Enemies of Reason Poundshop potshots at the media moral maze.

Blooming cheek 2

In all that Maily Day excitement yesterday, one of my entries was about how the Mail reported the Government being censured about misleading climate change adverts.

This despite the fact that they'd been ticked off by the ASA themselves previously, regarding claims on the front page about 'free' bulbs which required readers to pay for postage and packaging. A story that didn't trouble the scorers in the Mail.

The ASA said back then:

"We considered the cost of postage and packing was a significant condition that could affect a consumer's decision to purchase the paper, and should therefore be stated on the cover. Because it was not, we concluded the ad was misleading."

Despite that, in the same paper in which they were reporting the Government's ASA upbraiding, they carried a new front-page plug for 'free' flowers... for which readers had to pay postage and packaging costs. That sounds almost exactly the same kind of thing that they got in trouble for last time, doesn't it?

And today...

I wonder if readers have to pay P&P costs this time? It's certainly not mentioned on the front page... ?

And I wonder if anyone will write to the ASA to complain about these ads?

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Related posts:

1. Mail Day, part 5: Blooming cheek
2. Mail rapped over misleading front page
3. Mail Day, part 2: Ad nauseum
4. And the award for worst bit of free shit offered by a Saturday paper goes to…