The Financial Times Censors Anti-Shell Ad

by Meredith Slater · 2010-05-21 11:06:00 UTC
Topics:

Human rights violations, environmental degradation — yes, even complicity in an execution. These are just some of the allegations Royal Dutch Shell is facing in Nigeria.

But they aren't allegations that the Financial Times wants you to hear about.

This week, Amnesty International planned to run a hard-hitting ad in the prestigious U.K.-based paper, contrasting Shell Nigeria's $9.8 billion profits with its track record of pollution in the Niger Delta. Amnesty raised funds from 2,000 supporters to run the advertisement, and submitted the ad for the Financial Times to run on Tuesday — the day of Shell's annual general meeting in London.

The ad, which shows a champagne glass overflowing with oil, reads: "While Shell toasts $9.8bn profits, the people of the Niger Delta are having to drink polluted water. They're also having to grow crops in polluted soil. To catch fish in polluted rivers. And to raise children in polluted homes. So if you've got shares in Shell, ask the board to explain themselves when they raise their glasses at today's agm. Cheers."

But the ad never ran in the Financial Times. At the last minute (4:58pm the day before, to be precise), the publication pulled it, claiming that "Editorially, the FT was more than willing to run the advertisement for Amnesty. Unfortunately, whilst Amnesty gave us written assurances that they would take full responsibility for the comments and opinions stated in the advertisement, it became apparent that Amnesty's lawyers had not had a proper opportunity to advise Amnesty on those opinions. As a result, from a legal perspective we were unable to rely on Amnesty's assurances."

But as Amnesty International U.K.'s campaigns director Tim Hancock reports, the Metro and the Evening Standard had no problem running the ad.

So why the big fuss by the Financial Times? And why the last-minute change of heart? According to one source, the publication was wary of libel claims from people who might mistake the oil in the glass for blood. But it's unlikely that Shell would sue. The company has taken enough blows for its policies in the Niger Delta that it would hardly want the attention of a trial. Perhaps it was fear that Shell would cut back on the hefty advertising budget that, not incidentally, happens to support the Financial Times?

Whatever the reason, FT's decision to pull the Amnesty International ad at the very last moment is shameful. Tell the Financial Times that you support Amnesty International in standing up to Shell against their reprehensible policies in the Niger Delta.

Photo Credit: Amnesty International

Meredith Slater works as a grant writer for organizations such as Friends of the World Food Program and Henry Street Settlement.

RELATED PETITION

Tell The Financial Times to Stand with Amnesty International, Not Shell
SIGN PETITION
520 People
PREVIOUS STORY:
From Waziristan to NYC: Drones Are No Joking Matter
NEXT STORY:
Campaign about Apple Factories in China Gains Wide and Diverse Support

COMMENTS (6)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.