EXTENT OF OUR ROLE EDITED OUT BY THE SUNDAY TMES!! Todays Sunday Times article by Matthew Savides about the undoing of FNBs Steve ads mentions our page, that FNB emailed us informing us that they were making changes to their ads and that we are now demanding a public apology from FNB. However, there are certain irregularities: 1. There is a DELIBERATE MISQUOTE which alters the meaning of what I said 180 degrees. My statement (in an email, so theres proof) was: The ruling states that the Steve ads which refer to any Steve many not be used again. We are pleased to have achieved more than would have been achieved under the ruling alone, as FNB have now made an explicit retraction of the entire Steve ad campaign, removing any use of the word Steve. The Sunday Times reported this as We are pleased that the ruling states that any adverts which refer to Steve may not be used again, which means FNB cannot go back to its old Steve from Beep Bank ads. But this MEANS THE EXACT OPPOSITE and MISREPRESENTS the ASA ruling!!! 2. There is NO MENTION of the pressue we have been putting on FNB by informing them of our intention to lodge a complaint with the Human Rights Commission to uphold Section 10 of the Bill of Rights (Human Dignity), demanding that they remove ALL Steve ads because of its association with the Un-Steve Yourself ads and the fact that THIS WAS THE ACTUAL CAUSE of FNB’s retraction of their ENTIRE Steve campaign. 3. There is NO MENTION of the support we received from Members of Parliament Stevens Mokgalapa and Steve Swart and from the Steve Biko Foundation in the lodging of that complaint with the HRC. The Steve Biko Foundation asked not to be mentioned in the press for the time being, owing to their involvement in the Steve Biko autopsy case, despite their full support (see statement below). I also understand why The Sunday Times would not have wanted to risk reporting the involvement of MPs without getting their endorsement. Ive mentioned these facts here to ensure that people who find us after reading The Sunday Times article get a picture of whats going on. 4. The article is NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE. Highly unusual. At what point did The Sunday Times make these changes? I suspect the editors had a hand in this, rather than the reporter, who was fully informed of the facts and sounded keen to report them. Did FNB apply pressure by threatening to withdraw its advertising or did The Sunday Times simply not want to take the risk?
Posted on: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 06:57:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015