BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

While discussing an advertisement in the gay magazine "Man to Man" condemned by

the Christian Heritage Party, some panellists on TV3's The Ralston Group described

the Party as consisting of intolerant religious fundamentalists who believed in hanging,

flogging and belting children. The item also showed scenes from a nudist camp.

The Christian Heritage Party complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that some of

the comments were untrue and that the item was unbalanced and had encouraged the

denigration of Party members. In addition, the nudist camp material was in bad taste.

Emphasising that the remarks were the honestly-held opinions and viewpoints of a

group of informed commentators, and that the nudist camps scenes were not in poor

taste, TV3 declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TV3's response, the

Party 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 a tape of the item complained about and

have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its usual practice,

the Authority has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

One segment of The Ralston Group broadcast at 9.30pm on 30 March discussed the

Christian Heritage Party's condemnation of an advertisement in the gay magazine

"Man to Man". The presenter introduced the segment by exclaiming that the Party

was in a "moral outrage" and one of the panellists argued that the Party's policy

included "hanging", "flogging" and "belting kids". In addition, another of the

panellists was sceptical about the depth of the Christian values held by employers

who professed to be Christians and he used the adjective "bloody". The item also

included photographs of nude men and women at a nudist camp near Katikati.

The Party complained to the broadcasters about some of the panellists' inaccurate

description of the Party's policy; that the use of the word "bloody" and "totally nude

frontals of men and women" were in bad taste; that as three of the four panellists

condemned the Party, the item was unbalanced; and that the suggestion that the Party

consisted of "extremely narrow, intolerant, vindictive religious zealots" breached the

standard which prohibited encouraging the denigration of a group on account of its

religious beliefs.

TV3 assessed the complaint under the broadcasting standards nominated by the Party.

They require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste

in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which any

language or behaviour occurs.

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.

Standard G13 was amended recently (before the programme complained about) to

refer to "representing as inherently inferior" rather than "denigration", although in the

present circumstances it imposes a similar obligation on broadcasters as the standard

under which the Party complained.

While dealing with each aspect of the complaint, TV3 stressed that the comments on

The Ralston Group were "honestly-held opinions" and that it was perceived by

viewers as a programme of "comment".

With regard to the complaint that the statements which had been broadcast

inaccurately referred to the Party's policy, TV3 maintained that as the remarks

involved the panellists' interpretation, they were fair comment. The complaint about

inaccuracy under standard G1 was not upheld.

TV3 did not refer to the use of the word "bloody" when assessing the broadcast under

standard G2 but argued that the standard had not been contravened as the images from

the nudist camp, which did not show genitalia, were edited with discretion and were

appropriate in context.

The complaint under standard G6 was not upheld as "informed commentators" had

given their "honestly-held opinions" in a live broadcast. Each commentator's sexual

persuasion was irrelevant, TV3 continued, as was each person's stance on

Christianity. Finally, the standard G13 complaint was not upheld as exception (ii)

applied.

When the complaint was referred to the Authority, the Party argued that because the

programme was based on ridicule, the panellists' views were expressed more strongly

than their actual beliefs. Pointing out that no one took part who was favourably

disposed to the Party, it was said that TV3's definition of "fair comment" went

"beyond the bounds of legitimacy".

The Authority considered first the aspect of the complaint which alleged a breach of

the accuracy requirement in standard G1. In view of the introductory remarks

broadcast by the two panellists whose comments specifically were complained about,

the Authority was of the view that neither remark amounted to or was intended to

represent a comprehensive report on the Party's policy. One comment was clearly

the personal view of the speaker and was based on his experience in the Union

movement and the other, in view of the language used, was also obviously the

speaker's opinion about some aspects of the Party's policy with which she disagreed.

As for the complaint that the shots of the nude men and women breached standard

G2, the Authority noted that the standard requires that context be taken into account.

Given the brevity of the shots, the hour of the broadcast and their use as illustrating

the point in contention, the Authority decided that community standards had not been

contravened. Similarly, the use of the word "bloody" was not offensive in context at

that time in the evening.

The Authority was not prepared to agree with TV3 that, because the broadcast

presented the panellists' opinion, the requirements for balance in standard G6 could

be overlooked. However, the Authority accepted that the item could not be seen as a

documentary about the Christian Heritage Party where the balance provision would

need to be complied with more stringently than in a programme featuring opinion.

Having examined the broadcast complained about, the Authority concluded that the

programme had provided sufficient balance to comply with the standard. Not only

were a range of views advanced by each speaker but, specifically, Mr Ralston as

presenter played to some extent the role of the devil's advocate – eg in relation to the

retreat involving the nudists. Furthermore, in the discussion about the Christian

Heritage Party, one of the panellists expressed some sympathy for the Party's

approach to the issues. Accordingly, the Authority decided that the range of views

presented was sufficient so as not to breach standard G6.

The Authority noted that some strongly phrased criticism of the Party was put

forward in the item and, moreover, some of it was apparently based on some deeply

held feelings. However, taking into account the exemption in paragraph (ii) to

standard G13 which allows for the responsible freedom of expression in current affairs

programmes, the Authority did not consider that it was necessary to decide whether

or not the broadcast had encouraged discrimination against members of the Christian

Heritage Party or had treated Party members as inherently inferior.

The Authority understood the concern – and anger – felt by the Christian Heritage

Party in view of some of the comments and ridicule expressed by some of the

panellists. However, not only were the panellists expressing their purely personal

opinions but some of the speakers reduced their effectiveness because they talked

over others or were talked over. Despite the cacophony that prevailed at times, the

Authority concluded that a range of perspectives was given during the discussion on

matters referring to the Party.

For the reasons given above, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
8 September 199

Appendix

Christian Heritage Party's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Limited

In a letter dated 14 April 1994, the leader of the Christian Heritage Party, Rev Graham

Capill, complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about The Ralston Group screened

at 9.30pm on 30 March.

Mr Capill listed the standards in the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice which,

he maintained, the segment complained about had breached when the panellists

discussed the Party's condemnation of an advertisement which appeared in "Man to

Man".

The item, Mr Capill continued, had breached the standard requiring factual truth and

accuracy when one panellist maintained that people in the party did not practise the

religion they preached. Another panellist had seriously mis-stated the Party's policy

in arguing that the Party's policy involved "hanging", "flogging" and "belting kids"

and that it wanted to ban homosexuals. All were incorrect, Mr Capill wrote, and he

reported that he had explained the Party's policy on homosexuality - respecting

homosexuals while condemning their sexual practices - on two different current affairs

programmes on television.

The requirement for good taste and decency had been contravened, Mr Capill said,

when one panellists used the word "bloody" and photographs of totally nude men and

women at a retreat in Katikati were shown.

Referring to the standard requiring balance, Mr Capill said the segment lasting a little

more than 6 minutes was "anything but balanced, fair and impartial". Only one

panellist expressed any sympathy for the Party. The comments by the other three

followed by the tone set by the chair in his introductory comments:

"Bless you too! ÔHell, fire and damnation', Christian Heritage roar in moral

outrage over an ad in gay magazine ..."

The complaint continued:

Such emotive and dramatic tone continued, with each participant adding to the

lack of objectivity (with the exception of Mr Griffin).

None of the people interviewed professed to be a Christian; surely a minimum

requirement when discussing an advertisement that offends Christians.

Moreover, Mr Capill maintained that the impression left of the Party was "a group of

extremely narrow, intolerant, vindictive religious zealots".

Arguing that the segment in addition breached the standard which requires

broadcasters to avoid encouraging the denigration of a section of the community, Mr

Capill wrote:

It may surprise TV3 to learn that many New Zealanders support us and hold to

a similar position. Even some in the homosexual community admitted the advert

was in bad taste and was a blatant attack on Christianity.

Why was the Christian Heritage party singled out for a broadside on its

philosophic based? When was the last time that National or Labour got such a

treatment? The comments, we submit, would lead the public to ridicule and

denigrate the position we hold to, both as a party and as members of a particular

religion.

The letter of complaint concluded:

Apart from the above points, we would point out the programme misled the

public concerning why we asked the Government to withdraw funding from the

AIDS Foundation. It was not explained, at any point, that the logo appeared on

the advertisement without any explanation that the "Proceeds are to go to the

AIDS Foundation". The logo appeared next to the Man to Man logo, leading

one to the obvious conclusion that the Easter party being advertised had the

support and assistance of the AIDS Foundation.

We would ask that a public apology be broadcast, correcting the misinformation

stated about us and our policies. We would also ask that TV3 schedule an

interview for us with someone who is prepared to be fair and objective, so that

the public's misunderstanding following the programme can be corrected.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint

TV3 advised the Christian Heritage Party of its Complaints Committee's decision in a

letter dated 27 May 1994.

Insisting that the Ralston Group was a programme of "comment", TV3 maintained

that the standard requiring factual truth was not breached as the panellists had been

expressing honestly-held opinion and fair comment.

In view of the hour of the broadcast and that the images shown from the Katikati

retreat were used with discretion and did not show genitalia, the broadcaster

maintained that the standard referring to taste had not been breached.

TV3 declined to uphold the balance complaint because:

The programme consists of informed commentators who present their opinions

on a variety of topics. The Ralston Group presents honestly-held opinions and

fair comment in a live broadcast; it may well have been that all the commentators

agreed with the standpoint of Christian Heritage. The commentators may or

may not be Christian, they may equally have been of homosexual or lesbian

persuasion. We would not expect them to profess their lifestyle on air. They

simply expressed their honestly-held opinions and viewpoints.

With regard to the broadcaster's obligations not to encourage denigration, TV3 noted

that the broadcast fell within the second exemption to the standard which permits the

expression of genuinely-held opinion in a current affairs programme.

The Party's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, in a completed Complaint Referral Form dated 24

June 1994 the Party referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Arguing that the item adopted an attitude of ridicule from the start, the Party said the

comments were not fair. Furthermore, balance was not achieved as the panel did not

include any person favourably disposed to the Party or its policy. It added:

Had it been a documentary, it would have clearly breached the Standards, as it

would have been inaccurate. However, hiding behind a device, (namely, the

Ôstyle' of the programme), to avoid the aims and objectives of the Code is

unacceptable.

Expressing the opinion that TV3 had pushed the meaning of fair comment beyond the

boundaries of legitimacy, the Party said that the Television Code must accept the

responsibility of protecting groups maligned by broadcasters.

TV3's Response to the Authority

As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the complaint.

Its letter is dated 24 June 1994 and TV3, in its reply of 1 July, advised that it did not

wish to comment further.

The Party's Final Comment to the Authority

In a letter dated 11 July, the Party advised that it had nothing further to add.