BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An interview with physicist Dr Paul Davies focussed on what the interviewer described as "one of the world’s greatest mysteries, how did life first get started" in an episode of the BBC series, Discovery, broadcast on National Radio on 7 October 1998. Dr Davies hypothesised on the processes of mutation and natural selection, and the possible injection of information into genomes through Darwinian evolution.

Mr Fox complained to Radio New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that Dr Davies’ comments were inaccurate and unbalanced. He said it was incorrect to state that mutation and natural selection increased information in the genome. The programme, he wrote, should have included the Creationist view about the origin of information in living things.

Responding, RNZ denied that the comments were inaccurate, and pointed out that they were the scientifically-based opinions of Dr Davies, had been identified as such, and were reported truthfully and accurately. As a scientific documentary series, the programme was not bound to cover competing non-scientific points of view, RNZ wrote. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with RNZ’s response, Mr Fox 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 complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the item complained about. They have also watched a videotape provided by the complainant, and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

An episode of the BBC Discovery series broadcast on National Radio at 9.05 pm on 7 October 1998 included an interview with Dr Paul Davies, a physicist. The segment dealt with the origin of information required to produce life. Mutation and natural selection, and their relevance to information contained in the genome and the formation of DNA, were discussed by the interviewer and Dr Davies. Dr Davies suggested that scientists should be looking at a new theory of life.

Mr Fox complained to RNZ that the statements made by Dr Davies were inaccurate and contrary to current scientific research. His claim, Mr Fox said, that mutation and natural selection could increase the information in the genome (DNA) had been factually incorrect, as scientific research had showed that mutation and natural selection always had resulted in a loss of information from the genome. Mr Fox sought RNZ’s correction of the "factual errors in this programme".

Mr Fox also complained to RNZ that, in presenting only an evolutionary world viewpoint, the programme was unbalanced and should have included the views of scientists who believed that the digital coding of complex information in DNA pointed definitively towards a designer-creator. He said that current research had shown that life was based on "preprogrammed complicated, intricate and interconnecting biochemical reactions". These, he wrote, "were so complicated that it was virtually impossible to imagine how the neo-Darwinian Evolution theory of random chance has any relevance at all". He suggested that the only way to rectify the imbalance "of this controversial issue" was to broadcast science programmes with the alternative, creationist view.

RNZ responded that the Discovery series was one examining scientific issues and, as such, was not bound to cover theories or points of view which did not have a scientific basis. Dr Davies, it wrote, had explored a certain line of scientific thinking in the segment, and the introduction had made it very clear that what had followed were his opinions. That the origins of life were a mystery had been clearly expressed several times in the segment, the broadcaster continued. Because the period of "current interest" in the origins of life as a topic could be seen to be never-ending, RNZ suggested, a scientific documentary programme was not a current affairs programme "in the truest sense", when current affairs programmes focussed on topics with a period of current interest.

The broadcaster considered the complaint, as requested by the complainant, under standards R1, R9 and R12 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. These standards require broadcasters:

R1 To be truthful and accurate on points of fact in news and current affairs programmes.

R9 To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature, making reasonable efforts to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

R12 To correct factual errors speedily and with similar prominence to the offending broadcast or broadcasts.

RNZ stated, in its consideration of the complaint under standards R1 and R9, that the introduction to the broadcast repeated the phrase "Dr Davies thinks" on more than one occasion. While respecting Mr Fox’s opinion that Dr Davies might have been wrong in fact, the broadcaster wrote, what was propounded in the programme were the scientific opinions of Dr Davies and they were reported truthfully and accurately.

Further, RNZ continued, in recognising that Discovery was a scientific documentary series, it was not bound to cover competing non-scientific points of view. The broadcaster declined to uphold the complaints under standards R1 and R9 and, as a consequence, R12.

In referring the complaint to the Authority, Mr Fox asserted that evolution was not science, but a theory constructed with reference to a belief system. As a belief system, it rejected any intelligence or intelligent designer behind nature, and tried to explain observations from that reference point, he continued. RNZ, he contended, believed evolutionary ideas to be scientific and "the other major competing scientific theory i.e. creation or the Intelligent Design Theory" to be non-scientific. That bias exhibited by the broadcaster, Mr Fox alleged, demonstrated its unwillingness to consider other scientific theories. The views of Dr Davies could have been balanced by those of another prominent scientist with a perspective related to "Intelligent Design" theory, he stressed. That then would have left the listeners to make up their own minds, he wrote.

Mr Fox complained that RNZ had chosen to ignore the evidence he had submitted to it about the factual errors in the programme, and had failed to address the errors or to correct them.

RNZ rejected Mr Fox’s statement that it held a biassed view which then affected its decisions. Both the introduction and the interview, it wrote, made it clear that the broadcast did not editorially vouch for the opinions and suggestions presented within it. What was reported as fact was that the scientist held certain views, and the report of those views and their basis was factual and accurate, it maintained. The broadcaster stressed that the accuracy of the content of the broadcast had to be separated from the accuracy of a report of it. Dr Davies himself, RNZ underlined, did not put forward his hypothesis as fact, but as something to be proved or disproved by future observation, experiment and tests. In addition, the broadcaster noted, the item was neither news nor current affairs, so that standard R1 was not applicable to it. In the absence of the requirement of a breach of the standard, the question of a correction did not arise and standard R12 did not apply, it wrote.

Because the broadcast was in the nature of a science report in a science magazine programme, RNZ doubted that it was a "news or current affairs broadcast". That then, under standard R9, left for consideration whether it was a question "of a controversial nature". The philosophy within which the hypothesis was advanced by Dr Davies might well have been controversial to the complainant, RNZ agreed. Noting the nature of the programme, and that similar views to Mr Fox’s had been considered in different past programmes, (and would be referred to in the future), the broadcaster disagreed that the broadcast was such as to require "an immediate ‘matcher’". In conclusion, it noted that the requirement in standard R9 of "the period of current interest" in the case of Dr Davies’ hypothesis might well be taken as historical through to, and including, the present.

In a final comment to the Authority, Mr Fox maintained that the Discovery programme presented current information about issues and developments in science, and so must be subject to standard R1. Otherwise, he wrote, any opinions related to science would be fit for broadcast, and no complaints against them could be mounted. Propaganda would be acceptable, he concluded. Mr Fox then turned to RNZ’s contention that standard R9 was inapplicable to the programme because, first, a series examining scientific issues was not bound to cover those not of a scientific basis, and secondly, his views had been and would continue to be exposed in different programmes. The complainant wrote that he knew of "no science programmes to have ever been broadcast on RNZ that have examined the case against the Neo-Darwinian Evolution Theory (NDT)".

The Authority’s Findings

In its consideration of the complaint, the Authority turns first to standard R1. It notes the context in which the alleged errors arose on this occasion. The item was sourced from a reputable international broadcaster. It was a scientific opinion piece in a science magazine programme. The interviewee was an academic, author and physicist who expressed his own views and opinions. In the Authority’s view, it was clearly signposted throughout the item that the beliefs expressed were those of Dr Davies. In its response to this aspect of the complaint, RNZ wrote that the scientist held certain views which the broadcaster presented as opinion, not fact. The Authority concurs with RNZ’s statement that to maintain otherwise is to overlook the principle that separates the content of a statement from a report of that statement. It declines to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Having found that there were no "facts" in the science magazine-type programme which were not truthful or accurate, the Authority is of the view that there were no matters which required correction in accordance with standard R12. The Authority therefore declines to uphold the complaint under standard R12.

Turning next to standard R9, the Authority agrees with RNZ that the standard was not applicable on these facts. While the Authority considers it questionable to claim that the programme dealt with a question of a controversial nature, the inapplicability of the standard’s requirement to provide balance is evident with a topic such as the origins of life, for which the period of current interest must be infinite.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
18 February 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined the complaint:

1. Mr Fox’s First Complaint to Radio New Zealand Limited – 13 October 1998

2. Mr Fox’s Second Complaint to Radio New Zealand – 13 October 1998

3. RNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 28 October 1998

4. Mr Fox’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority –
   23 November 1998

5. RNZ’s Response to the Authority – 18 December 1998

6. Mr Fox’s Final Comment – 15 January 1999