BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A discussion arising from research which showed that girls performed better

academically at school than boys was the theme of a Fraser programme broadcast on

30 October 1994 between 9.40–10.40pm.

Mr Zohrab complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

programme was unfair and unbalanced because it did not make sufficient effort to

present the male point of view and further, that it discriminated against men.

Pointing out that a large number of views were expressed in the programme, TVNZ

rejected the complaint that the item was unfair, unbalanced or discriminated against

men. It noted that the views of the two women panellists were challenged by the

presenter while the male panellist was articulate in his insistence that boys were

disadvantaged by the education system. Dissatisfied with that decision, Mr Zohrab

referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declined to uphold 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.


A British report on a study which showed that girls outperformed boys in schoolwork

was the subject of a discussion on Fraser on 30 October 1994 at 9.40pm. The

programme comprised a panel of three experts in the field of education (two women

and one man), and an invited studio audience. The discussion opened with an

interview with the British researcher whose findings showed that girls outperformed

boys academically. The three panellists spoke briefly about trends in New Zealand

before the discussion was opened to the audience.

Mr Zohrab, who described himself as an activist for men's rights, complained that the

programme was unfair because it failed to give the male point of view. He accused the

presenter of being deferential to the female speakers and of belittling the remarks made

by male speakers, arguing that there were not enough opportunities for the male view

to be put forward in a fair manner.

TVNZ reported that it had considered the complaint under standards G6 and G13 of

the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards require broadcasters:

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, occupation

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.

Noting that in the programme a large number of views were expressed, TVNZ

observed that the discussion highlighted an issue which has the potential for far-

reaching consequences for schools and for educators. It advised that it had found no

evidence that the programme lacked balance. It noted that one of the speakers had

suggested that boys were disadvantaged and others had recommended that there

should be more research into why they were not matching girls in academic skills.

TVNZ also rejected the complaint that the programme represented males as inherently

inferior or that it discriminated against them. It pointed out that the fact that girls

often outperformed boys in school work was well-established and noted that factual

matters are allowed for under G13(i).

The Authority noted that the discussion focused on a factual issue - that research in

Britain showed girls were achieving better results than boys at school - and examined

whether that same phenomenon appeared to be occurring in New Zealand. Among the

questions put to the studio audience and to viewers were: Why are girls more

successful? Are boys and girls treated equally? Do schools favour boys or girls? Do

schools treat all students equally? Various explanations were given for the differences,

with some discussion about the impact of single sex education, availability of role

models and the fact that the trend did not appear to be translated into the workplace.

Teachers, administrators and students were all given an opportunity to air their views.

While it was clear that many girls were performing well academically, the point was

also made that the school with the top performances in New Zealand was an all boys'

school. The Authority did not consider that a male view was lacking, being of the

opinion that there were many different male views, a cross-section of which were

aired. It concluded that the programme was balanced and fair.

With reference to the complaint under standard G13, the Authority agreed with

TVNZ that the factual exemption in standard G13(i) applied.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
13 February 1995

Appendix

Mr Peter Zohrab's Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited - 12

November 1994

Mr Peter Zohrab of Wainuiomata complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the

broadcast of Fraser on 30 October 1994 was in breach of broadcasting standards.

The discussion focused on recent research which showed that as a general rule, girls

performed better academically at school than did boys. Three panellists presented

their views and contributions were also made by invited members of the audience. Mr

Zohrab, who described himself as an activist for Men's Rights, claimed that the

programme was unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced because it did not make sufficient

effort to present the male point of view. He accused the presenter of being "unctuous

and deferential to all women and girl speakers" while belittling the remarks made by

men. He wrote:

With Fraser openly treating the Female point of view as the only normal or

serious point of view possible, and with him making fun of or putting down

the only males who put forward a pro-male point of view, there were not

sufficient opportunities for the male view to be put forward in a fair manner.

In addition, Mr Zohrab claimed that the racial composition of the audience contributed

to it being an unfair programme, suggesting that generally speaking white males were

more docile than men of other races and less likely to backchat dominant women.

Mr Zohrab also complained that the programme portrayed men in a manner which

encouraged denigration of or discrimination against them. He suggested that the views

of the only articulate adult male who participated were portrayed by the presenter as

illegitimate or socially stigmatised as well as ridiculous.

He suggested that he was someone TVNZ could call on if it wished to produce another

programme on boys and girls in education which gave more weight to the male

viewpoint.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 12 December 1994

TVNZ reported that the discussion grew from a report earlier that week on a British

study which had shown that as a rule girls performed better than boys at school. It

noted that the discussion focused on why girls did better and whether there was an

need to persist with an affirmative action policy to ensure that girls had equal

educational opportunities.

TVNZ rejected the complaint that the programme was unbalanced. It began by noting

that it doubted there was such a thing as a "male point of view" arguing that such an

assumption was both simplistic and misguided. It pointed out that in the programme

a wide number of views were expressed, beginning with the English professor who

answered questions about the findings of his research and who made the observation

that the better academic performance of girls could not be ascribed to a genetic

predisposition.

The two women panellists, TVNZ noted, were challenged by the presenter on the

matter of continuing affirmative action policies for girls and the male panellist was

articulate in his insistence that boys were being disadvantaged in the system.

Referring to Mr Zohrab's complaint that the presenter ridiculed the male panellist,

TVNZ responded that the comments were made as a response to uninvited

interjections from the panellist during the discussion with the audience and denied that

they ridiculed him.

TVNZ concluded that there was no evidence that the programme lacked balance. It

believed the discussion brought to the public's attention an anomaly in the education

system with the potential for far-reaching consequences. It noted that a variety of

views were given.

With respect to standard G13, TVNZ did not accept that the programme represented

males as inherently inferior or that it discriminated against them. It observed that the

fact that girls often out-perform boys in schoolwork was well established and that

factual matters were allowed for under standard G13 (i).

Mr Zohrab's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 26 December

1994

When he referred his complaint to the Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting

Act 1989, Mr Zohrab repeated his view that the programme was unfair, inaccurate and

unbalanced because it did not make sufficient effort to present the male point of view.

He complained that TVNZ in its reply had ignored both the incident where one of the

boys in the audience was put down and the issue of the ethnic composition of the

audience. Referring to TVNZ's interpretation of the presenter's comments when the

male panellist interjected, Mr Zohrab described its view as a half truth and argued that

the presenter's first comment ("You're going to have to answer for this") was not in

response to any interjection but occurred when the panellist began to give his views.

Mr Zohrab maintained that after the male panellist stated that boys were

disadvantaged in schools, the remark attracted such a ferocious response from the

audience that the presenter buckled under social pressure and ceased to be neutral from

that point on.

He also rejected TVNZ's claim that there was no such thing as a male point of view.

He argued that such a term did not imply that every member of the group concerned

shared the view.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 13 January 1995

Noting that it had little to add to its previous responses, TVNZ observed that it

remained puzzled by Mr Zohrab's preoccupation with there being a male and female

point of view. It suggested that an issue such as this would not be split along gender

lines and there would be both males and females holding to each of the various views

as to why girls should outperform boys.

TVNZ considered the programme was a fair and balanced look at the subject and was

not in breach of standard G6. It added:

As far as G13 is concerned we note that the figures which show girls

outperform boys in scholastic work are a matter of fact allowed under sub-

clause (i). Further we observe that there was no suggestion that boys are

inherently inferior to girls - and the debate ranged over the type of environment

and societal factors that might come into play to explain why girls do better in

school.

It concluded that it did not share Mr Zohrab's views about the demeanour and attitude

of the presenter and considered that he quite properly challenged all expressions of

opinion.

Mr Zohrab's Final Comment

Mr Zohrab did not respond when invited to make a final comment.