Facebook – the Web 2.0 social networking phenomenon (see earlier posts) – is the latest battleground for voters’ hearts and minds and it’s also the site of a political advertisement for the Liberal Party which appears to be in breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
According to the AEC, “Section 328 (1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (CEA) requires all electoral advertisements to include the name and address of the person who authorised the advertisement”. But the ad you see below, which appeared when I navigated to the homepage of one of my Facebook friends this evening, provides no such attribution – just the carriage of the word ‘sponsored’. Given its
obvious pro-Howard government spin and appreciating the laws of political advertising, this ad piqued my interest. When I clicked on the image I was redirected to the homepage of the Liberal Party of Australia (http://www.liberal.org.au/). Mystery solved. This is a Liberal Party advertisement, sans mandatory acknowledgement of authorisation. Twenty minutes later when I randomly visited another FB friend’s page the ad appeared again – it's presumably on high rotation.The ‘Seinfeldian’ bent of the ad and its subtlety were no doubt designed to appeal almost subliminally to the youth market – the demographic where the Coalition is fighting its biggest losing battle. But it is clearly still a political advertisement and there is no loophole for social networking sites in the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
Perhaps the Liberal Party will deny they placed the advertisement – maybe some well intentioned Facebook-savvy sponsor linked the ad to the Liberal Party website without informing the boss? I strongly doubt it. Perhaps the Coalition is hoping Facebook users aren’t politically savvy enough to notice such breaches? Big mistake – I have Canberra Press Gallery journalists and a host of other reporters in my FB network…the media cottoned on to the power of social networking sites long before the politicians did. And, it’s a stupid politician who underestimates the intelligence of young voters. Perhaps the Liberal Party will argue that the fact the link, if clicked on (not that there's any invitation to click on the image), identifies the government’s handiwork. Spurious argument: do TV advertisements rely on viewers investigating the source of advertisements? No. The Act is explicit – it REQUIRES ALL such advertising to carry details of the person/s authorising the plug.
In fact, the Howard Government actually ensured the Internet was captured by the Act by legislating in July 2005 for its specific inclusion. At the time, the Special Minister of State, Eric Abetz told the technology news website, Zdnet Australia, "the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has adopted a policy of recommending to all political parties and the public who contemplate electoral advertising on the Internet that electoral matter conforms with the provisions of the Electoral Act.” Ironically, it was a website exposing Howard government 'lies', which failed to acknowledge political affiliations, that was the trigger for the legislative action clarifying the powers of the Act in relation to the Internet. It would appear the boot is now on the other foot.
Complaints about political advertising make up the bulk of matters referred to the AEC during an election campaign and the Liberal Party is probably counting on the fact that a written complaint is required to trigger an investigation. Four days out from an election, perhaps they’re willing to take their chances. But my next move after signing off here will be to write to the AEC. Stay tuned.
UPDATE: The Greens are also running political advertisements without official attribution on Facebook but the ads witnessed tonight are at least clearly identifiable as promotional material for the their party.FURTHER UPDATE: Crikey is now running this story (read it here)and two Facebook groups have been started to mobilise against the abuse of political advertising on FB. They are "“Libs and Greens are Running Illegal Facebook Ads” and “Don't Put Liberal Party Ads on My Profile” – they have about 160 members between them so far. There have been no sitings of any unauthorised political advertisements since the story was run nationally this afternoon (20/11).
Surely Facebook is being stupid by accepting the ads without the authorisations on them. Even though they're an American company, you'd think they'd have the sense to understand the requirements here if they're going to take Australian ads to push to an Australian audience.
ReplyDeleteI saw a bigger version of that greens ad but didn't notice if it had authorisation (but it was an entire image, not image and text) and a different Libs ad in the same position as those you pointed out.
Never thought of this angle! Check out the anti lib ads facebook group started when I first saw the ads.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6034163374
Josh
You may also want to consider s 328A(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. See my post at http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2007/11/pollies-caught.html
ReplyDeleteCongrats on the Crikey pinching of this. Hope they paid you.
ReplyDeleteJust for a lark, I created a Facebook group to track this issue and show that it's not unnoticed.
ReplyDeleteThe Facebook groups are great and Peter's point about FB accountability is an important one. What an interesting experiment in cross-platform online publishing this has been! You blog about FB here; it gets published there (Crikey); you link it on FB; FB'ers start groups to discuss the issue; the ads seem to stop... Now I'm commenting on the process. I feel an academic article about the use of Web 2.0 for journalism coming on!
ReplyDeleteSorry if I get a bit policy wonky and technical here, but I think the following might add to the sum of knowledge on this issue.
ReplyDeleteWhen this legislation passed Parliament in 2006, an explanatory memorandum (EM) appeared with it (as it does for all Bills) expanding on the intention of the internet provisions.
The EM is practically a get out of gaol free card for anyone who wanted to abuse the provisions.
First the item in question has to be an "advertisement", excluding "electoral material", which is narrower than the test which covers the traditional media. The AEC uses a dictionary meaning for "advertisement".
Second, there has to be "intent" to "affect the vote". This provision was intended to protect ISPs, but presumably would also cover Facebook and other social networking sites.
Does it apply to non-Australian entities? The EM makes it clear that the provisions have application to individuals and entities overseas by virtue of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. But only an Australian citizen can lawfully authorise the advertisement.
Third, it requires the advertisement to be paid for. So if someone creates an ad and places it on a website without it being paid for, then it doesn't need to be authorised.
Fourth, there is a defence of "general commentary" available.
And finally, let the EM speak for itself: "Moreover, the offence carries a relatively low penalty (5 penalty units)".
That's a fine of $550 at most for committing an offence that if you tried on TV, radio or the newspaper would attract a fine of up to $1000 for individuals or $5500 for corporations.
Ok, that's the law, now the practice.
The AEC has an Electoral Backgrounder on advertising.
For there to be action taken, the AEC requires a complaint in writing, preferably with a printed copy of the advertisement on the internet (seriously!) or failing that, enough information to find the website.
Then, and I'll quote the AEC here:
"If, the AEC considers there to be a breach [of the internet provisions], generally, the AEC will write to the relevant person seeking that the material be withdrawn until such time as the material is amended so as to comply with the law."
And if they don't comply? Well then it's referred to the Australian Federal Police or Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether further action is required.
Yep, I can see them busting a gut to chase down Facebook videos that warrant a fine of $550.
Oh, and just in case that's not enough outs for you, the AEC helpfully says that its highest priority during elections is "misleading and deceptive" advertisements (like ads that tell you to cast your vote the wrong way) in preference to unauthorised advertising.
Sorry for the essay but as you can see, I don't think panic (or even a sweat) has broken out at Party HQ.
Thanks Mereweather! really pertinent insights. The law really is an ass isn't it!? Yes, the Act and the AEC are Paper Tigers when it comes to regulating political advertising. But the voting public are demanding greater transparency - and importantly, young people are more spin-aware and media-savvy than older generations. So, I believe journalists should continue to report on such breaches to ensure rampant abuse is just a little harder.
ReplyDelete