Action for Children ad demonising autistic children cleared by ASA

In January, a major UK children's charity, Action for Children, released a television advertisement ostensibly about the help they had offered an autistic boy. It gave however, a shockingly inaccurate, damaging and offensive portrayal of autism and I and several others (listed here) wrote about the ad and contacted the charity with our concerns. Action for Children responded with a form letter apologising for upsetting us, as if that made it all OK, but ignoring all our valid explanations of why the ad was wrong. I created a Facebook group as a way of mobilising support and attention on the issue quickly and in a few weeks, over 2600 people had joined. The ad was supposed to have run for 3 weeks but was pulled after only 2.

In January, I complained to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) about the ad and on June 3rd finally received a letter with their adjudication. Unfortunately, they decided that the ad did not breach their codes. I was instructed not to publicise this decision until today when the ruling was made available on their web site.

I appreciate the time and effort the ASA has spent on this but I am very disappointed with their decision and also with the text of the ruling.

Action for Children responded to the ASA by saying that they "believed they had a responsibility to tell their stories through their [young people's] own eyes, not through the eyes of parents, carers or adults" and that "their organisation was committed to raising the issue that support was available through their advertising and campaigning, despite that being uncomfortable for some."

For the first time ever, I read that, " "Dan" (not his real name) was now an adult who was therefore able to give informed consent."
(my emphasis.)

The advertising company also responded:

"Clearcast said that, at pre-production stage, they had been informed that the stories told in the ads would be real case studies using children's own words. They considered the ads were extremely sensitively made and that the animation of the "monster" symbolised, in a child-like drawing, how a child felt when he felt out of control. They believed "Dan's" story was an uplifting one about how a boy who felt unable to deal with his autism could find help and support from Action for Children."

(my emphasis)

Does an advertising company just stating their opinion that the monstrous ad was "extremely sensitively made" make it so? Also, I dispute all these claims that the ad represents how a child/boy feels about his autism, since we now know that "Dan" is an adult.

I wrote to the ASA in January and posted my letter on this blog today. The ASA have summarised my extensive, reasonable and evidence based objections and those of the others thus:

1. All the viewers and Autreach challenged whether the ad was offensive and distressing, particularly to autistic children and their families, because of its negative depiction of an autistic child as a monster.
2. 31 viewers challenged whether the ad was offensive and misleading because it portrayed autism as a behavioural problem that needed to be corrected or because it implied that an autistic person chose to behave in the way they did and could modify their behaviour if they wished.
3. 11 viewers challenged whether the ad was misleading because it suggested autism could be cured.
4. Six viewers and Autreach challenged whether the ad condoned bullying because "Dan" appeared to believe it was his own fault that he was bullied.

Objection 1
Action for Children responded by talking again about the individual depicted in the ad, "his feelings of anger and frustration" and how "he overcame those feelings and was "more at peace" with himself. "

They claim also to have "received supportive comments on the ad from senior government figures and members of the public."

Well how nice, but thousands of people showed their disgust with the ad by electing to join a protest group, many others signed a petition against the ad, and 61 people and one autistic organisation were sufficiently bothered to complain to the ASA. Action for Children's income from grants and fees is "mostly derived from local authorities, health trusts and central government sources" according to their annual report and financial statements 2006/07 (see page 44 of the PDF link.) It is not too surprising therefore that senior government figures speak in the charity's favour. What is surprising is the insight gained into the views of the Rt Hon Hilary Armstrong MP, latterly the Minister for the Cabinet Office and for Social Exclusion on disabled self advocates.

"She said she disagreed that the ad portrayed autism as dark or evil; that it was the effects of autism that had left "Dan" feeling angry and isolated but that, with the right kind of support, it was not nearly as bad for him; that "Dan" was not "cured" of autism but had learnt how to deal with it with sensitive help and support. She said she was aware of a section of the disability lobby that believed the behaviour of those with a disability should not be "interfered" with but she believed that view should be challenged. Even if wider society tolerated the behaviour "Dan" described, it was painful for him."

(my emphasis)
That line about the disability lobby deserves further investigation. I wonder from where Ms Armstrong derived this peculiar view, what evidence she has that it exists and what relevance this notion of hers has on the criticisms of the monster autism ad? I am disappointed that the ASA saw fit to use this in their adjudication as it implies that those of us who object to the demonisation of disability are some peculiar "lobby" that seek to leave disabled people to flounder.

Objection 2
Action for Children responded by saying

""Dan" had approved the concept and the drawings as how he had seen himself and what he had felt he needed help with. They said he felt strongly that he now had support to help him with aspects of his behaviour which previously he had not understood and which had created difficulties for him in his relationships."

In the email I received from Gary Day on Jan25 this year, he wrote something else entirely. He said then,

"Dan tells his own story in his own words, and he chose to name his condition, the drawings that you see were also drawn by Dan, the pictures depict how he saw himself before we as a charity got involved and helped Dan and his family."

Why were they claiming at first that Dan drew the pictures when it was an advertising company all along. Why are they hiding behind this individual, as if Dan saying it makes it all right no matter how damaging it might be to all the other autistic people out there?

They also quoted the principal of Dan's school saying that Dan used to have behavioural difficulties but with their support, he got over them. That's all great but I don't see the relevance to an ad that is damaging to public portrayals of autism for all the other autistic children in the UK.

We learn also and I am not surprised, that the former chief executive of another major UK charity, Mencap, "supported the ad "because it raises awareness of some very complex issues that are frequently misunderstood by the general public" and who said awareness of the lack of services available needed to be raised."

It's all about the awareness isn't it? It matters not, apparently, if that awareness causes more harm than help. An ad that makes more people "aware" of autism as a condition that makes you into an anti-social monster is supposed to be a good thing?

Objection 3
Another glut of false arguments are presented in the next bit of Action for Children's response to objection that the ad appeared to show Dan being cured (my points in red):

" They said the ad showed "Dan" shedding his anger and frustration but referred to their comment above that he was still on the autistic spectrum at the end of the ad. This is not apparent to the average viewer. They said there was a wide range of opinion on almost all aspects of autism and that some groups disagreed with showing autism as any kind of problem for those diagnosed on the autistic spectrum, or their families. A total fabrication! Action for Children said they knew, however, that people and families who experienced autism also experienced problems and that they did not feel they could shy away from difficult or sensitive issues for fear of upsetting a small minority of people if they were making a case for the good of the children and young people with whom they worked. It is not fear of upsetting a minority that we have criticised, it is your misrepresentation of and damage to the lives of autistic people.

Objection 4
Their response to the bullying queries:

Action for Children said the ad quoted "Dan" as saying "I used to lash out if somebody pushed my buttons or I wasn't able to do something." They said that contextualised his feelings of anger and frustration in that they were not just in response to other people - he was also generally frustrated with things around him. No one objects to Dan's feelings nor that he was helped to find ways to deal with them. They said the crucial aspect of Action for Children's support was that it allowed "Dan" to be "more at peace with himself" and less likely to respond with violence to things that perhaps did not warrant that response. Action for Children said they did not condone bullying or cruelty but that, nevertheless, children and young people found bullying was a common and profoundly damaging experience. I contend that the ad itself would cause more bullying of autistic young people as it portrays them so badly.

It is worth noting that the opinions of the autism professionals who spoke out about the ad or against damaging portrayals of autism, are missing from the ASA's adjudication report.

The ASA's Assessment
Objection 1. Not upheld

The ASA say:

We considered, however, that they had taken pains to represent autism and the issues it raised in a way which, in their experience, was accurate and truthful, and that the message of the ad was positive. We concluded that the ad was unlikely to result in widespread offence or to have the effect of undermining the dignity of autistic children and their families through its depiction of autism.

I feel that I demonstrated in my letter the ways in which the ad was inaccurate, untruthful and that it's message was damaging. The ad did result in widespread offense and did undermine the dignity of autistic people. That the ASA don't agree is disappointing, but it doesn't change the facts.


Objection 2. Not upheld

We noted the concerns expressed by the viewers and the points made in defence of the ad by Action for Children and Clearcast. We considered that, while views on how best to address the issues autism raised might differ, the story told in the ad centred on one person's - "Dan's" - experience; on the difficulties he considered he had experienced as a result of his behaviour and his reactions to his surroundings; his wish to address them and the difficulties he had experienced in doing so until he received help and support. We did not consider the ad suggested an autistic person chose to behave in the way they did or that they could simply choose to modify their behaviour if they wished. We considered the ad did, however, tell the story of how "Dan" had wanted to deal with his situation and how, with the right help and support, he was able to do so. We concluded that the ad was unlikely to cause offence or to mislead viewers by portraying autism as a behavioural problem or because it implied that an autistic person chose to behave in the way they did and could modify their behaviour if they wished.

I disagree with this assessment. As I showed in my letter to them, the NAS have shown that 17% of people already think that autism is just bad behaviour. I expect that number would increase if those being surveyed were shown this ad first.

Objection 3. Not upheld

We considered that the story told in the ad centred on one person - "Dan's" - experience; on the difficulties he considered he had experienced as a result of his behaviour and his reactions to his surroundings; his wish to address them and the difficulties he had experienced in doing so until he received help and support. We considered that, just because issues or a situation could be addressed and supported, it did not necessarily follow that they were completely resolved or, in this case, "cured." We considered that views on how best to address the issues autism raised might differ and that, while the ad told of the experiences of how one person had been helped to address the issues they considered the condition raised for them, it did not suggest that the condition was one that could be cured or that "Dan" had been cured. We concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead viewers by suggesting the condition could be cured.

Making this all about a man called "Dan" and claiming that as it's just one man's opinion, and then presenting this as if it were actually the views of a child, does not exonerate the charity and the professional advertising company from culpability. This ad was expensive to produce and run and portrayed autism in the way Action for Children thought would best gain them publicity and support as the saviours of even tragic cases like Dan's.


Objection 4. Not upheld

We noted the concerns expressed by the viewers and the points made in defence of the ad by Action for Children and Clearcast. We noted that the ad referred to "Dan" being insulted and reacting to that by being physically violent to the person concerned. We considered that, while "Dan" regretted reacting with physical violence and wanted to be able to deal with the situation more appropriately, the ad did not suggest that "Dan" considered it was his own fault he was bullied or that bullying behaviour was acceptable. We concluded that the ad was unlikely to be understood as condoning bullying.

I consider that the ad implies that autistic children are more likely to act aggressively than typically developing children. This is another misrepresentation as aggressive behaviour is not one of the diagnostic criteria for autism or Asperger's syndrome.

Professor Tony Attwood, criticised this ad with specific reference to the bully message:

"“I am very concerned that the advert gives a message that children with autism and Asperger’s syndrome are dangerous and potentially disturbed.

When the child refers to “correct errors in my behaviour” this seems to imply ‘brain washing’ and a sense of guilt for how he behaved.
Many of the behaviours I consider as coping mechanisms for the lack of understanding and respect from other people.
He refers to reacting when people insult him. Those that insulted him need the treatment.”

Professor Attwood was not quoted on the report.

So Action for Children can celebrate that they have won. I had hoped that the advertising guidelines might provide some protection for autistic people from the disturbing way Action for Children chose to portray them. But that has not happened. Action for Children must be proud of their victory, their right to show autistic children as monsters thrashing around terrifying the population has been upheld. Well done to them.

My Letter to the ASA about Action for Children monster ad

Now that the ASA have ruled that the monster ad did not breach their code of practise, I will publish in full the letter I submitted about the ad. I will shortly publish my view on the ruling and Action for Children's response.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Complaints Reception Team
Advertising Standards Authority
Mid City Place
71 High Holborn
London
WC1V 6QT

31 January 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

While I commend the work Action for Children does as a charity, and have no doubt of their good intentions, I object to this campaign and contend that it breaches the CAP Code for TV advertising, section 11.3.4, relating to ethical responsibility, in the following ways.

11.3.4(b) The problem AFC seeks aid for is exaggerated by the use of highly emotive imagery. A cartoon monster is shown jumping around in an urban landscape, attacking some accelerated film footage of real people. As this image plays a boy's voice-over says, "I used to lash out if something pushed my buttons or I wasn’t able to do something. Things that wound me up were if they’d insulted me I would physically hurt that young person." Then we see that the monster has a sad looking normal boy trapped inside, looking out through its mouth. Straight after that image is shown, the boy says the words "My parents sought out help with my autism because it was becoming a pain in the bum."

[17/06/09 edit; It turns out that he actually said, it was "a pain for them", but it was very unclear and no one from AfC saw fit to correct the transcripts any of us had made on our blogs even though they spent long enough reading them from their offices in Doncaster.]

This exaggerates the problems autism causes and implies that autism is making the boy a monster. It connects autism with aggressive, anti-social, monster-like behaviour.

My 10 year old daughter said on viewing the ad, "It's showing the boy stuck inside a monster and that's autism and then he goes away to a school and he comes out of the monster and he's not autistic any more. But that's not right, Duncan (her autistic little brother) isn't a monster. He's a human being."

11.3.4(c) The AFC ad does not respect the dignity of vulnerable children and young people who are the very people AFC are supposed to help. On the morning of Sunday 25th January 2009 I created social networking group on www.facebook.com in order to campaign against this advertisement. Between the time of its opening and the time I am writing this letter (the evening of Saturday 31st January 2009), 940 individuals have read my reasons for starting the group, and have decided to support my protest by signing up to the group. The group can be viewed here:
http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=47154931157

Professor Roy Grinker, author of "Unstrange minds: Remapping the World of Autism" has joined this group. There is another renowned autism author and at least one distinguished FRS scientist as well as many autistic people, and others who have autistic family members and friends. Others joined because they care about the human rights and dignity of all people including those with autism.

AFC replied to the dozens of complaints they have received about the advertisement by sending everyone form letters which request that we take our concerns to the ASA. In some of their responses, AFC defend the ad by saying that it uses words and drawings Dan produced to describe himself. In other responses they say that Dan "approved" the ads.

But an advertising company created this ad, employing both marketing professionals and art direction staff. This ad is not, no matter how AFC have tried to spin it, the self-published, direct telling of one child's experiences. This ad shows how AFC choose to portray autism by using Dan's story, with his poor self image and worries. They have used the troubles and fears of a vulnerable child to generate pity and fear, to make them appear to be heroic in saving even tragic cases like Dan. They cannot claim that they were merely giving him a voice.

The harm to other vulnerable young people just like Dan, is too great to be ignored. There is a great deal of misinformation in the public sphere about autism. The National Autistic Society carried out studies recently about public attitudes to and understanding of autism:

http://www.think-differently.org.uk/Awareness/Contacts%20and%20Resources/%7E/media/ThinkDifferently/CampaignPack/NAS_Aware_report_Wales_FA.ashx

They uncovered a great deal of misinformation. For example, 17% of those surveyed mistakenly thought that some children with autism don’t have a disability, they’re just badly behaved. Advertisements like this one could well cause that number to increase as it implies that Dan merely had to learn to control his behaviour. The voice-over reinforces this view, "Thanks to the carers I was able to correct a lot of errors in my behaviour and become a better person." There is no mention of the effects of outside influences on the child's behaviour, or the difficulty for any child approaching the teen years in dealing with bullies ("if something pushed my buttons", "if they’d insulted me") and the pressures of growing up. There is no mention of the extra difficulties in dealing with these pressures for a child with a disability that affects communication skills, sensory precessing, and who can find certain social situations more difficult than his non-autistic peers.

Aggressive behaviour is not one of the diagnostic criteria for autism or Asperger's syndrome. The ad implies that autistic children are more likely to act aggressively than typically developing children. This is another misrepresentation.

Professor Tony Attwood, internationally respected researcher and expert on Asperger's syndrome, recently criticised this ad;

"“I am very concerned that the advert gives a message that children with autism and Asperger’s syndrome are dangerous and potentially disturbed.

When the child refers to “correct errors in my behaviour” this seems to imply ‘brain washing’ and a sense of guilt for how he behaved.
Many of the behaviours I consider as coping mechanisms for the lack of understanding and respect from other people.
He refers to reacting when people insult him. Those that insulted him need the treatment.”

The ad implied that autism was a monster trapping Dan, and after time and help from AFC, he was able to (according to the ad's imagery) climb out of this monster, into the calm green field and crush the monster with his foot when it threatened to devour him once more. It implies that Dan is no longer autistic and is much better off that way.

There has long been a view among some people, of autism as a shell which traps a "real", non-autistic children inside. It was first used by Bruno Bettleheim who described the autistic child as an "Empty Fortress" and was of the (now utterly discredited) opinion that "refrigerator mothers" cause their children to "act" autistic as a defence mechanism. This imagery is still used by those who emphasise a model of autism intervention of cure and prevention instead of helping those living with the condition to thrive. Some unscrupulous people make money by selling false therapies to desperate parents, who are even now, led to believe that they can release their precious child from the clutches of the "autism-monster". Parents of recently diagnosed children may see this advertisement and worry unnecessarily about their children and may be more willing to fall for the false promises of those selling dangerous and expensive, fake autism "treatments." The National Autistic Society study showed that 56% of their respondents thought that autism was curable. This ad helps enforce this discredited theory of autism.

11.3.4(d) That 2000 (and rising) people have joined a Facebook group protesting the ad, and that so many have left messages expressing their disappointment, worry and hurt at the ads on AFC's YouTube page, on personal blogs, parent and disability forums and that so many have already written to AFC to complain, shows that this ad has aroused strong feelings and caused great distress.

The representation of autism by the media is a very sensitive area, especially coming so soon after a great deal of public discourse about the possibility of prenatal screening for autism.

The AFC campaign isn't merely offensive. It also misrepresents autism, portraying it as an external monster to be defeated. It will damage the self esteem of young autistic people in particular to see their autism, an integral part of themselves, depicted as monster trapping them, as something to be defeated. They will see themselves depicted as frightening beings whom others fear. There are many testimonials from parents saying that their autistic children were disturbed by the ad. There are many descriptions of the hurt the ad has caused to older autistic people too. One woman tells of her 20 year old daughter who is seeking work and fears that the ad may make her less employable to employers thinking she could be aggressive and lack control.

This ad contributes to the mass of misinformation and prejudiced, negative rhetoric about autism in the media and wider society. One autistic adult wrote to me about the effect this has, that such rhetoric will, "contribute to the widespread social construction of prejudice, and how that prejudice, in the clueless hands of the general public, endlessly pelts us and pounds on us, every minute of every day, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after spirit-crushing year... "

AFC seem to have opted to jump on the autism bandwagon, thinking that autism always gets the media interest they seek, given its prominence in captivating articles like those on the MMR and the recent high profile debate on prenatal screening. AFC have used the problems of autistic children to raise their profile, but have misrepresented the condition. This is utterly unethical. Every airing of the ad furthers the potential for damage.

To end, I would like to use the words of AFC themselves. In a report produced by the charity, they say (regarding the current government's policies):
"With regard to younger children, the emphasis has been on children’s vulnerability and support for parents. With respect to older children, there has been a tendency to demonise them and to fail to see young
people’s viewpoints, which is at odds with ministers’ avowed wishes in other contexts to listen to and be seen with young people."
http://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/uploads/media/77/3333.pdf

Many young people have written to AFC, and have written on my Facebook group and on blogs and forums about how they fear this makes them appear to the public. Others have expressed their dismay and fears about this ad to their parents who have signed on their behalf. Other allies have signed because they object to the unethical depiction of autism and their concerns for the ill effects this ad is having on the people it seeks to help.

AFC know that to demonise children is wrong, that to fail to see their viewpoints is wrong.

I would like to see AFC withdraw this advertisement, apologise to the autistic community and commit to seek the input of autistic-run advocacy organizations, and well informed mainstream autism organisations like the National Autistic Society in future advertising and fundraising efforts.

Action for Children abolish odious ad early

The monster was saddened by his premature dismissal.

Something smells good today.

Our coalition of bloggers, Facebook users, disability organisations and exceedingly obliging autism professionals, have partially succeeded. Action for Children had previously expressed their intention to air the monstrous autism ad on television until February 15 in emails to Barbara Jacobs and to Mike Stanton:

"Action for Children is a major provider of services for disabled children, including some with autism. We have other significant areas of work as well, and are a leading charity working with over 178,000 of the most vulnerable children, young people and their family members.

The advert will be running until the 15th February. If you would like to further your complaint or concerns about our advertisements then you can do this by contacting the Advertising Standards Authority at www.asa.org.uk They will look in to your complaint and if your concerns are upheld then we will be instructed to change or remove the advertising." (my emphasis)

But they announced yesterday that it shall now end early on February 8. This capitulation to the huge wave of protest, bolstered by over TWO THOUSAND people joining the "Let's stop "Action for Children" demonising autistic children" Facebook group I created less than a fortnight ago, can be found on their blog:

"Thanks very much to everybody who has commented on and contacted us about Dan's story.

We had always scheduled the advertising campaign to finish on 8 February and so Sunday will be the last day that the advert runs. I wanted to let everyone who is interested know that we have genuinely listened to the different perspectives that have been expressed. We have been and will continue to take these views into account and learn the lessons as we go along. We do appreciate that people feel strongly about the areas in which we work - as do we - and it's essential that we listen to these views." (my emphasis)

It's funny that they should say this. When you read the response Action for Children have given to every one of us who complained to them, it's clear that apart from a mix up about how they chose to present "Dan's" part in the creative process (did he draw the pictures or did he just approve the ad?) they have not listened to our carefully worded and detailed concerns. We've spoken of the damage it will do to the self esteem of autistic people, how it adds to the false, damaging rhetoric about autism and perpetuates the myth of autism as a shell, hence playing into the hand of the charlatans who offer false cures that release the "normal" child trapped inside the "autism monster."

Perhaps they will now realise though, that there are lessons they must learn from what has happened. I hope so.

Of course this doesn't end here. The ad is still on their website and YouTube channel. They had intended to run a postcard campaign which would use images from the Dan slide show, and there have been ads in newspapers and posters on the London Underground. The Advertising Standards Agency have yet to make a decision on the complaints they received about the ad. If anyone wants to upload their own complaint, email me for a copy of my "5 minute guide to complaining to the ASA."

Like PETA and their laughable "got autism" billboards and NYU's pathetic "ransom notes" Action for Children are realising that you don't mess with the autistic community and their allies.

Action for Children: arrant hypocrisy

I've been reading a document that is full of excellent advice on how to portray children in film and photographs (PDF link). According to the authors, images used in publicity material must portray a:

"A positive message – Children are at the centre of everything we do, and we know for certain that children want to be portrayed in a positive way in the media. There is no point in fighting for children’s rights, if we then undermine this work, by using imagery that they will find offensive. This is in fact one of our organisation’s pledges."

Before I share more of the sensitive and considerate advice contained in this document, I will reveal that the organisation who have pledged that they will not use offensive imagery as it undermines efforts to effect children's rights, is...Action for Children.

The hypocrisy this document has uncovered is astonishing, as the following few exerts demonstrate:

"It is essential that we represent them [children] with dignity, accuracy and fairness."

Screenshot of Action for Children TV ad.

"...use positive imagery that does not exploit children and young people."

Screenshot of Action for Children TV ad.

There is guidance on how to represent children who cannot be photographed due to legal restrictions:

"Creative Services also have a large library of real Service User’s art, which can be another very effective way to give a feeling of the real person, when you can’t show their picture.

Always remember though to only use the art in a genuine context. Say, if you’re talking about an art event, or if you’re talking about the feelings of children in a particular area Action for Children work in."

While Dan's art may (or may not, it's hard to know given the conflicting stories AFC told those of us who complained) have been used in the ad, it was used in a way which negates all the other advice on this document. And just who drew the picture of a little girl struggling to hold the massive heart "burden" placed on her, as the "Nicola" ad makes out, by having a disabled mother? The woman who narrates that ad is in her twenties now.

But Action for Children have yet more tips of portraying children in a sensitive manner:

"We should aim to move beyond stereotypes of children passively receiving services and aim to portray, for example, disabled children involved in activities.
Remember we’re called Action for Children.

This is particularly important if a photograph of a disabled child or young person is being used in isolation. Care should always be taken to ensure that any impact on the children is positive. Disabled children and young people rarely see images of themselves published, so any photograph of them may have a profound effect on their self-image."

Too right! I've heard too many stories of autistic children disturbed by how people like them are depicted in the AFC Dan ad.

The chasm of difference between their stated standards and what they've actually done with their first ever TV ad, is utterly breath taking.

"Action for Children works fearlessly in the most difficult and challenging areas relating to children. We are not afraid of any issue, and know better than anyone the seriousness of the subjects we are dealing with. Because of this, and because we aim to give our service users a voice, all imagery should be authentic and sincere. Use of gratuitous imagery should be avoided at all costs..."

Gratuitous imagery...like a big scary, hairy child-eating monster rampaging about and attacking all the normal people?

"Use of gratuitous imagery should be avoided at all costs..."
Screenshot of Action for Children TV ad.

More wise words from Action for Children on representation via illustrations:

...all images should be real rather than sensational, and should take into account the feelings of the people in them, and referred to by them. The best way to work this out is to consider the context of the image, (how the accompanying text works with it etc), and then use your common sense. If in doubt, ask yourself: “How would I feel if I were portrayed like that in a photograph?”

Real images, not sensational?! What excellent advice! And what a pity they ignored it totally when making these ads. I wonder who from Action for Children decided they'd feel just peachy to be portrayed as a monster when they approved the Dan ad?

Did Action for Children consider context when they superimposed images of a rampaging, child entrapping monster with narration saying, "My parents sought out help with my autism because it was becoming a pain in the bum"? Were the feelings of people referred to, that is, autistic people, taken into account when AFC decided to put this shockingly bad ad out? Are they considering the feelings of these people when despite many, many letters of protest, comments on their own YouTube channel and the 1665 people who joined the Facebook group protesting the ad, they keep on playing on televisions in the UK? (I'm well aware that AFC are watching the group and the blogs, their ISP has been all over this blog in the past few days, always following Facebook links to get here.)

Action for Children, whoever is reading this, please, do the right thing, follow your own excellent guidelines for portraying children and young people in an ethical, sensitive, respectful and honest manner, and get this gutter level, shock and awe, false, sensationalist and damaging ad taken off our televisions.

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen speaks about Action for Children ad

I've been granted permission to share a recent email I received from Professor Baron-Cohen of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge University regarding the current advertising campaign by Action for Children:


"Whilst I support any efforts to help children with autism and to alleviate suffering, I hope there will be more thought given to both the language and the imagery we use, to avoid risk of offence. For example, the name of the charity DAN contains the word "Defeat", as if autism is a disease like cancer against which we have to wage war. Autism is a complex mix of disability and strength, and whilst we need to work to find imaginative ways to reduce the disabling aspects, we do not wish to "defeat autism" since this would also eliminate the positive aspects. The latter include an excellent attention to detail, excellent memory for detail, and the ability to focus for long periods on a narrow topic. These features are not just seen in the high-functioning individuals or those with Asperger Syndrome but are seen right across the autistic spectrum. Sometimes these positive aspects can result in remarkable talents.

We need to work to get the balance right, between using treatments for those aspects of autism that need treatment (such as the language difficulties, the epilepsy, the self-injury, the gut issues, or the learning difficulties) and encouraging those aspects of autism that do not need treatment and are special, so that the person can fulfil their potential. An image of a child as a demon in an ad campaign is equally unhelpful if we are to educate the public about autism. These issues, about language and imagery, are important if we take seriously the notion of neurodiversity, and wish to show respect towards those who are neurotypical and neuroatypical."

There is nothing I can add to this but my thanks to Professor Baron-Cohen for adding his voice to those of Professor Tony Attwood, Dr Mitzi Waltz, and renowned authors like Professor Roy Grinker, Donna Williams and Barbara Jacobs, who have all publicly demonstrated their objections to this unethical, misrepresentative and damaging ad.