Zoo says sorry for hottest asylum seeker contest
Men’s magazine Zoo Weekly has apologised after a backlash against a competition to find Australia’s ‘hottest asylum seeker’.
The feature prompted Zoo Weekly editor Tim Keen to publicly apologise after an online petition by Change.org raised 5,000 signatures.
“Zoo is happy to print an apology to those readers who were offended by our take on a very serious topic; and to acknowledge that for asylum seekers and refugees, and their families and supporters, it’s a subject too important for jokes,” Keen said.
The apology will run on the home page of Zooweekly.com.au and in print next week, an ACP spokesperson told Mumbrella.
The petition was started by Newcastle resident Matt Darvas, who said that the competition ‘dehumanised’ asylum seekers. “Zoo is part of Australia’s largest magazine publishing company, ACP Magazines, and I’d like a clear commitment from them that they won’t tolerate this kind of behaviour in the future,” he told Change.org.
Meanwhile, it also raised the profile of asylum seekers. At least amongst those who likely give little thought currently.
Lauren Rosewarne, no shrinking feminist commentator, gives a slightly less reactionary view on the subject via ABC http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4139122.html
User ID not verified.
Hey Mumbrella,
Thanks for picking up the story. I’ve written an opinion piece explaining the reasons why I started the petition. You’ll notice they largely weren’t to do with ZOO mag but the broader problem I see, which is our continual desire in the Aus media to apply ‘labels’ to asylum seekers that serve to dehumanize them and their personal stories.
http://mattdarvas.com/2012/07/.....mpetition/
User ID not verified.
So who won? Pics?
User ID not verified.
and the team at The Roast also wondered how you can airbrush out emotional scars and http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?s.....view/24206 as did Wendy Harmer’s piece at The Hoopla
User ID not verified.
Matt, plaudits for showing up Zoo Weekly’s puerile promo. But I have to take issue with the following statement on your blog: “No one chooses to be an asylum seeker.” In the context of the current debate on asylum seekers, this is patently and objectively untrue.
The fact is there are many among the current boat people/asylum seekers who actually do make a conscious decision to become asylum seekers and are country shopping simply to obtain a better life. Cue Capt Ahmad, the people smuggler, who brought his family to Canberra. I don’t blame them for that – people will always rort a system if its rortable. So let’s not pretend that every person who flies into Indonesia via Malaysia, and then pays $$s to people smugglers to board a boat is ‘fleeing’ persecution. Otherwise they would not bypass safe havens,(which was the original aim of the original Refugee Convention), ditch their passports overboard and call the surveillance boys to say ‘come get us, we’re here’
People smuggling is a lucrative business and there are plenty of paying customers – 12 boats in the past week alone. Your refugee friends from east Africa are without a doubt some of the most deserving cases. Ironically, it’s the record numbers of boat people arrivals which is preventing these very refugees being able to bring their relatives to Australia under family reunion. More reunion places are being taken by those who choose to country shop and arrive by boat.
So, in your well-meaning zeal to speak up for refugees/asylum seekers, don’t fall into the trap of asserting that all are genuine refugees. They’re not, and a lot of people resent being constantly told they are.
User ID not verified.
Brilliant marketing concept? While this competition has been scrapped, it has brilliantly raised the profile of Zoo amongst its target audience. Trust me – 18-29 year old men would not have been offended. They would have understood it as a crude, but very funny joke. Guys who previously thought Zoo had lost its ‘edge’, may now reconsider the mag. The only people this stunt has offended are people who never would have bought Zoo in the first place.
Stunts like these are what keep Zoo relevant to the guys who love reading lads mags.
User ID not verified.
it’s Zoo weekly for goodness sake…
User ID not verified.
Thanks Drew and PR Pro for the comments, you both make solid points. If I could respond;
– Drew: I almost didn’t start the campaign with this in mind. However, I believed that the negative attention ZOO would receive might have led to parent-company ACP Magazines giving this offensive mag the axe for good. See Mumbrella article on how bad they’re fairing at the moment – https://mumbrella.com.au/abcs-zoos-fall-continues-91130
PR Pro: You make a fair point. I guess I was referring to those ultimately proven as ‘legitimate’ refugees in the end, which statistically is just about every asylum seeker that arrives by boat (Note that 85–90% of boat arrivals are generally granted a protection visa – Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA)). I don’t aim to be naïve or overly idealistic but we need to have a more compassionate response to asylum seekers based on the realities and not fear or doubt.
User ID not verified.
Hi Matt. While Zoo has lost considerable readers recently, I feel it’s because they have been playing it too safe. When the brand first launched in Australia, it was doing edgy PR stunts on a weekly basis. Most of these were crude and shocking. I’m sure if you and change.org were on the scene back then, you’d be writing complaint letters on a weekly basis!
Australia needs publications like Zoo, they underpin our Aussie larrikin humour. The country would be a very dull place without this ‘pub’ humour. While the plight of asylum seekers is a terrible one, we all need to lighten up. It’s Zoo magazine!!! Keep the stunts flowing guys if you want to reconnect with your audience.
User ID not verified.