A young B.C. environmentalist documentary maker turns on the TV circa 1989 and catches an ad produced by the forest industry. The message: their forestry practices guarantee “Forests Forever.”
“Poppycock!” he yells at the set.
OK, Kalle Lasn, who goes on to become founder and editor of B.C.’s 120,000-circulation anti-consumerism magazine Adbusters, probably used a stronger word than that.
But that moment sparked a 20-year legal dispute between Adbusters and Canadian broadcasters about advertising policy. It’s a case Lasn had been steadily losing until April, when a B.C. Court of Appeal decision partially validated some of the tough questions he has been asking about advertising, broadcasting and public rights to media messages.
Incensed with the Forests Forever message, Lasn recounts, he and some friends decided to make their own TV ads, ones not quite so industry-friendly. But the broadcasters who sell ad space to the forest industry wouldn’t sell to them. So they sued.
Adbusters appeared to take a knockout blow in 1995 when a B.C. court dismissed its lawsuit against the CBC and Canwest Global Communications Corp., but Lasn adjusted his argument and sued again, only to be dismissed once more in 2008. Not deterred, Adbusters appealed the decision. This time, a victory – albeit a small one. The recent appeal decision found that Adbusters’ argument was not resolved in earlier rulings and had sufficient merit to be heard in court.
“After all this manoeuvring and getting knocked back again and again and again until we were punch-drunk, all of a sudden now we have a glimmer of hope,” Lasn says. Of course, the broadcasters will likely appeal the appeal decision before any trial can begin, and such a trial, if it happens, would likely take several more years.
Adbusters’ argument is that because the airwaves are a public resource, the public has a free-speech right to them, as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So if corporations are allowed to hawk SUVs on the airwaves, for example, citizens should have an equal right to air something about cars causing climate change.
Ordinarily, corporations aren’t bound by the charter, says Larry Munn, chair of the privacy law group at Clark Wilson LLP (human rights issues such as discrimination are another story). But the courts have shown that if a corporation is in effect carrying out government policy through its work, charter rules might apply. He doesn’t weigh in on Adbusters’ chances at winning its suit, but he does say this: “Should the courts decide that when operating in a public space, a private entity is subject to the charter, I think that would be a transformative ruling.”
But the big question remains: why turn down the ads in the first place? CBC spokesperson Jeff Keay says the broadcaster has agreed to run Adbusters ads, although with restrictions; CBC policy restricts the placement of advocacy ads so that it doesn’t compromise the integrity of its news programs. Canwest Global has refused to run any Adbusters ads, according to Lasn; no one at that company responded to requests for comment.
Advertisers tend to fight to keep their ads away from content that might contradict their messages, says Richard Pollay, a professor emeritus of marketing at UBC’s Sauder School of Business and a past member of the Adbusters editorial board. “Most media managers are savvy enough to steer clear of trouble,” he adds. “But it still does surprise me that Adbusters is seen as such a threat, because to me it does seem like they’re a very small voice trying to sing a different song than the large chorus.”
But apparently broadcasters do feel little Adbusters is a sufficient threat to their business. Who knows? Maybe they’ll hold out for another 20 years.