conducted focus group display similar results in the ethical beliefs for both advertisements.

THE CULTURAL & ETHICAL IMPACT OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Figure 3 : United Australia Party Billboard Advertisement Both billboards (Figure 3 & 4) are identified as ‘Name Identification’ advertisements. There isn’t much information on the adverts as they are designed with the purpose of raising awareness to the person and party. The information presents language that suggests that is quite open ended and up to interpretation to whether or not it is falsity or not. Take for example Palmers Slogan “Make Australia Great” (figure 3). Is it his opinion that he will “Make Australia Great” or is it a fact? Palmers billboards are pretty inconsistent with the information displayed. In some billboards he doesn’t state his name or party, and in others he doesn’t have a disclosure statement claiming that they are political advertising. With the framework that was created disclosure information is critical to have. Advertisements must have this information so the viewer are informed about who is advertising and sponsoring the information presented. The Billboards don’t break any copyright or trademark rules.

They only display logos for their own party.

Propaganda are advertisements that try to manipulate viewers into changing their beliefs about a party or person. These advertisements don’t contain any information that would manipulate the viewers, thus meaning these billboards are propaganda material.

ETHICAL ANALYSIS

Figure 4 : Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party billboard Advertisement Pauline Hanson has never been one to pull her punches or leave you wondering what she’s thinking. Hanson’s nationwide Out-of-home campaign “I’ve got the guts to say what you’re thinking” was sourced from Victorian town of Shepparton. The argument campaign paraded

by One Nation argues the assumption that residents of Australia share the same anti-multiculturalism and anti-immigration ideals, with a focus on anti-Islam. In our modern day and age on the rise with multiculturalism, it is an unrealistic expectation to presume.

Because it is a claim of her thoughts rather than a fact, there is no need for factual evidence - neither is it misleading or deceptive. The advertisement does not include a disclosure or disclaimer statement, however it is very clear as to which party is taking accountability for the publishing and message - so it does not raise any critical concerns. The language is very focused on pronouns, making Hansons argument focus on the relationship between herself and the consumer - aiming to convince them she has their intentions at heart without knowing what they’re really thinking. Hanson does not raise any concern for intellectual property or copyright crime.

Both One nation and United Australia advertisements are quite similar when it comes to the information presented. Both parties are presenting themselves with a key phrase or argument to inform the viewers on their ideals. Both depict opinion based information, making them both exempt to the need to have facially correct information that isn’t misleading or deceptive. They both use phrase to present their key ideas, using language that isn’t discriminatory or vilifying towards other parties or members of parliament. One of the United Australia and the One Nation billboards don’t have a disclaimer statements but nether break any copyright laws.

THE CULTURAL & ETHICAL IMPACT OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Digital Media

Figure 5 : Liberal Advertisement ‘Labor can’t mange $$$’ The Liberal Party Campaign presented a piggy bank with the word ‘ECONOMY’, projecting across the front of it. Once the advertisement has started the statement ‘Labor can’t manage money’ is plastered in front of the advertisement. This leads to a hammer smashing the piggy bank with a large value of money within it. A man walks into the scene and grabs the money aggressively alluding to the viewers Labor is stealing money. This advertisement can be determined as an attack as the (Kern, 1989) message is strategic and puts the opponent on the defensive.

On the other hand, the United Australia Party campaign presented a strong advertisement directly indicating Bill Shorten. The statement ‘Bill Shorten will hit us with an extra trillion dollars of taxes and costs, Tell Shifty he’s dreaming’. This short yet passive aggressive tone illustrates to the audience of an attack message which is used for fear. Fear is funded through the candidates as they will appear weak if not rebut the claims or statement. These statements also help the audience notice the differences between each campaign leader and the policies they support.

The digital channels are convenient forms as it fulfills many purposes and allows the content to be permanently available 24/7 worldwide. As social media sites operate through America, the cultural difference impacts the regulations that are used and are less strict compared to Australia. However, there are community guidelines that restrict content incorporating; violence, privacy violations, cruel or insensitive language, misrepresentation, false news or spam, and respecting intellectual property. According to the Sensis social media report (2018), Australians use the internet 56% more than five times a day.

Additionally, Facebook has the highest rating of 94% usage compared to other social media sites while Twitter has increased 32% users participating (Sensis Report 2018). Therefore, content consistently repeats and compared to Facebook; Twitter reaches less of an audience.

ETHICAL ANALYSIS

Figure 6 : United Australia Party Twitter Advertisement

Part 1 : Factual Representation

In the Liberal campaign it can be identified that the information is misleading as presented

by The Sydney Morning Herald “Consider the reference to Labor’s deficits "totalling $240 billion". The ABS data show that by the time it left office in 2013, Labor’s accumulated budget deficits were $163.1 billion” (Walker,B 2019). As this advertisement is an attack advertisement, by providing inaccurate to the public to influence their decision is unethical.

On the other hand, The United Australian party campaign presents their opinion of Bill Shorten and belief of what he is planning to do in Australian government. As this is a prediction stating no credible facts this information can be determined as misleading to the public as it enforces incorrect voting.

Part 2 : Authorised Statement

The Liberal Party ensures a disclosure statement indicating the sponsor of the message therefore satisfying the ethical framework. The United Australian Party also has a small authorisation statement at the bottom of the post to inform the viewers who is trying to persuade them.

THE CULTURAL & ETHICAL IMPACT OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Part 3 : language and literacy The Liberal party campaign directly uses language to vilify Bill Shorten and Labor. For example ‘The Bill Australia Can’t Afford’, this campaign name uses a play on words to ‘make fun’, of Bill Shorten. Alluding to the viewer that Australia can’t afford the policies Bill Shorten has in place for when he is chosen for government. Thus, not satisfying the AANA code of ethics 2.1. However the campaign does not use obscene language, or profanity within the advertisement. The United Australian Party uses an attack advertisement to target Bill Shorten and discriminate all Labor Party supporters. It uses a play on words similar to The Liberal Party by using Bill’s last name ‘Tell Shifty his dreaming’. This advertisement uses similar language to The Liberal Party as it also vilifies Bill Shorten as the leader of the Labor party.

Part 4 : Projection of Propaganda

The message represented in the Liberal parties advertisement is framed negatively towards the Labor Party. The aggressive tone and actions displayed in the advertisement can influence a viewer to interpret the Labor Party as a party that cannot be trusted. The sounds incorporated into the advertisement also has an effect on the viewer; for instance the narrator in the background provides statements focusing on the liberals point of view influencing our emotions towards The Labor Party. Thus the advertisement includes features that could manipulate a persons emotions or understanding towards that group and can be identified as negative political advertising including fabrication. However, The United Australia Party does not include sounds and relies on a simple message that targets the labor party and the issue of taxes and costs. This advertisement does not limit the audience's choice. Although it does not give much information about the details in Bill Shortens plans on finding trillions of dollars to Australia. This limits the audience's knowledge of The Labor Party and may influence the opposing candidates reputation.

Part 5 : Intellectual Property Crime

Both parties use Bill Shorten's image in their ad campaigns. Thus plagiarising the party's content. However, the Liberal party also uses The Labor 'Party's logo and colours within the advertisement without credit and thus unethical as it is using the Labor 'Party's Trademarks.

ETHICAL ANALYSIS

Figure 7 : The Australia Greens Advertisement

The Australian Greens Party's 'Unf#*k our future' Advertisement (figure 7) presents several millennials presenting specific political issues and their political positions. According to Sheehan (2004, p 221), Argument ads offer information on actions, policy positions and ideologies. For example, one of the millennials presents her ideologies in the Ad stating 'i am voting to stop climate change' while another state 'i am voting for a party who care about us'. Therefore, this Advertisement is identified as Argument Ad, influencing public opinion about these specific issues that the political party offers and could be affecting their vote.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party Advertisement presents an agenda with their reasoning towards one of their policy plans. Although the Advertisement identified as an argument ad, there is an underlying attack towards the united nations Paris climate agreement. According to Kern (1989, p 145), conflicts and attack ads are useful to focus around the opponents' performance and their credibility. Therefore, through addressing the public's fear against petrol prices, one nation's agenda tends to draw attention and gain voters.

THE CULTURAL & ETHICAL IMPACT OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Figure 8 : Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Twitter Advertisement

Part 1 : Factual representation

The Australian green commercial represents some factual information, although, the majority of the information described in this advertisement is stating their opinion and ideologies. As opposed to the one nation's advertisement solely demonstrate their opinion instead of presenting factual information. According to Kern (1989, p 71), the direction of a 'person's feelings towards an advertisement may depend on the knowledge based on a sophisticated understanding of relevant facts and values, or it may base on an uninformed opinion. Therefore, the statement given may view as bias opinion rather than factual information. As this advertisement has no credibility in presenting facts, this information can determine as misleading.

Part 2 : Authorised Statement

Both political parties include an authorised statement and sponsored tag disclosing the sponsor of the message. Therefore, both parties improve their transparency and accountability concerning the political message.

ETHICAL ANALYSIS

Part 3 : language and literacy The Greens commercial directly uses profanity language to illustrate their opinions as opposed to the one nations advertisement. Although it is censor with bleeping the word, the content is not suitable for 'family' or 'daytime' viewing. According to the Youtube community guidelines, the use of sexually explicit language or excessive profanity in the video may lead to the age-restriction of the video. For example, if the comments on the video are unable, the video is under the restricted mode. However, the advertisement is still available to view from the age of 13 years and above. According to the AANA code of ethics 2.5, the Advertising Communication shall only use language which is appropriate in the circumstances and avoid the strong or obscene language. Therefore, considering the form of the media is digital and availability to view the content is unconditional, this advertisement recognised as unethical. The intendant audience is questionable, and normalising and commercialising obscene language is considered as unethical.

Additionally, the commercial's aural content does not consider the public's cultural sensitivity toward profanity language.

Part 4 : Projection of Propaganda One nation's digital advertisement demonstrates propaganda as it targets the public's emotions and limits the available choices by framing the content. "Propaganda defined as the manipulation and control of belief or public opinion and the promotion of irrationality, emotions and fear (Cunningham, S 2002,p 157). For example, the copy uses pronouns such as 'your petrol prices' and 'ease the pain you feel..'. Therefore, it reflects the approach of a person's emotions, building an underlying fear. Propaganda which is known to be misleading or deceptive has regulations between the written press (Fairness and balance which applied by the Australian press council), audiovisual media (which applied by the ACMA), and digital media (which applied under ACCC). Therefore, false political impression or misleading the public is an unethical method of advertising.

Part 5 : Intellectual Property Crime The one nation's advertisement uses united nations trademark to signify the organisation.

According to IP Australia, a person, institution or organisations should avoid using any material that sourced from another person without first obtaining specific permission. One nations advertisement recognised as a breach of intellectual property act 1968 under the trademark infringement. Therefore, using a trademark without permission from the owner and gaining votes to influence the public's opinion considered the advertisement to be unethical.

THE CULTURAL & ETHICAL IMPACT OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Findings Age Range

Female 80% 18 - 24

25 - 34

35 - 49

65% 0%

20%

10% 40%

Employment Status

Retired

5% 0%

60%

20% Male 50 - 64 10%

65 + 10%

80%

Unemployed

100%

Employed

33% 20%

5%

62% 40%

60%

80%

100%

Liberal Party of Australia OUT OF HOME (OOH)

REPRESENTATION 1 FACTUAL

DIGITAL

50%

Categoriesd this ad to have no factual representation of clear distinction between reported facts and stating opinion.

57%

Agreed that this ad has a clear distinction between reported facts and stating opinion

Agreed that this Ad is misleading

60%

Agreed that this Ad is misleading

2

35% AUTHORISED STATEMENT

60%

Agreed that there are no authorised statement disclosured in this advertisement.

65%

Agreed that there are is an authorised statement disclosured in this advertisement.

3

LANGUAGE & LITERACY

50%

Agreed that there are discriminatory language in this Ad

35%

Agreed that there are discriminatory language in this Ad

65%

Agreed that this Ad vilifies a person or a section of the community

70%

Agreed that this Ad vilifies a person or a section of the community

80% 90%

Agreed that this Ad is manipulative

58%

Agreed that this Ad illustrates their competitor's photographs/ videos / recordings.

70%

Agreed that this Ad illustrates their competitor's photographs/ videos / recordings.

55%

Agreed that his Ad uses their competitor's Trademark

55%

Agreed that his Ad uses their competitor's Trademark

4

PROJECTION OF PROPAGANDA

5

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ACT

Agreed that this Ad targets the audience's emotions

75% 84.2%

Agreed that this Ad is manipulative Agreed that this Ad targets the audience's emotions

FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS

Overall Found that this advertisement to be unethical STRONGLY AGREE

Out of Home (OOH) Ad

SOMEWHAT AGREE

19%

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

29%

15%

Digital Ad

NEITHER

33%

25%

0%

20%

STRONGLY DISAGREE

25% 40%

19%

20% 60%

15% 80%

100%

United Australia Party OUT OF HOME (OOH)

REPRESENTATION 1 FACTUAL

DIGITAL

45%

Categoriesd this ad to have no factual representation of clear distinction between reported facts and stating opinion.

80%

Agreed that this ad has a clear distinction between reported facts and stating opinion

Agreed that this Ad is misleading

60%

Agreed that this Ad is misleading

2

35% AUTHORISED STATEMENT

75%

Agreed that there are no authorised statement disclosured in this advertisement.

70%

Agreed that there is an authorised statement disclosured in this advertisement.

3

LANGUAGE & LITERACY

10%

Agreed that there are discriminatory language in this Ad

55%

Agreed that there are discriminatory language in this Ad

45%

Agreed that this Ad vilifies a person or a section of the community

80%

Agreed that this Ad vilifies a person or a section of the community

60% 90%

Agreed that this Ad is manipulative

80% 80%

Agreed that this Ad is manipulative

15%

Agreed that this Ad illustrates their competitor's photographs/ videos / recordings.

70%

Agreed that this Ad illustrates their competitor's photographs/ videos / recordings.

40%

Agreed that his Ad uses their competitor's Trademark

4

PROJECTION OF PROPAGANDA

5

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ACT

Agreed that this Ad targets the audience's emotions

Agreed that this Ad targets the audience's emotions

THE CULTURAL & ETHICAL IMPACT OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Overall Found that this advertisement to be unethical STRONGLY AGREE

SOMEWHAT AGREE

Out of Home (OOH) Ad

20%

20%

Digital Ad

20% 0%

NEITHER

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

20%

15%

45% 20%

40%

STRONGLY DISAGREE

25%

20% 60%

10%

5%

80%

100%

Pauline Hanson's One Nation OUT OF HOME (OOH)

1

FACTUAL REPRESENTATION

DIGITAL

30%

Categoriesd this ad to have no factual representation of clear distinction between reported facts and stating opinion.

40%

Agreed that this ad has a clear distinction between reported facts and stating opinion

Agreed that this Ad is misleading

60%

Agreed that this Ad is misleading

2

45% AUTHORISED STATEMENT

60%

Agreed that there are No authorised statement disclosured in this advertisement.

3

LANGUAGE & LITERACY

25%

Agreed that there are discriminatory language in this Ad

20%

Agreed that there are discriminatory language in this Ad

42%

Agreed that this Ad vilifies a person or a section of the community

30%

Agreed that this Ad vilifies a person or a section of the community

80% 75%

Agreed that this Ad is manipulative

70% 80%

Agreed that this Ad is manipulative

20%

Agreed that his Ad uses the competitor's Trademark

10%

Agreed that this Ad illustrates their competitor's photographs/ videos / recordings.

15%

Agreed that his Ad uses their competitor's Trademark

4

PROJECTION OF PROPAGANDA

5

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ACT

Agreed that this Ad targets the audience's emotions

47.4%

Agreed that there are No authorised statement disclosured in this advertisement.

Agreed that this Ad targets the audience's emotions

FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS

Overall Found that this advertisement to be unethical STRONGLY AGREE

Out of Home (OOH) Ad

5%

Digital Ad

SOMEWHAT AGREE

18%

10%

NEITHER

36%

25%

0%

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

20%

STRONGLY DISAGREE

23%

25% 40%

18%

30% 60%

10% 80%

100%

Australian Greens OUT OF HOME (OOH)

1

FACTUAL REPRESENTATION

DIGITAL

35%

Categoriesd this ad to have no factual representation of clear distinction between reported facts and stating opinion.

60%

Agreed that this ad has a clear distinction between reported facts and stating opinion

Agreed that this Ad is misleading

30%

Agreed that this Ad is misleading

2

50% AUTHORISED STATEMENT

60%

Agreed that there are is authorised statement disclosured in this advertisement.

65%

Agreed that there are is an authorised statement disclosured in this advertisement.

3

LANGUAGE & LITERACY

30%

Agreed that there are discriminatory language in this Ad

30%

Agreed that there are discriminatory language in this Ad

80%

Agreed that this Ad vilifies a person or a section of the community

30%

Agreed that this Ad vilifies a person or a section of the community

70% 75%

Agreed that this Ad is manipulative

55% 90%

Agreed that this Ad is manipulative

Agreed that this Ad illustrates their competitor's photographs/ videos / recordings.

10%

Agreed that this Ad illustrates their competitor's photographs/ videos / recordings.

Agreed that his Ad uses their competitor's Trademark

15%

Agreed that his Ad uses their competitor's Trademark

4

PROJECTION OF PROPAGANDA

PROPERTY ACT 5 INTELLECTUAL

5% 20%

Agreed that this Ad targets the audience's emotions

Agreed that this Ad targets the audience's emotions

THE CULTURAL & ETHICAL IMPACT OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING

Overall Found that this advertisement to be unethical STRONGLY AGREE

Out of Home (OOH) Ad

10%

Digital Ad

10% 0%

SOMEWHAT AGREE

25%

15% 20%

NEITHER

SOMEWHAT DISAGREE

15%

20%

30%

15% 40%

STRONGLY DISAGREE

20%

40% 60%

80%

100%

CONCLUSION

Conclusion

In conclusion, this analysis reviewed the ethical framework facilitated from our team. This framework was used to critique the current federal political advertising campaigns across the 2019 federal election. Deriving these campaigns from primary sources such as digital media and out-of-home communication forms. A focus group survey conducted to locate unethical standards within the advertising campaigns with the use of the recommended ethical framework. The focus group supported the Ethical framework by understanding and evaluating the political advertising system. However, during the experiment, it was perceived that our focus group participants had underlying attitudes and generational differences towards the advertisements. This issue led to the participants analysing the advertisement with bias opinion. Another issue was identified within the experiment, due to our participants being younger and some participants being an older age group. The generational differences deferred the ethical standpoint, resulting in a wide range of data rather than specified. This supported our decision to do more researching and conduct experiments with the specific target audience. Despite these limitation, the recommended ethical evaluating framework process operates under the universal ethical theory ensuring the public and the organisations to practice an ethical political advertising and marketing communication system. Therefore, projecting a fixed approach allowing the political campaigns to be transparent and accountable concerning their political messaging to the public.

THE CULTURAL & ETHICAL IMPACT OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING

References Ad Standards Limited 2019, ‘Misleading and deceptive advertising’, adstandards.com, viewed on 16 May 2019, <https://adstandards.com.au/products-and-issues/misleading-and-deceptive-advertisin g/ACCC> Ad Standards Limited 2019, ‘Political and election advertising’, adstandards.com, viewed on 16 May 2019, <https://adstandards.com.au/products-issues/political-and-election-advertising>.

Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) 2018, ‘Code of ethics’, AANA, pp.

1-4, viewed 25 April 2019, <http://aana.com.au/content/uploads/2018/07/AANA_Code-of-Ethics_July2018.pdf>.

Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) 2019, ‘Election and political matter guidelines’, acma.gov.au, viewed on 16 May 2019, <https://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Broadcast/Television/TV-content-regulation/politicalmatter-tv-content-regulation-i-acma>.

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2019, ‘False or misleading statements’, ACCC, viewed on 18 May 2019, <https://www.accc.gov.au/business/advertising-promoting-your-business/false-or-mislea ding-statements>.

Australian Press Council 2011, ‘Statements of Principles’, presscouncil.org.au, viewed on 16 May 2019, <https://www.presscouncil.org.au/statements-of-principles/>.

Cunningham, S 2002, The Idea of Propaganda: A Reconstruction. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Ingenious SEM 2019, ‘What is Digital Advertising and why is it important?’, Ingenious, Viewed on 16 May 2019, <http://www.ingenioussem.com/what-is-digital-advertising-and-why-is-it-important/>.

IP Australia 2019, ‘Types of IP’, ipaustralia.gov.au, viewed 18 April 2019, <https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/typesofIP>.

Kern, M 1989, 30-second politics: Political advertising in the eighties, New York, Praeger.

Liberal Party of Australia 2019, ‘Labor Can't Manage Money’, 4 May, Youtube.com, viewed on 16 May 2019,‘<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVc2G4A_Gd4>.

REFERENCE LIST

Mialki, S 2018, ‘Know Before You Spend: The Best Digital Advertising Channels’, Instapage, December 28, viewed on 20 May 2019, <https://instapage.com/blog/best-digital-advertising-channels>.

Sensis 2018, ‘The must-know stats from the 2018 Yellow Social Media Report’, viewed on <https://www.sensis.com.au/about/our-reports/sensis-social-media-report?fbclid=IwAR0 8tGrRrNBekrNnPO3cFCogqxR2yCFBMgZrX7OkRUEWeOwFznLz9WxT94U>.

Sheehan, K 2004, Controversies in contemporary advertising, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.

The Australian Greens 2019, ‘Vote Greens on May 18 to Unf*ck Our Future’, 14 April, Youtube.com, viewed on 1 May 2019, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wrWd06KVBc>.

The Greens 2019, ‘A Future For All Of Us - Australian Greens Full Policy Platform’, greens.org, viewed on, 21 May 2019, <https://greens.org.au/sites/default/files/2019-05/A%20Future%20For%20All%20Of%20 Us%20-%20Australian%20Greens%20Full%20Policy%20Platform%20%2810%20May% 202019%29.pdf>.

Walker, B 2019, ‘Exploding the myth of the Coalition as a sound economic manager’, The Sydney Herald, May 17, smh.com, viewed on 18 May 2019, https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/exploding-the-myth-of-the-coalition-asa-sound-economic-manager-20190509-p51lk2.html>.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 2019, ’What is Intellectual Property?’, WIPO Publication No. 450(E), viewed on 16 May 2019, <https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_450.pdf>.

THE CULTURAL & ETHICAL IMPACT OF POLITICAL ADVERTISING

References > Images Carla Gottgens 2018, ‘1800x-1’[jpg], bloomberg.com, viewed on 21 May 2019, <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-18/the-latest-vote-counting-starts-in-austr alian-election>.

Cawthray, H 2019, ‘59975704_2176338082454711_7428972307319619584_n’ [jpg], 11 May, viewed on 11 May 2019.

CESS (César Cid) 2019, ‘1_kRc96byi7JdsNw8gsdqN_A.jpeg’, creativemornings.com, viewed on 21 May 2019, <https://creativemornings.com/themes/ethics>.

DumielAuxepices.net 2019, ‘slang-clipart-bad-language-766150-6435999’ [jpg], dumielauxepices.net, viewed on 21 May 2019, <https://dumielauxepices.net/wallpaper-3085768>.

Gatton Star Pty Ltd 2018, ‘Imagev17e4fb3b38362fe147d1c5827033a45e5-92bgmz9b0sop2dg1oq2_ct834x465’ [jpg], gattonstar.com, viewed on 21 May 2019, <https://www.gattonstar.com.au/news/australia-should-change-flag-acting-nz-pm/3476016/>.

Gillin L 2019,‘D5hOKZnWsAEcNdH’[jpg], 2 May, Twitter.com, viewed on 23 May 2019. <https://twitter.com/ljgillin/status/1123734057198804993>.

Hanson P 2019, ‘D4ZYS-IUIAAW88F’[jpg], 18 April, Twitter.com, viewed on 22 May 2019, <https://twitter.com/PaulineHansonOz/status/1118678652915290114>.

Hearn S 2019, ‘60120061_342117073160193_6717133026205106176_n’ [jpg], 12 May, viewed on 12 May 2019.

Hearn S 2019, ‘60847594_874634596215393_5628903246723547136_n’ [jpg], 21 May, viewed on 21 May 2019.

Liberal Party of Australia 2019, ‘Scott Morrison’, nsw.liberal.org, viewed on 21 May 2019, <https://nsw.liberal.org.au/Library/Members/Federal/Scott-Morrison>.

Mahawalage M 2019, ‘IMG_2247’[jpg], Facebook.com, viewed on 1 May 2019.

Mahawalage M 2019, ‘Screenshot 2019-05-16 at 7.33.12 pm’ [jpg], Youtube.com, viewed on 16 May 2019.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation Political Party 2018, ‘Pauline Hanson’, onenation.org, viewed on 21 May 2019, <https://www.onenation.org.au/our-team/pauline-hanson/>.

REFERENCE LIST

Johnson, P 2018, ‘photo-1534293230397-c067fc201ab8.jpeg’, unsplash.com, viewed on 21 May 2019, <https://unsplash.com/photos/v0OWc_skg0g>.

The Australian Greens Victoria 2019, Dr Richard Di Natal, greens.org, viewed on 21 May 2019, <https://greens.org.au/vic/person/richard-di-natale>.

The weekly 2019, ‘The Weekly on Twitter_ _It's a real billboard.… _’[html], 1 May, Twitter.com, viewed on 22 May 2019, <https://twitter.com/theweeklytv/status/1123542495940399105>.

United Australia Party 2019, Clive Palmer, unitedaustralianparty.org, viewed on 21 May 2019, <https://www.unitedaustraliaparty.org.au/candidates/clive-palmer/>.

United Australia Party 2019, ‘60754181_2069173923211909_1793746310390611968_o’ [jpg], 18 May, Twitter.com, viewed on 22 May. Vision.org 2019, ‘2015winter_the-propagandizing-of-propaganda_1920x1080’, vision.org, viewed on 21 May 2019, <https://www.vision.org/philosophy-ideas-propaganda-and-manipulation-2799>.