• The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has introduced new rules to ban advertisements that portray harmful gender stereotypes.
• This includes scenarios where men are shown relaxing while women clean or women are depicted as poor drivers.
• The new rules have already led to the banning of two television adverts, one for cars and another for cream cheese, which were deemed to violate the guidelines.
• The ban is grounded in research indicating that gender stereotyping in ads is widely objected to by the public.
• The ASA's review found that such stereotypes can restrict people's options, potential, and aspirations, thereby reinforcing gender inequality.

• Gender stereotyping in advertising is considered harmful and offensive because it can limit individuals' potential and reinforce unequal gender roles.
• The ASA's research suggests that these stereotypes can hinder people's choices, aspirations, and opportunities, perpetuating gender inequality.

Advocates:
• Jim Coulson: supports the ban, arguing that advertisements influence the subconscious and thus need regulation to prevent the reinforcement of negative stereotypes.
Critics:
• Angela Epstein: criticizes the ban, suggesting that focusing on minor issues like adverts dilutes attention from more significant gender-related conflicts, such as pay equality and workplace bullying.
• Fionola Meredith: opposes the ASA's decision, arguing that people are not easily harmed by advertisements as they do not take them at face value.
• She believes the influence of ads on career choices is overstated and that advertisements mainly affect purchasing decisions.
• Meredith also contends that the ASA's actions are patronizing, as they underestimate people's ability to judge and think for themselves.

• The BBC uses factual and neutral language to present the information.
• The headline is straightforward: "A ban on adverts featuring 'harmful gender stereotypes' or those which are likely to cause 'serious or widespread offence' has come into force."
• The article presents the reasons for the ban objectively, such as "limiting people's potential," without emotional or subjective language.
• Words like "harmful," "limiting people's potential," and "serious or widespread offence" are used to highlight the negative effects of gender stereotypes.
• These terms are used to explain the rationale behind the ASA's decision.
• The BBC article references evidence from the ASA review and includes comments from experts like Fernando Desouches, lending credibility to the ban and its effectiveness.
• The article states, "The review had found evidence suggesting that harmful stereotypes could 'restrict the choices, aspirations and opportunities of children, young people and adults.'"
• The article presents different viewpoints, quoting both Jim Coulson, who supports the ban, and Angela Epstein, who criticizes it.
• This balanced approach provides a comprehensive view of the issue.

• Meredith uses emotive and persuasive language to criticize the ASA's decision.
• The headline, "Banning 'sexist' ads for cars and cream cheese an insult to the intelligence of every woman," immediately sets a negative tone.
• Phrases like "bizarrely draconian" and "whatever that means" are used to mock the ASA's rationale.
• Meredith uses terms with strong negative connotations, such as "absurd," "State censors," and "gullible, credulous idiots," to portray the ASA's actions as extreme and unjustified.
• This language is intended to convince readers of her viewpoint.
• Irony and exaggeration are used to ridicule the ASA's decision.
• Statements like "Images of hapless dads and happy mothers - honestly, could you imagine anything more offensive and harmful to the wellbeing of our society?" and "State censors" mock the perceived severity of the ASA's actions.
• Phrases like "throwing in the house-husbanding towel" use vivid imagery to undermine the ASA's claims about the effects of gender stereotypes in ads.
• Meredith frequently uses rhetorical questions, imperatives, and personal pronouns to engage readers directly and create a sense of involvement.
• Examples include, "Could you imagine...?", "where is the evidence...?", "Look,...", and "we/us."
• This approach makes readers feel part of the argument and questions the legitimacy of the ASA's actions.
• Describing the ASA as "clumsy, authoritarian and deeply patronising" emphasizes Meredith's view that the ASA underestimates the public's ability to make judgments.
• "If you don't like the advert, don't buy the product." This statement reduces the issue of gender stereotyping to a matter of consumer choice, dismissing the need for regulatory intervention.

• The BBC article (Text 1) uses neutral, factual language and provides a balanced view by presenting both support and criticism for the ASA's ban on gender stereotypes in advertising.
• It relies on evidence and expert opinions to explain the rationale behind the ban.
• In contrast, Meredith's article (Text 2) uses emotive, persuasive, and colloquial language to criticize the ASA's decision.
• Meredith employs irony, exaggeration, and rhetorical questions to engage readers and challenge the legitimacy of the ban, ultimately presenting the issue as a matter of personal choice rather than regulatory necessity.

In 2015, BIC released an advertisement to celebrate Women's Day in South Africa, featuring a message that read: "Look like a girl, act like a lady, think like a man, work like a boss." This advert received significant backlash on social media and was widely criticized for its sexist implications, leading to an apology from BIC. The controversy surrounding the ad raises important questions about gender stereotypes in advertising and the ethical responsibilities of companies in their marketing practices.

• The ad perpetuates outdated and harmful stereotypes by implying that women's success is contingent upon adopting male characteristics or conforming to traditional gender roles.
• This messaging can undermine gender equality by suggesting that women need to "think like a man" to be successful, which is both patronizing and dismissive of women's capabilities.
• Companies have a responsibility to promote positive and inclusive messages.
• An ad that offends or alienates a segment of the population can damage the brand's reputation and consumer trust.
• Given the increasing awareness and advocacy for gender equality, such an advertisement is considered ethically irresponsible.
• The strong negative reaction to the original ad highlights the potential for significant public backlash.
• In today's social media-driven world, offensive advertisements can quickly go viral, leading to widespread condemnation and long-lasting damage to the brand's image.
• Advertising standards in many countries have evolved to prevent the dissemination of content that can be seen as discriminatory or offensive.
• Regulatory bodies often set guidelines to ensure that advertisements do not perpetuate harmful stereotypes or bias.
• Banning such ads aligns with these standards and helps to maintain a more respectful and equitable advertising environment.

• Some may argue that banning advertisements infringes on a company's freedom of expression.
• Advertisers should be allowed to create content that aligns with their brand identity, even if it includes controversial elements, as long as it does not cross legal boundaries.
• Rather than banning the ad outright, it could serve as a case study for what not to do in advertising.
• Companies can learn from BIC's mistakes and understand the importance of sensitivity and inclusiveness in their marketing strategies.
• This approach promotes growth and awareness rather than censorship.
• The advertisement was created nearly a decade ago, and societal norms and awareness have since evolved.
• While it was deemed inappropriate then and would likely be seen similarly today, understanding the historical context can provide insights into how marketing strategies and public perceptions have changed over time.

Given the significant progress in gender equality and the heightened sensitivity to issues of sexism and discrimination in today's society, the arguments for banning the BIC advert are compelling. The reinforcement of gender stereotypes, the ethical responsibility of companies, the risk of public backlash, and the adherence to modern advertising standards all support the view that such an advertisement should not be allowed. However, it's also crucial to balance this with considerations of freedom of expression and the potential for educational use. Ultimately, while banning the ad might be appropriate to prevent harm, it should also serve as a reminder and a learning opportunity for companies to develop more inclusive and respectful advertising practices.

Speech: The Power and Influence of Digital Media on Society

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed guests, and fellow peers,

It is an honour to stand before you today at this international youth conference to discuss a topic that profoundly impacts our lives: the influence of digital media on society. In this digital age, media is omnipresent, shaping our perceptions, behaviours, and realities in ways we might not always recognize. Today, I will assess the extent to which people are manipulated by digital media and the implications of this influence on our society.

• One of the most insidious ways digital media manipulates us is through algorithms.
• These algorithms curate content based on our preferences and past behaviour, creating echo chambers where we are only exposed to information that reinforces our existing beliefs.
• This selective exposure can distort our understanding of reality and polarize our opinions, making us more susceptible to manipulation.
• The rapid spread of fake news and misinformation is another critical issue.
• Digital media platforms often prioritize sensational content that garners clicks and engagement, irrespective of its veracity.
• This environment allows false information to spread quickly, influencing public opinion and even political outcomes.
• The manipulation here is not just about spreading falsehoods but also about eroding trust in credible sources of information.
• Digital media is designed to capture our attention and keep us engaged.
• Platforms use psychological tactics, such as intermittent rewards and notifications, to create addictive patterns of behavior.
• Emotional content, particularly that which evokes anger, fear, or joy, is more likely to be shared, creating a cycle of emotional manipulation that keeps us hooked and continuously consuming content.
• Advertising on digital media is highly targeted, leveraging our data to deliver tailored messages that influence our purchasing decisions.
• This level of personalization can lead to a sense of being constantly watched and manipulated into buying products we might not need, driven by sophisticated marketing strategies that exploit our desires and insecurities.

• Digital media companies wield immense power over what information we see and how we see it.
• This power comes with a responsibility to ensure that their platforms are not used to manipulate users harmfully.
• Transparency in how algorithms work, efforts to combat fake news, and protection of user data are crucial steps these companies must take to mitigate manipulation.
• While the influence of digital media is undeniable, we are not powerless.
• Education and awareness are our greatest tools. By developing critical thinking skills and media literacy, we can become more discerning consumers of information.
• Understanding how digital media works and recognizing the tactics used to manipulate us can help us navigate this complex landscape more effectively.
• Question the sources of your information.
• Look for credible, unbiased sources, and cross-check facts before accepting them as truth. Be aware of your own biases and how they might affect your judgment.
• Taking regular breaks from digital media can help reduce its manipulative effects.
• Engaging in offline activities, connecting with nature, and having face-to-face interactions can provide a healthier balance.
• Advocate for greater transparency and accountability from digital media companies.
• Support policies and regulations that protect users from manipulation and ensure the ethical use of data.

The extent to which people are manipulated by digital media is significant, but it is not insurmountable. By being aware of how we are influenced and taking proactive steps to counteract manipulation, we can reclaim our autonomy and use digital media as a tool for positive change. Let us commit to becoming informed and responsible digital citizens, shaping a future where media empowers rather than manipulates. Thank you.