BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

ChristianLiving: "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.