tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/government-advertising-14514/articlesgovernment advertising – The Conversation2020-10-14T14:45:19Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1481152020-10-14T14:45:19Z2020-10-14T14:45:19ZBallet dancers should absolutely think about becoming computer programmers – here’s why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363412/original/file-20201014-21-1bdzny3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">From pirouettes to intranets ...</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/DrUguS1oBGU">Robert Collins</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There has been quite a backlash since the UK government launched an advert encouraging dancers to think about retraining in cyber security. The ad, which has <a href="https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/governments-cyber-first-campaign-pulled-amid-online-backlash/1697021">since been</a> withdrawn, depicted a female ballet dancer with the strapline: “Fatima’s next job could be in cyber (she just doesn’t know it yet)”, with a message below to “Rethink. Reskill. Reboot”.</p>
<p>The ad was intended as the first part of a government Cyber First campaign to encourage more people into the industry. It <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54505841">was labelled</a> as “crass” by Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, and “not appropriate” by a No 10 spokesperson, after many, including leading choreographer <a href="https://twitter.com/SirMattBourne/status/1315597677355204608">Sir Matthew Bourne</a>, took <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/fatima-ballet-dancer-job-cyber-government-campaign-a4568641.html">to Twitter</a> to complain that the advert was “patronising” and highlighted that the government was not supporting the arts. </p>
<p>Some <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/cyberfirst-advert-rethink-reskill-reboot-fatimas-next-job-coronavirus-arts-b992467.html">interpreted it</a> as a sinister threat that “dancing was going to be ripped away”. Others detected “the plotting of an Orwellian state deciding its citizens’ futures”. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1315597677355204608"}"></div></p>
<p>In my view, as a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00291950701553848">professor of enterprise</a> who has written on dance and who is also the governor of a leading ballet school, this social media reaction is distracting for a number of reasons. Martha Graham, the American choreographer, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b075pm41#:%7E:text=%22A%20dancer%20dies%20twice%22%2C,dancer's%20body%20begins%20to%20change.">proclaimed that</a> a “dancer dies twice” – “once when they stop dancing, and this first death is the more painful”. This first “death” means that they also have two careers. </p>
<p>The age at which a dancer transitions into another career depends on the individual. Some active dancers continue into their late thirties or early forties. After that, they may become choreographers, art administrators or dance teachers, while <a href="https://balletalert.invisionzone.com/topic/28917-dancers-whose-second-careers-are-surprising/">others become</a> solicitors, builders, farmers, police officers, florists, stock brokers and authors. <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/13/us/rahm-emanuel-fast-facts/index.html">Rahm Emanuel</a> trained as a ballet dancer and eventually became senior advisor to Bill Clinton between 1993 and 1998, then chief of staff at the White House to Barack Obama and finally mayor of Chicago.</p>
<h2>Why computer programming</h2>
<p>This extensive list of careers certainly includes computer programming. <a href="https://careerfoundry.com/en/magazine/dancer-to-developer-career-change/">Kasia, for example</a>, trained as a dancer and ran her own dance studio in Berlin. She developed her own website to reach an international audience and this made her decide to become a web developer. She developed programming skills and combined them with the skills she had developed and refined as a dancer. </p>
<p>Dance as a career involves extraordinarily high levels of commitment, concentration, persistence, passion and training. My own experience is that dancers are exceptional individuals with many interesting and diverse talents and many are also able mathematicians. These transferable skills can be applied to many occupations. Dance and cyber security are both about patterns, rhythms and attention to detail. There is nothing to suggest that dance is not a suitable pathway towards computer programming.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363475/original/file-20201014-19-8fl92g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Woman coding at a desk." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363475/original/file-20201014-19-8fl92g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363475/original/file-20201014-19-8fl92g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363475/original/file-20201014-19-8fl92g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363475/original/file-20201014-19-8fl92g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363475/original/file-20201014-19-8fl92g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363475/original/file-20201014-19-8fl92g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363475/original/file-20201014-19-8fl92g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">More women reqd.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/software-developer-freelancer-woman-female-glasses-1504251974">Monstar Studio</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the same time, computer science is a very strange subject. It is still possible for amateur programmers to out-compete professionals. The training pathways to a computer science career are still varied. The cutting edge of computer science innovation is not to be found in universities, but <a href="https://www.panmacmillan.com/authors/clive-thompson/coders/9781529018981">in the private sector</a> – and in some cases the bedrooms of teenage programmers.</p>
<p>Consider the strange case of Pikeville, Kentucky. This was a former coal-mining area in the Appalachians in which many people had ended up unemployed as more and more environmental regulations made the industry unviable. Between 2008 and 2016, the <a href="https://medium.com/migration-issues/appalachia-is-dying-pikeville-is-not-fa583dac67de">number of miners</a> in the state declined from 17,000 to 6,500.</p>
<p>One response came from Rusty Justice, the owner of a land-moving company that had lived off the coal industry. He had realised he needed to transition to a new career. In 2013, he visited a technology incubator and realised there was a shortage of programmers in the local economy and that these jobs could pay around US$80,000 (£61,865) a year. He decided to bring coding to Pikeville by training unemployed miners as programmers. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363423/original/file-20201014-19-tz63h9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Aerial shot of Pikeville, Kentucky" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363423/original/file-20201014-19-tz63h9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363423/original/file-20201014-19-tz63h9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363423/original/file-20201014-19-tz63h9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363423/original/file-20201014-19-tz63h9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363423/original/file-20201014-19-tz63h9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363423/original/file-20201014-19-tz63h9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/363423/original/file-20201014-19-tz63h9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pikeville, Kentucky: out with the coal, in with the silicon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pikeville,_Kentucky_aerial.jpg#/media/File:Pikeville,_Kentucky_aerial.jpg">Wikimedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Justice founded <a href="https://bitsourceky.com/team/">BitSource</a> in a former Coca-Cola bottling plant and recruited 11 ex-miners to create a coding team for the region. The company started by training them from scratch with a 22-week training programme. Part of the rationale was that you do not need a computer science degree to programme. <a href="https://www.wired.com/2015/11/can-you-teach-a-coal-miner-to-code/">According to</a> Nick Such, Rusty’s partner: “It’s like welding. It’s a trade. It’s a skill.”</p>
<p><a href="https://www.wired.com/2015/11/can-you-teach-a-coal-miner-to-code/">One motivation</a> in setting up the company was to prove the American billionaire Michael Bloomberg wrong, after <a href="https://venturebeat.com/2014/04/09/bloomberg-to-zuckerberg-youre-not-going-to-teach-a-coal-miner-to-code/">he had said</a> that “you’re not going to teach a coal miner to code”. This was in response to a debate with Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg about the extent to which you could retrain people whose jobs had become surplus. </p>
<p>BitSource has demonstrated that it is perfectly possible for coal miners to become computer programmers. And if it’s possible for miners, it is obviously possible for dancers too. As a society, we should encourage diversity and not attempt to close down possible career pathways. Everyone should be encouraged to develop careers that reflect their interests and circumstances.</p>
<p>All the media commentary on the Fatima advert suggests that ballet dancers should focus on their dance careers, but the challenge for a dancer involves their second career when they are no longer able to dance. There should be no constraints on dancers as they shape their careers to meet their own interests and circumstances. </p>
<p>There is nothing to suggest that a retired dancer would be unable to compete in the world of cyber security. The focus of the media and political discussion should not be about closing down pathways for people to enter the labour market. Instead <a href="https://www.investinwork.org/-/media/CACB19E78B3B41D6838AFBA188D40ABD.ashx">it should be</a> on identifying opportunities for all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148115/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Bryson is a governor (volunteer) of Elmhurst Ballet School, Birmingham. Elmhurst is an independent school for classical ballet students aged 11-19 years. The school's focus is on training dancers who become exceptional dance professionals.</span></em></p>A government ad was slated for encouraging dancers to go into cyber security, but it actually contained a very good idea.John Bryson, Professor of Enterprise and Competitiveness, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1344712020-03-25T10:22:08Z2020-03-25T10:22:08ZCoronavirus: as the UK faces more restrictions, the public needs clearer government information<p>The UK government’s decision to introduce strict new measures to limit social contact comes after many people continued to ignore official advice not to mix in large groups. The health secretary branded people “<a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/03/23/people-failing-self-isolate-selfish-health-secretary-says/">selfish</a>” for not heeding its initial guidance. But the goverment’s own communication strategy should also be held responsible for failing to adequately inform the public about the actions needed to stop the spread of the coronavirus. </p>
<p>Last year the government <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50181485">set aside £100m</a> for an advertising blitz about getting ready for Brexit, despite the topic being intensely debated over the previous three years. Today, there is a far stronger case for investing significantly more money into a high-profile public health campaign that will prompt immediate behavioural change. </p>
<p>While a <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-we-can-all-play-our-part-government-campaign-offers-advice-to-stop-the-spread-11924298">limited government campaign</a> was launched in early February – to “Catch it, Bin it, Kill it” – the messaging was clearly not stark enough to alert people about the dangers of spreading the coronavirus. More public health warnings have been produced since then, but given the government’s fast-changing official guidance, adverts have not always remained up to date.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1241795484311851008"}"></div></p>
<p>In public speeches, media appearances and press briefings, the government’s own communication about the risks of coronavirus and the guidance people should follow has been patchy, <a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/coronavirus-uk-response-boris-johnson">with often evasive, ambiguous and confusing messaging</a>. </p>
<p>Take, for example, the government’s daily press briefings. Just a few days ago the prime minister, Boris Johnson, was clearly not two metres away from other speakers, breaching the government’s own advice to the public. Now, with more restrictive measures in place, the importance of visually communicating the government’s guidance has been recognised. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1242493024292286464"}"></div></p>
<h2>Reporting the science</h2>
<p>The government has consistently claimed its decision making has been in response to “<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51915302">the science changing</a>” – a line echoed in many news headlines, including across BBC output. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1239823300857118720"}"></div></p>
<p>Broadcasters, of course, have to carefully navigate how they impartially report the scientific evidence. The <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality">BBC’s editorial guidelines</a>, for example, state: “In applying due impartiality to news, we give due weight to events, opinion and the main strands of argument”. But in the case of reporting a global pandemic, interpreting the “due weight” of the “main strands of argument” means making difficult editorial judgements about which political actors and scientific experts to include and exclude.</p>
<p>After all, many countries implemented tougher restrictions on its citizens’ movements before the UK. In doing so, should broadcasters have broken free from a reliance on state information and led with scientific perspectives that advocated a different approach to countering the spread of the disease than the UK?</p>
<p>At the same time, would routinely counterbalancing the goverment’s judgements – informed by its scientific advisers – with the actions of other national governments and leading experts in fields such as epidemiology and virology add more confusion than clarity about the UK’s response? </p>
<p>To help people understand how the scientific evidence informs government decisions, broadcasters could more prominently feature the goverment’s own medical and health experts. For example, in one <a href="https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FStephen_Cushion%2Fstatus%2F1240636895589093377&widget=Tweet">live press briefing</a> – without the government present – they transparently explained many of the factors that the scientific advisory group for emergencies (SAGE) is grappling with when it recommends what action to take and when.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-to-counter-misinformation-journalists-need-to-embrace-a-public-service-mission-133829">COVID-19: to counter misinformation, journalists need to embrace a public service mission</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While journalists have asked the government tough questions about its response to the pandemic in press briefings, most people don’t tune in live to the daily Downing Street conferences but – as recent <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/174088/bbc-news-review-deck.pdf">Ofcom research</a> has confirmed – they rely on the framing of news media stories, such as scanning headlines about the science changing. Of course, given the unprecedented health crisis, people may be reading the news more carefully.</p>
<p>It doesn’t help that professional controversialists such as Brendan O'Neill, the editor of Spiked magazine, and Peter Hitchens <a href="https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2020/03/23/a-plague-of-hot-takes-lazy-contrarians-are-putting-everyone">have been ignoring</a> much of the scientific advice, undermining government guidance and giving cover to people who still want to congregate for parties.</p>
<h2>Responsible scrutiny</h2>
<p>Broadcasters, by contrast, have taken a more <a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-to-counter-misinformation-journalists-need-to-embrace-a-public-service-mission-133829">responsible public service role</a>, carefully informing people about the latest government advice. But, rather than just conveying government statements could they have questioned the government’s policy more robustly? After all, the public needs rigorous independent analysis of the expertise informing the government’s scientific judgements.</p>
<p>As news bulletins have often focused on the prime minister’s press briefings, the government’s official health guidance has not always been clear or consistent. While its previous advice had been people are still free to go to public parks, for example, it was left to Sky News reporter Sam Coates to highlight the flaw in this plan.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1241784833191432193"}"></div></p>
<p>As the country looks to unite and collectively respond to what the government has called a “national emergency”, it’s understandable why broadcasters turn to the prime minister for guidance and leadership. After all, <a href="https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FJake_Kanter%2Fstatus%2F1242384602313961478&widget=Tweet">approximately 25m people</a> watched Boris Johnson speaking to the nation about the UK’s lockdown, making it “one of the most watched broadcasts in British TV history” according to the <a href="https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fjimwaterson%2Fstatus%2F1242386966769029121&widget=Tweet">Media Guardian’s editor</a>. </p>
<p>But while the focus of media coverage is often on the prime minister’s statements, journalists covering the pandemic – judged by the government itself as <a href="https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/government-gives-key-worker-status-to-all-journalists-reporting-on-coronavirus-pandemic/">key workers</a> – have a duty to explain whether the government’s finer judgements are justified on scientific grounds.</p>
<p>When there is ambiguity in the government’s approach, we need journalists prominently holding them to account. Not long after the lockdown was announced, for example, ITV’s Good Morning Britain presenter, Susanna Reid, <a href="https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fsusannareid100%2Fstatus%2F1242359499517833218&widget=Tweet">exposed</a> the government’s confused messaging about whether children with separated parents could move between households. </p>
<p>Now more than ever the government’s strategy needs to be articulated clearly and without ambiguity. But we also need journalists to continue questioning the official guidance and the scientific evidence that informs it. </p>
<p><em>This article was amended on March 26 to correct an error in which Peter Oborne was named instead of Peter Hitchens, as was originally intended. We unreservedly apologise to Peter Oborne.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/134471/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Cushion has received funding from the BBC Trust, Ofcom, The British Academy, ESRC and AHRC </span></em></p>It’s not enough to say the science has changed – now, more than ever, we need clear accountability and transparency about the government’s decisionsStephen Cushion, Chair professor, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1150612019-04-09T20:04:22Z2019-04-09T20:04:22ZGovernment advertising may be legal, but it’s corrupting our electoral process<p>The Coalition government’s use of taxpayer money for political advertising – <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/taxpayers-bill-for-advertising-hits-136-million-as-scott-morrison-prepares-to-call-an-election-20190408-p51by6.html">as much as A$136 million since January</a>, according to Labor figures - is far from an aberration in Australia. It is part of a sordid history in which public resources have routinely been abused for electoral advantage.</p>
<p>For example, the Coalition governments of Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull spent at least <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-to-launch-28-million-taxpayerfunded-ad-campaign-to-sell-innovation-policies-20160105-glznzg.html">A$84.5 million</a> on four major advertising campaigns to promote their policies and initiatives with voters. The <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-to-launch-28-million-taxpayerfunded-ad-campaign-to-sell-innovation-policies-20160105-glznzg.html">ALP governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard</a> spent A$20 million on advertising to promote the Gonski school funding changes and another A$70 million on a carbon tax campaign. Going further back, the Coalition government under John Howard spent A$100 million on its <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/turning-taxes-into-spin-20070517-ge4wpf.html">WorkChoices</a> and GST campaigns.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-difference-between-government-advertising-and-political-advertising-36429">The difference between government advertising and political advertising</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This is also a history in which hypocrisy is not hard to find.</p>
<p>When in opposition, Rudd condemned partisan government advertising as “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-05-28/government-mining-tax-ad-blitz-to-cost-38m/845624">a cancer on our democracy</a>”. His government, however, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-05-28/government-mining-tax-ad-blitz-to-cost-38m/845624">exempted</a> its A$38 million ad campaign on the mining super profits tax from the government guidelines put in place two years earlier. </p>
<p>In 2010, while an opposition MP, Scott Morrison decried such spending as “<a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/why-the-election-has-been-delayed-20190407-p51bnw">outrageous</a>”. In 2019, his government may be presiding over the most expensive pre-election government advertising blitz in recent history.</p>
<h2>Few restrictions on government advertising</h2>
<p>All of this is perfectly legal.</p>
<p>The High Court in <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/61.html?context=1;query=combet;mask_path=au/cases/cth/HCA">Combet v Commonwealth</a> made clear that legislation authorising government spending (appropriation statutes) imposes virtually no legal control over spending for government advertising, because of its broad wording.</p>
<p>In the absence of effective statutory regulations, there are <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/advertising/campaign-advertising/guidelines/">government guidelines</a> that prohibit overtly partisan advertising with government funds, such as “negative” ads and advertising that mentions party slogans and names of political parties, candidates, ministers and parliamentarians.</p>
<p>These guidelines nevertheless provide ample room for promotion of government policies under the guise of information campaigns – what Justice Michael McHugh in Combet described as “feelgood” advertisements. They permit advertising campaigns such as the Coalition government’s “<a href="http://bettertax.gov.au/?gclid=CjwKCAjwv6blBRBzEiwAihbM-dProRCw2IXvWb9KK8AI14pfwWLlHGtjGK_1uuOXhxj7m-CirpP2pRoCw60QAvD_BwE">Building a better tax system for hardworking Australians</a>” (which essentially promotes the government’s tax cuts) and “<a href="https://treasury.gov.au/small-business/small-business-campaign">Small business, big future</a>” (which burnishes its “small business” credentials).</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/u4d6MEKoSVw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The government advertising campaign spruiking its tax reform measures.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Crucially, the guidelines fail to address the proximity of such taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns to federal elections. They fail to recognise what is obvious – the closer we get to the elections, the stronger the governing party’s impulse to seek re-election, the greater the likelihood that “information” campaigns become the vehicle for reinforcing positive images of the incumbent party.</p>
<p>This risk is clearly recognised by the <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/government/guidance-caretaker-conventions">caretaker conventions</a>, which mandate that once the “caretaker” period begins with the dissolution of the House of Representatives:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…campaigns that highlight the role of particular Ministers or address issues that are a matter of contention between the parties are normally discontinued, to avoid the use of Commonwealth resources in a manner to advantage a particular party</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The conventions further state:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Agencies should avoid active distribution of material during the caretaker period if it promotes Government policies or emphasises the achievements of the Government or a Minister</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The problem with these conventions, however, is that they kick in too late. By the time the House of Representatives is dissolved prior to an election, the major parties’ campaigns have usually been in high gear for months.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/eight-ways-to-clean-up-money-in-australian-politics-59453">Eight ways to clean up money in Australian politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A form of institutional corruption</h2>
<p>A pseudo-notion of fairness tends to operate in the minds of incumbent political parties when it comes to taxpayer-funded advertising. </p>
<p>When she was prime minister, Gillard <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-17/julia-gillard-defends-carbon-ad-spend/2797776">defended</a> her use of government advertising by pointing that the Howard government had spent more. And now, the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/taxpayers-bill-for-advertising-hits-136-million-as-scott-morrison-prepares-to-call-an-election-20190408-p51by6.html">Morrison government</a> has sought to deflect criticisms of its current campaign by drawing attention to ALP’s use of government advertising when it was last in power.</p>
<p>Our children are taught to be better than this – two wrongs do not make a right.</p>
<p>Indeed, government advertising for electioneering is a form of corruption. Corruption can be understood as the use of power for improper gain. It includes individual corruption where the improper gain is personal (for instance, bribery) but also what philosopher, Dennis Thompson, has described as <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Congress-Individual-Institutional-Corruption/dp/0815784236">institutional corruption</a>, where the use of power results in a political gain.</p>
<p>Government advertising to reinforce positive impressions of the incumbent party is a form of institutional corruption – it is the use of public funds for the illegitimate purpose of electioneering. Its illegitimacy stems from the fact that it undermines the democratic ideal of fair elections by providing the incumbent party with an undue advantage.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/election-explainer-what-are-the-rules-governing-political-advertising-57880">Election explainer: what are the rules governing political advertising?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It is an instance of what the High Court in <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/34.html?context=1;query=mccloy;mask_path=au/cases/cth/HCA">McCloy v NSW</a> considered “war-chest” corruption – a form of corruption that arises when “the power of money … pose(s) a threat to the electoral process itself”.</p>
<h2>A longer government advertising ban?</h2>
<p>I <a href="http://www.aips.net.au/aq-magazine/current-edition/">propose</a> a ban on federal government advertising in the period leading up to federal elections. </p>
<p>Such bans are already in place in <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/gaa2011261/s10.html">NSW</a>, which prohibits government advertising during roughly two months before state elections, and the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/act/consol_act/gaaa2009372/s18.html">ACT</a>, which bans government advertising 37 days before territory elections. To take into account the longer campaign period at the federal level, a federal ban should operate for at least three months before each federal election.</p>
<p>The absence of fixed terms in the federal parliament is not a barrier to adopting such a ban. With an average of two and a half years between federal elections, a three-month ban of sorts could take effect from two years and three months after the previous election until polling day of the next election.</p>
<p>By dealing with government advertising for electioneering, this ban will improve the integrity of federal elections.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115061/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joo-Cheong Tham receives funding from the New South Wales Electoral Commission and the Victorian Electoral Commission. He has also been in receipt of grants from the Australian Research Council and has been commissioned for work by the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption. </span></em></p>Both the Liberals and Labor complain about government advertising when they’re in the opposition. So why hasn’t anyone tried to better regulate the system?Joo-Cheong Tham, Professor, Melbourne Law School, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/364292015-01-21T19:09:51Z2015-01-21T19:09:51ZThe difference between government advertising and political advertising<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69493/original/image-20150120-24438-1p4bpo6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The government's ad spruiking proposed changes to higher education. Is it legal? And if so, should it be?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Youtube screen grab</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal government’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSvQr67SknQ">recent television advertisement</a> spruiking the benefits of the proposed changes to higher education have raised the ire of not only the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-slams-coalitions-higher-education-advertising-spend-20141227-12ecb6.html">opposition</a> but also taxpayers who have reportedly forked out <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-government-spends-8-million-on-higher-education-media-blitz-20150110-12lcb8.html">A$8 million</a> for the campaign. </p>
<p>The changes to higher education, including deregulation of fees and cuts to government subsidies, were voted down in the Senate last year, before the advertisements began, and will be voted on again in coming weeks. Given the proposed changes are not yet legislated, and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jan/15/university-fee-claim-in-ad-campaign-is-unverifiable-says-pynes-former-adviser">concerns have been raised</a> over the veracity of statements made in the advertisements, questions are being asked over what constitutes government advertising and what is purely political advertising.</p>
<p>In marketing perception is reality. An image of a politician on screen is viewed by most as propaganda that is easy to avoid. However, a message from government has a sense of authority and is harder to ignore.</p>
<p>So what are the rules when it comes to using taxpayer funds to further a party’s ends?</p>
<h2>What government advertising is legal?</h2>
<p>The question that comes to mind straight away is whether this form of advertising is legal. Or more precisely, if it is legal, shouldn’t it be made illegal? </p>
<p>Welcome to the very murky world of regulation of government and political advertising. The Advertising Standards Board <a href="http://www.adstandards.com.au/process/theprocesssteps/specificproductsandissues/politicalandelectionadvertising">(ASB)</a> and the Australian Communications and Media Authority <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/The-ACMA-story/Regulating/political-matter-tv-content-regulation-i-acma">(ACMA)</a> both have good information about how they define political advertising and government advertising. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69494/original/image-20150120-24429-fxizow.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69494/original/image-20150120-24429-fxizow.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/69494/original/image-20150120-24429-fxizow.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69494/original/image-20150120-24429-fxizow.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69494/original/image-20150120-24429-fxizow.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69494/original/image-20150120-24429-fxizow.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69494/original/image-20150120-24429-fxizow.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/69494/original/image-20150120-24429-fxizow.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The government tells viewers they’ll be paying for half of their degree, but due to the differing nature of higher education funding between degrees it’s not possible to say what they’ll contribute.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">YouTube screen grab</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The ASB notes that political advertising does not necessarily include all advertising by governments or organisations involved in the political process. This is because some of this </p>
<blockquote>
<p>may be considered to be informational or educational rather than political, as determined on a case-by-case basis, and complaints about these advertisements […] may be considered by the Board.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So is the recent higher education advertisement a political advertisement, legally speaking? Under the guidelines this advertisement was defined as being legal, probably as an informational or educational message rather than a political one.</p>
<h2>Should the higher education advertisement be legal?</h2>
<p>There is no doubt in my mind, and that of many others, that this advertisement was political. This message was designed to influence viewers to think more favourably of the proposed higher education changes. </p>
<p>While we can’t prove the higher education advertisement was part of a broader political advertising strategy, it’s definitely a smoking gun. And if some of the information advertised is not fact, it’s harder to classify it as being educational. The Abbott government wouldn’t be the first to be guilty of this type of advertising. </p>
<p>It is probably becoming increasingly transparent to many in the community that this type of advertising is perceived as political, whether or not it might be defined as such. And perception is more important than definition when it comes to government advertising as loopholes can be designed in the legislation. </p>
<h2>Time for change</h2>
<p>Our electoral and government advertising laws are dinosaurs. Sadly they have destroyed the credibility of government advertising campaigns that really are informational and educational, such as healthy eating or drink driving campaigns. </p>
<p>The laws also don’t include specific references to social media, or any sort of consideration of the societal, ethical or political consequences of government and political advertising.</p>
<p>My initial ideas for reforms are simple. </p>
<p>First, update the political advertising definition to reflect how advertisements might be perceived, not the reason for their creation. </p>
<p>Appoint an apolitical government advertising commission, which screens and vets all members thoroughly. Membership of the commission could be drawn from the marketing profession, academia and the general community. Lawyers should be kept at bay to avoid the creation of loopholes.</p>
<p>Next, cap the number of advertisements that can be run in any area that is currently subject to public debate. With contentious issues such as the higher education debate, which wasn’t an issue the government took to the election, TV ads should be restricted to three per hour between 8pm and 10pm on two commercial networks per weeknight for three weeks before the legislation is introduced to parliament. </p>
<p>No advertisements should be allowed on legislation that is before parliament. This would allow all sides to be heard equally, rather than just whoever has the greatest financial resources to sway public opinion through an extensive messaging campaign.</p>
<p>These are just some ideas on reform. They are not exhaustive.</p>
<p>Government advertising is necessary. Political parties that win government do have every right to bring in the policies they were elected for, and to communicate these policies to the electorate as a public service. But exactly how these sorts of changes should be communicated to us needs to be debated, and our perception has to be accepted as the reality.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36429/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Hughes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The federal government’s recent television advertisement spruiking the benefits of the proposed changes to higher education have raised the ire of not only the opposition but also taxpayers who have reportedly…Andrew Hughes, Lecturer, Research School of Management, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.