What gets me is the phrasing they use. I’m not sure whether the things listed are what the complainers actually said, or if the reporters are just summing things up that way.
For example with the ad about child abuse, I would expect to hear “I saw this ad, I was abused as a child, this ad therefore upset me” or “my children saw this ad, they are not abused but are now upset to think that other children less fortunate than them might be being abused, and are having nightmares about it” Both are quite logical and reasonable complaints (IMO),from people actully effected, regarding what was clearly an emmotive advert.
The way its being reported though is like this:
“Many of the 840 complainants were concerned with the imagery of abuse and drug use, especially because the ads were being shown at times when children could be watching”
So does this mean that their own children were not affected (maybe they don’t even have children) but thay are complaining on behalf of any children who may have seen the ad and may have been affected by it?
Likewise,
Some other viewers, who reported they had been abused as children, asked whether the imagery could upset some people who had suffered such treatment
If they’re “asking” then it’s a question not a complaint? They are saying that they were abused, they are not saying that because of this fact they were upset by the ad, but they are asking whether people who were abused could be upset by the ad?
I guess this is the biggest problem I have with this sort of thing – people complaining “on behalf” of other people. “Such and such a group/gender/race could be offended by this or that, although I personally am not in this instance”
(In some cases of course you would want someone to complain on behalf of someone else who may not be able to complain themselves, but surly in the majority of cases people CAN speak for themselves?)
