BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Religious attitudes to homosexuality, both historical and current, were addressed in A

Question of Religion broadcast by National Radio on Sunday 5 July 1998. The

presenter (Dr Maureen Garing) discussed the matter with a staff member from

Victoria University's Religious Studies Department (Dr Jim Veitch).

Mr Le Bas complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the guest

represented a liberal strand of Christian thinking and that the broadcast, in the absence

of an alternative view, was unbalanced.

In response, RNZ maintained that most of the interview advanced an historical view

for which balance was unnecessary. In regard to the guest's final comments when he

put his own perspective, RNZ maintained that this was clearly an expression of an

opinion which had been balanced in many other news and current affairs items

broadcast about that time, reporting on the debate at the Presbyterian General

Assembly about the ordination of homosexual clergy. It declined to uphold the

complaint.

Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision, Mr Le Bas referred his complaint to the

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

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to the item complained about and have

read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). In this instance, the

Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

One biblical approach towards homosexuality was addressed in the programme A

Question of Religion, broadcast on National Radio between 7.00–8.00am, and again

after 10.00pm, on Sunday 5 July. The presenter (Dr Maureen Garing) advised in her

introduction that the focus of the item was why one side of the debate declared

homosexuality to be sinful behaviour.

Mr Le Bas complained that the item was unbalanced, as it advanced solely a "liberal

strand of Christian thinking".

RNZ assessed the complaint with s.4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, which

requires broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with

(d)    The principle that when controversial issues of public importance are

discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities are

given, to present significant points of view either in the same

programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

After pointing out that the involvement of homosexuals in the church was an issue

currently being dealt with by a number of denominations, RNZ advised that for the

broadcast a religious studies academic (Dr Veitch) had been asked to explain the views

of those who argued that homosexuals should not be ordained. He gave an extended

historical view which included biblical references. RNZ pointed out that the bulk of

the interview dealt with that topic. However, it conceded, that at the end of his

historical review, Dr Veitch had voiced his personal opinion in which he tended to

support the call for the ordination of homosexual clergy.

RNZ stressed, nonetheless, that it was clearly apparent that Dr Veitch was expressing

his personal opinion on the issue. Moreover, it was an issue which had been

addressed in at least 36 different news and current affairs programmes on National

Radio during the period leading up to, and during, the forthcoming Presbyterian

Assembly.

In declining to uphold the complaint, RNZ said it had taken the following into

account:

... the stated object of the programme complained of; the nature and historical

background and thrust of it; the distinction within it between any elements of

personal opinion and fact; the lack of any evidence of its affecting the opinions

of the members of the General Assembly; the distance of the programme from

the Assembly's eventual debate on the question of homosexual clergy or

church officers; the programme's focus on the historical generic church attitude

towards homosexuality generally (not gay persons as clergy); and the balanced

coverage of the relevant matters and discussions provided during the currency

of the General Assembly; ... .

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Le Bas contended that the

programme was unbalanced as, although Dr Veitch had been asked to explain the

views of those who argued that homosexuals should not be ordained, there was no

adequate attempt to present that point of view.

In dealing with this complaint, the Authority notes that the item was broadcast during

the weekend before the Presbyterian General Assembly. Further, it acknowledges

that the ordination of homosexuals was a central topic on the Assembly's agenda. The

Authority also notes that the issue of balance is the focus of the complaint. The

matter under discussion was a controversial issue for which balance was necessary

pursuant to s.4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

In the Authority's opinion, the introduction to the broadcast explained that the

programme would attempt to investigate a particular point of view on the issue of

homosexuality. Most of the broadcast, it considers, did just this, albeit not in a way

to the complainant's liking. However, the Authority concludes, the introduction itself

provided balance by qualifying the item as "one side" of the debate. The Authority

also accepts, however, that the interview, towards the end, contained some comments

in which Dr Veitch put his own views on a matter, and in a way that made it plain

that he did not necessarily accept the views of those who argued that homosexuals

should not be ordained.

Given the provision in the Act that balance may be achieved "in other programmes

within the period of current interest", and given the extent that the issue involving the

ordination of homosexuals by Presbyterians was addressed by Radio New Zealand

and other media in the days preceding and subsequent to the item complained about,

the Authority is in no doubt that balance was given to Dr Veitch's opinion. It was,

the Authority observes, a period of intense media interest in the issue in which other

"significant points of view" were presented.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
24 September 1998

Appendix

Rex Le Bas' Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd – 6 July 1998

Mr Le Bas of Dunedin complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd about the programme A

Question of Religion broadcast on Sunday 5 July 1998.

Maureen Garing, the programme's host, Mr Le Bas began, regularly used Dr Jim

Veitch as an expert although he represented "a very liberal strand of Christian

thinking". Alternative views, Mr Le Bas continued, were necessary for balance.

Referring to the programme on 5 July, Mr Le Bas noted that it advanced Dr Veitch's

interpretation of portions of the Bible which referred to homosexuality. Mr Le Bas

wrote:

But who was used to put the alternative views? No one.

The programme, he complained, was unbalanced.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 22 July 1998

Assessing the complaint under s.4(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, RNZ stated

that in view of the provisions in the Act, it had confined the complaint to the specific

programme broadcast on 5 July.

In its examination of the complaint, RNZ noted that the programme consisted of two

parts: the presenter's introduction, and the interview with Dr Veitch.

Dealing first with the introduction, RNZ stated that the subject of the programme was

announced to be the attitude of religion to homosexuality, and in particular the

involvement of homosexuals in the church. The approach taken by Anglicans

internationally was noted, as was the division among Methodists. It was noted that

Presbyterians were to discuss the issue in the forthcoming week.   RNZ advised that

the presenter had stated that the object and of the thrust of the programme was:

That for greater understanding of why one side declares homosexuality to be

sinful behaviour, [the presenter] asked Dr Jim Veitch of Victoria University's

Religious Studies department about the biblical background [to this view].

RNZ expressed the opinion that:

... the interview with Dr Veitch must be assessed in the light of that clear

statement of the item's intention, noting particularly that the historical review

was aimed specifically at the backgrounding of one "side" of the general

"argument".

RNZ then listed 32 points which had been made in the interview. They included a

review of the references to homosexuality in the Bible, and the debate in the churches

over the centuries. The final two were:

+    To have taken only homosexuality out of all the things that can be taken

out of the Old Testament as a touchstone, out of all the lists, to be

declared thoroughly bad and wrong, is [in Dr Veitch's opinion] going "to

take some living down".

+    It seems pretty clear that the church will make no progress unless it's

prepared to re-think where it's going, and that will involve saying "it got it

wrong" over some key things in the past.

Before assessing the specific complaint, RNZ pointed out that the complaint

provisions in the Broadcasting Act referred to a specific broadcast. Thus, it did not

regard as relevant or applicable, the comments in the complaint about the attitude

displayed by Dr Veitch in past programmes.

Turning to the specific complaint, RNZ noted that s.4(1)(d) referred to balance

"within the period of current interest". It observed:

As a first consideration, [RNZ's Complaints] Committee noted the continuing

coverage of the debate taking place in the week ending 10 July about homosexual

ministers or elders in the Presbyterian Church; the less specific ongoing nature

of the wider controversy; and the currency of the matter over the ten-year pause

taking place following the production of papers on both sides of the issue by the

Anglican church.

As well as arguing that the period of current interest extended over some years, RNZ

said that the issue had been dealt with at the time of the Presbyterian assembly in

news items, and in current affairs programmes such as Morning Report and

Checkpoint.

Moreover:

Examining further the item complained of itself, [RNZ's Complaints] Committee

formed the view that the broadcast's main thrust was not primarily an

examination of the Christian attitude to homosexual ministers, priests, or church

officers, but the historical origins, derivation and development of attitudes in

religious contexts towards homosexuality in general.

            Further, the Committee noted that, while Dr Veitch offered some opinions and

analysis, these were based on specific quotations from the Old and New

Testaments, and on cited research and comment by recognised and published

scholars. The Committee believed that listeners would have no difficulty in

distinguishing these opinions from the factual references made in the item, and

noted the requirement of Programme Standard R4 to respect the right of persons

to express their own opinions.

Nonetheless, RNZ reported, although the bulk of the item was in the nature of a

historical review, it noted that the programme was broadcast as delegates were

gathering for the Presbyterians' General Assembly, and the subject of the broadcast

was one of the issues facing Presbyterians. Further, Dr Veitch's comments at the end

included some "personal opinion" based on an interpretation of historical events.

However, RNZ wrote:

[It was] determined that the statements made at that final stage by Dr Veitch

were not in danger of being mistaken for editorial statements or statements of

purported fact, but were clearly identifiable as the opinion of the speaker.

While broadcasting standards accepted the right of individuals to express their

opinions, and this was clear by the use of such phrases by Dr Veitch as "I reckon",

RNZ pointed to the timing of the broadcast in regard to the General Assembly. It

had, therefore, looked at 36 different news and current affairs programmes referring to

the Assembly up to and including the eventual vote on the homosexual question.

Extended current affairs items, RNZ noted, included interviews in favour and

opposing the ordination of homosexual clergy.

In declining to uphold the complaint, RNZ said it had taken the following into

account:

... the stated object of the programme complained of; the nature and historical

background and thrust of it; the distinction within it between any elements of

personal opinion and fact; the lack of any evidence of its affecting the opinions

of the members of the General Assembly; the distance of the programme from

the Assembly's eventual debate on the question of homosexual clergy or church

officers; the programme's focus on the historical generic church attitude towards

homosexuality generally (not gay persons as clergy); and the balanced coverage

of the relevant matters and discussions provided during the currency of the

General Assembly; ... .

Mr Le Bas' Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 3 August 1998

Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision, Mr Le Bas referred his complaint to the

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

Mr Le Bas stated that the issue of homosexuality and its acceptability among

ministers of the church was a matter of public importance due to the debate at the

time in the Presbyterian Church. Mr Le Bas contended that the programme was

unbalanced and, while Dr Veitch put the case against discrimination of homosexual

clergy, there was no attempt to present the opposite point of view.

RNZ's decision not to uphold the complaint, Mr Le Bas insisted, should be

overturned.

RNZ's Response to the Authority – 9 August 1998

In its report to the Authority, RNZ maintained that Mr Le Bas' interpretation of the

programme was incorrect. It wrote:

While interest in the churches' view of homosexuality was without doubt to

some degree underlined by the imminent Presbyterian conference, where the

issues of the sexual orientation of Presbyterian ministers and church officers

would be raised, the subject of the broadcast was not to examine such specific

issues, but to lay out some sort of a background as a historical context in which

the issue could be seen in perspective. The Company believes the programme

carried out this intention, a belief supported by the receipt of a number of letters

of approval, expressing appreciation for the historical insight it provided.

RNZ acknowledged that a programme advocating one approach to the specific issue of

homosexual clergy would have required a balancing view. However, as this was not

the programme broadcast, it did not generate a requirement for balance.

RNZ also said that the period of current interest continued as was evident by the

recent reports on the same issue in England.

Mr Le Bas' Final Comment – 12 August 1998

In his response, Mr Le Bas maintained that the item was unbalanced. That had

occurred, first, as Dr Veitch had been allowed to express an opinion in a programme

which was supposed to be confined to an historical account. Secondly, Mr Le Bas

explained that he was neither willing nor able to listen to National Radio at all hours to

hear the other side of the debate. Thirdly, he expected each individual item to include

both points of view of the issue being addressed.

"No effort," he wrote, "was made to provide balance when the issue was dealt with."