BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 132/95 Dated the 16th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SPECTRUM of Nelson Broadcaster BAYS TELEVISION LIMITED of Nelson J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod DECISION Summary Still Craving for Love was the title of a programme produced by the Christian Resource Centre and broadcast by Bays Television on 7 May 1995. The programme examined sexual development and, particularly, the development of homosexuality. It argued that religious faith was one way of changing that orientation. On behalf of Spectrum, Mr James (the Secretary) complained to Bays Television Ltd that the programme was unbalanced. He pointed out that the Authority had upheld a complaint about the same programme on that ground in mid 1994. Arguing that the programme's producers had added a disclaimer at the beginning of the broadcast to comply with the Authority's ruling in 1994, Bays Television declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with that decision, Mr James on Spectrum's behalf referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority upheld the complaint. Decision The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority has determined the complaint without a formal hearing. On behalf of Spectrum, Henry James (the Secretary) complained to Bays Television about the broadcast of Still Craving for Love at 9.25pm on Sunday 7 May. Recalling that the Broadcasting Standards Authority had upheld a complaint when the item was broadcast by Canterbury Television (CTV) in Christchurch in 1994, Mr James alleged that the broadcast on 7 May also breached the broadcasting standards. In a later letter, he stated that the item breached standards G4, G6 and G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Bays Television advised Spectrum that, in view of the Authority's earlier decision, the producers of the Up-Front series, the Christian Resource Centre, had modified the start of the programme by adding a disclaimer. The disclaimer, added by the Centre in good faith, stated: ... When change is desired what is involved and how can this be achieved. This is a controversial subject, Neil and Briar Whitehead give us a point of view - one that is not always presented - to those still craving for love. Pointing out that the programme was scheduled in the slot advertised as "Christian Living", the broadcaster wrote: Bays Television has in good faith, included "Craving for Love" in this series as being a sincere and compassionate approach to homosexuality, does not intend to offend but merely offer a point of view which is not always or readily presented to those in the community seeking a change of lifestyle. Bays Television assessed the programme under the nominated standards which require broadcasters: G4 To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any programme. G6 To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature. G13 To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of the community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupational status, sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or political belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material which is: i) factual, or ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current affairs programme, or iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work It declined to uphold the complaint. When the complaint was referred to the Authority, Mr James on Spectrum's behalf argued that the disclaimer was patronising and offensive. Further, he maintained that it did not reduce the item's imbalance or the absolute views advanced which, he maintained, were the reasons for the 1994 complaint being upheld. The Authority made the following comments in Decision No: 54/94 when deciding whether the broadcast by CTV of Still Craving For Love on 1 December 1993 breached standard G6. The Authority first considered, and dismissed, the complaint under standards G1, G21, G2, G5, G7 and G13. As standard G13 was also cited by Spectrum, the Authority repeated its conclusion on the earlier occasion when it wrote: Standard G13 requires broadcasters not to encourage the denigration of or discrimination against a section of the community on account, among other things, of sexual orientation. In view of the nature of the programme during which the comments were made (discussed below), the Authority decided that whether or not it encouraged discrimination or denigration was irrelevant in view of the exemptions contained in the standard. The Authority has already recorded its unwillingness to adjudicate on the accuracy of the facts advanced in the programme and, therefore, the factual exemption to standard G13 cannot be relied upon. However, standard G13 allows an exemption for the expression of a genuinely- held opinion and the Authority was in no doubt that the material would qualify as genuinely-held opinion regardless of its basis, or lack of it, in fact. The earlier complaint focussed on standard G6 and the Authority began by deciding that the programme, although it was apparent from the listing and the end credits that it advanced a religious perspective, nevertheless was a current affairs programme. It continued: Canterbury Upfront on 1 December 1993 was broadcast as a current affairs documentary dealing with current issues and the Authority determined the complaint on that basis. If the broadcast had been introduced in a way which explained explicitly to the casual viewer that the programme, in dealing with current issues, would be principally presenting one perspective only, then it might be possible to conclude that standard G6 was not contravened as viewers would be aware that there were alternative perspectives. To ensure that a breach did not occur, that item would have to at least acknowledge that there were other points of view. However, that did not occur. The commentators were not impartial in dealing with a controversial issue. Their views were presented with clarity but they were also presented as absolutes. Accordingly, the Authority concluded, the broadcast did not meet the requirement in standard G6 for balance and impartiality. Spectrum also complained that the broadcast breached standard G4. As the broadcast did not seem to deal unfairly with any of the people shown during the broadcast, the Authority considered that it was a complaint that the programme dealt unfairly with homosexuals. In view of the requirements for fairness in standard G6, the Authority has, on this occasion, subsumed the standard G4 aspect of the complaint under standard G6. The broadcaster maintained that the broadcast did not breach the standards because of the statement added by the producers to the beginning of the programme. A spokesperson introduced the programme in the following way: Today, we look at the development of sexuality, in particular, homosexuality. To what extent is it genetics or is it a lifestyle choice and when change is desired what is involved and how can this be achieved? This is a controversial subject, Neil and Briar Whitehead give us a point of view - one that is not always presented - to those still craving for love. The Authority has accepted in its previous decisions that the balance requirement in the standards might not be contravened should a broadcast explain explicitly from the outset that only one view among a number is to be advanced. The statement included on this occasion, however, was insufficient to comply with this interpretation of the standard. The approach taken did not accept that any other perspective had any validity. The perspective advanced, it was implied, was correct. The complaint about the original programme, which did not include the above statement, was upheld because it was found that partial opinions had been presented as absolute facts. The added statement, the Authority decided, was equivocal at best and failed to convey strongly the message that the issue was one on which widely different views were held. The broadcast amounted to advocating one perspective. The item was advertised as containing a Christian perspective. However, the viewpoint advanced did not pretend to be the Christian perspective but one propounded by the Whiteheads. The broadcast amounted to advocating one perspective. While acknowledging that a statement had been added, apparently with the intention of leavening the position proposed in Still Craving for Love, the Authority concluded that it did not explain clearly enough that the narrow position so fervently advanced was but one among many. In adopting that approach, the programme contravened the requirements for balance, impartiality and fairness set out in standard G6. For the above reasons, the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast by Bays Television Ltd of Still Craving for Love on 7 May 1995 breached standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint. Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose an order under s.13(1) of the Broadcasting Act. It declined to do so when it upheld the complaint following the screening by CTV for a number of reasons, one of which was that viewers, because of the controversial nature of the subject, were unlikely to watch a programme such as Still Craving for Love in an informational vacuum. For this reason, along with the producers' subsequent efforts to provide balance, the Authority has decided not to impose an order on this occasion. Signed for and on behalf of the Authority Judith Potter Chairperson 16 November 1995 Appendix Spectrum's Complaint to Bays Television Ltd - 27 May 1995 On behalf of Spectrum, Henry James the Secretary complained to Bays Television Ltd (through the Broadcasting Standards Authority ) about the broadcast of Still Craving for Love on 7 May. Mr James noted that the Authority, as reported in the Nelson "Evening Mail" on 15 July 1994, had upheld aspects of a complaint following an earlier broadcast of the item. He sought the Authority's direction on the correct process by which to complain formally that Bays TV had breached the broadcasting standards. The Authority advised Mr James that it had forwarded his complaint to Bays TV. Mr James also sent a copy of his formal complaint to Bays TV and, in the covering letter, reported that the couple featured in Still Craving for Love, Neil and Briar Whitehead, were well-known for their anti-gay views. In a further letter to Bays TV, dated 9 June 1995, Mr James alleged that the broadcast of Still Craving for Love breached standards G4, G6 and G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Bays TV Response to the Formal Complaint - 15 June 1995 Bays TV advised Spectrum that it was aware of the previous upheld complaint. Before the broadcast, it added, it had been advised by the producers, the Christian Resource Centre, that the programme had been modified by the addition of a disclaimer at the start of the programme which stated: "... When change is desired what is involved and how can this be achieved. This is a controversial subject, Neil and Briar Whitehead give us a point of view - one that is not always presented - to those still craving for love" The producers, it added, had taken the initiative in making that change. Bays TV described the programme and the series of which it was part in the following way: The Up-front series is advertised in all Bays Television scheduling as "Christian Living Upfront". The subject matter included in each programme has a Christian theme as implied by the title. Bays Television has in good faith, included "Craving for Love" in this series as being a sincere and compassionate approach to homosexuality, does not intend to offend but merely offer a point of view which is not always or readily presented to those in the community seeking a change of lifestyle. Bays TV objected to the fact that the complainants had written initially to the programme's sponsors rather than to it. It concluded: It is also noted from your telephone number as being a Takaka listing. Since Bays Television does not broadcast into Takaka (Golden Bay) you might have been unaware or misled as to the change to the programme content. Further Correspondence On Spectrum's behalf, on 28 June 1995, Mr James advised Bays TV that it considered the additional statement to be "highly loaded" and lacking in objectivity, explaining: For example, inclusion of the phrase "craving for love" implies that gay people are not able to receive and give love. This is a manifestly untrue statement as the many gay couples living very full, happy and loving lives can testify and the wording of the disclaimer significantly denigrates those and the other gay people who are fully capable of love. Lack of social acceptance, not the absence of the ability to love, he continued, was the main reason why some gay people wanted to change their sexual orientation. It was accepted that Bays TV acted in good faith in broadcasting the programme but, Mr James argued, the programme was one-sided and Bays TV explanation displayed confusion in describing homosexuality as a life style rather than as a sexual identity. Spectrum maintained that the broadcast of Still Craving for Love again breached the standards and that an apology, along with a discussion by Spectrum members of homosexual issues, was now Bays TV's appropriate action. In its reply dated 15 August, Bays TV stated that as Still Craving for Love had been modified, its broadcast on 7 May did not amount to a breach of the standards. It noted that it might take up in the future the offer from Spectrum for its members to participate in a studio debate. Spectrum's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 2 September 1995 Dissatisfied with Bays TV's response contained in its letter of 15 August 1995, Mr James on Spectrum's behalf referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. Mr James referred to the Authority's previous decision in which a complaint about the broadcast of the programme had been upheld (No: 54/94, 7 July 1994) and insisted that the disclaimer at the beginning of the programme was insufficient to rectify the deficiencies earlier identified. The disclaimer, he continued, was patronising and offensive to men in loving and stable relationships. The programme breached the standards and, in addition to some serious errors of fact about the Kinsey Report, had not dealt with a controversial subject impartially. For example, dysfunctional family relationships were categorically cited as a cause of homosexuality. While that might be a contributing cause, Mr James maintained, it was manifestly untrue in the great majority of cases. The broadcast, he concluded, had breached standard G6. Bays TV's Response to the Authority - 2 October 1995 Bays TV advised the Authority that it did not wish to comment further on the complaint. 1 iii