BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The Jesus Seminar movement, which denies the literal resurrection of Christ, was the subject of an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One beginning at 7.00 pm on Good Friday, 10 April 1998.

Mr Fox complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was biased and unbalanced in failing to interview a person of equal academic standing to Dr Veitch, who had been interviewed on behalf of the movement. Footage of school children in the item gave the message that Easter was for children and at the same level of belief as the Easter bunny, he wrote.

TVNZ replied that it was appropriate on Good Friday to reflect on the diversity of views which existed within Christianity. The pastor interviewed had an extensive background in theological research, TVNZ wrote, and he provided the item’s balance. The footage reminded viewers of the commercial inroads made upon Easter, and its focus on the children added clarity to traditional views, it concluded.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’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 given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the item complained about, and have read the correspondence (which is summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

An item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on Good Friday, 10 April 1998, beginning at 7.00 pm focussed on the Jesus Seminar movement which denies the literal resurrection of Christ. Dr Jim Veitch presented the views of the movement and Pastor John Crawshaw of the Assembly of God church presented an opposing view.

Mr Fox complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Limited, that in failing to interview a person of equal academic standing to Dr Veitch, and in including "grabs" of the local pastor whose qualifications were unstated, the item was unbalanced. He also argued that intercutting the main contenders in the debate with "grabs" of children at a Roman Catholic school gave viewers an unsubtle message that Christian belief, and Easter, were for children. That, Mr Fox wrote, was very biased against the strongly held views of many adult New Zealanders.

TVNZ considered the complaint in the context of standards G6 and G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. These 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, 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.

The broadcaster observed that Good Friday was an appropriate time to present an item reflecting the diversity of views which existed within Christianity. TVNZ, it continued, considered that the "current utterances" of the Jesus Seminar movement seemed a suitable vehicle to remind viewers that theistic scholars had many and varied interpretations of the Bible story. It suggested that it was "hardly new" to opine that the resurrection of Christ should not be taken literally, and that this was part of the debate between faith and reason which was an issue still very much alive and therefore worth exploring on the programme on Good Friday.

Denying that the item infringed standard G6, TVNZ claimed that Pastor Crawshaw had "an extensive background in theological research". Further, it contended, what was needed to balance the academic argument in the item was the view of a minister practising traditional Christianity, "and thereby reflecting the faith of the church going public".

In its consideration of standard G13, TVNZ stressed that the item reminded viewers of the commercial inroads made upon Easter. The children "through their cogent and thoughtful comments" added a clarity and vigour to the expression of the traditional beliefs which were being challenged by Dr Veitch, it wrote. The broadcaster concluded that Christianity was not represented as inherently inferior, nor was there any encouragement to discriminate against it.

In the referral of his complaint to the Authority, Mr Fox took issue with TVNZ’s description of Pastor Crawshaw as having an extensive background in theological research. Having telephoned the pastor, he wrote, he had ascertained that the pastor had a bachelor of theology degree from Melbourne College of Divinity, a degree which many pastors held. A post-graduate degree, Mr Fox suggested, would have given the pastor an "extensive background in theological research".

The children’s comments included in the item, he stressed, failed to address the arguments put by Dr Veitch, and added to its bias. The editing of the item which had given the impression that Christian beliefs were acceptable for children, but not for intelligent people, was denigrating to Christian beliefs by suggesting that they were inferior to those of intellectual critics like Dr Veitch, he concluded.

In its response to Mr Fox’s criticism of the inclusion of Pastor Crawshaw, TVNZ wrote that what was needed in the item to respond to Dr Veitch’s comments:

…was a person who could deal with the intellectual debate while at the same time reflecting the views of ordinary members of the faith – and a practising pastor with a Bachelor of Theology degree seemed ideal.

Had someone like the Associate Professor - suggested by Mr Fox - been included, it continued, viewers would have been faced with a purely academic debate with no indication that what was being discussed related to the faith of all Christians. The inclusion of the children in the item helped bring the subject down "from the ivory towers of academia to the grass roots of Christianity", the broadcaster wrote.

The Authority turns first to the standard G6 complaint regarding balance, impartiality and fairness. In its consideration of the item, the Authority notes that the broadcast illustrated one academic’s view of Christianity, and contrasted that with an orthodox believer’s view. The Authority considers that the opportunity which was thus given to exchange those views in that forum provided balance to the programme. While Mr Fox might have considered Pastor Crawshaw to be of less academic standing than Dr Veitch, that did not, per se, mean that the programme lacked balance. In the Authority’s view, each issue which was raised by Dr Veitch was addressed by the pastor. And the latter countered the arguments raised by Dr Veitch with replies based on orthodox Christian beliefs. The Authority considers that the pastor was well placed – as a practising traditional Christian minister - to provide the necessary balance to Dr Veitch’s views. He was able to do that, the Authority considers, through his position in the church and by his ability to reflect the faith of the church-going public, that the resurrection is central to Christian belief.

In its consideration of the need for balance in a programme raising the issues touched on in this item, the Authority takes account of the nature of this particular programme, and the time when it is shown. It considers this is a programme which is aimed at a family and general interest audience. Though the complex theological issues being debated were simplified, it does not consider that imbalance occurred.

In turning next to standard G13, the Authority considers whether the item denigrated or discriminated against Christians. It concludes that rather than denigrating the Christian community, the programme acknowledged the diversity of beliefs held under the Christian umbrella. The Authority does not consider that the inclusion of material to depict the commercialisation of Easter in an increasingly secular society involved denigration or discrimination against Christian beliefs.

The use of children in the item was not, in the Authority’s view, derogatory of adult Christians but rather served to emphasise that, within a predominantly Christian community, New Zealanders have largely been brought up with the resurrection and other Christian beliefs as articles of faith.

Accordingly, the Authority declines to uphold any aspect of the complaint under standards G6 or G13.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
20 August 1998

Appendix

Graham J Fox’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 13 April 1998

Mr Fox of Wellington complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, about an item on the Holmes programme commencing at 7.00 pm on Good Friday, 10 April 1998. The item had focussed on the Jesus Seminar movement. The presenter (Paul Holmes) had interviewed Dr Jim Veitch, on behalf of the movement. Footage was also shown of Pastor John Crawshaw of the Assembly of God Church.

Mr Fox complained that the item was biased and unbalanced in its presentation. It failed, he wrote, to interview a person of equal academic standing to Dr Veitch, to balance Dr Veitch’s views. The item included ‘grabs’ only of Pastor Crawshaw, he continued, and the pastor’s qualifications were not stated. That, he emphasised, left the item very unbalanced.

It also intercut the main contenders in the debate with ‘grabs’ of children at a local school, Mr Fox noted. That, he wrote, gave viewers the not so subtle message that Christian belief was for children and was at the same level as belief in the Easter bunny. The item was, he concluded, very biased against the strongly-held views of many adult New Zealanders.

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 8 May 1998

TVNZ considered the complaint in the context of standards G6 and G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It commenced by observing that it was not inappropriate on Good Friday to present an item which reflected the diversity of views which exist within Christianity. The utterances of the Jesus Seminar movement provided, TVNZ wrote, a suitable vehicle to remind viewers that theistic scholars had many interpretations of the Bible story.

Rejecting Mr Fox’s criticism that the item failed to interview a person of equal academic standing to Dr Veitch, TVNZ stressed that Pastor Crawshaw had an extensive background in theological research. Further, it wrote, what was needed to balance the academic argument was the view of a minister practising traditional Christianity, thereby reflecting the faith of the church-going public. The broadcaster declined to accept that standard G6 had been breached.

TVNZ disagreed that the item suggested that Christian belief was at the same level as belief in the Easter bunny. Instead it reminded viewers of the commercial inroads made upon Easter, the broadcaster contended. What TVNZ described as the "cogent and thoughtful comments" of the children featured in the item had added a clarity and vigour to the expression of the traditional beliefs which were being challenged by Dr Veitch, it continued. It therefore did not accept that standard G13 was breached.

Mr Fox’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 19 May 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Fox referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Fox took issue with TVNZ in its statement that Pastor Crawshaw, featured in the programme, had an extensive background in theological research. Mr Fox stated that he had rung the pastor who had informed him that he had a Bachelor of Theology degree from the Melbourne College of Divinity. This, Mr Fox wrote:

…is an ordinary degree that many pastors in this country hold. My point is that Pastor Crawshaw does not have any post-graduate degree which would give him an "extensive background in theological research".

Enclosing a newspaper article on disputes within Christianity about the bodily resurrection of Jesus, Mr Fox pointed to the comments quoted in it from Associate Professor Paul Treblico of the Department of Religious Studies at Otago University. Had the programme-makers interviewed a person like Dr Treblico as part of the item, Mr Fox stressed, then balance would have been achieved.

Referring to TVNZ’s argument that the children shown in the item added clarity and vigour, Mr Fox suggested that they:

…were only capable of repeating the ideas that they have been taught and added nothing to address the arguments put up by Dr Veitch, but certainly added to the bias of the item.

Mr Fox observed that the editing of the item combined the child segments:

…with ideas of packaging and Easter shopping in a way that gave the impression that Christian beliefs were O.K. for children but ‘intelligent people’ in the Christian Church community rejected these ideas as ‘simply packaging of ideas to suit the Greeks of 2000 years ago’. I found some of the editing in this item denigrating to Christian beliefs, suggesting they are inherently inferior to those of intellectual critics like Dr Veitch.

He concluded that TVNZ had failed to justify how the item was either balanced or unbiased.

TVNZ’s Comments to the Authority – 3 June 1998

The broadcaster replied that Mr Fox’s belief - that Pastor Crawshaw was not intellectually qualified to respond to Dr Veitch’s comments, and that someone else should have taken that role – was his perfect entitlement but it did not establish a breach of the broadcasting standards.

What was required, TVNZ emphasised, was a person who could deal with the intellectual debate while at the same time reflecting the views of ordinary members of the faith. A practising pastor with a theology degree seemed ideal, it continued. Had Associate Professor Paul Treblico been interviewed, the broadcaster speculated, then viewers would have been faced with a purely academic debate, with no indication that what was being discussed actually related to the faith of all Christians.

TVNZ reiterated that the focus on the children in the item had added clarity and vigour to the discussion and:

…helped to bring the subject down from the ivory towers of academia to the grass roots of Christianity. Our difference of opinion with Mr Fox is simply that, and does not amount to a breach of standards.

The broadcaster also disagreed with the observations made by Mr Fox about the editing of the item combined with the introduction of the footage of the children. It wrote that the complainant was entitled to his opinion, but the broadcaster’s disagreement did not mean that the standards had been breached.

Mr Fox’s Final Comment – 20 June 1998

Mr Fox stressed that Associate Professor Paul Treblico was not just an academic, but a person with a vibrant Christian faith who, if interviewed:

…would have been very capable of articulating clearly both the orthodox view on the resurrection and the divinity of Christ to restore a correct balance to this item.

The complainant expressed dismay that TVNZ continued to think that bringing children into an item dealing with such a serious intellectual argument would add clarity. He added that his research had shown that reputable radio and newspaper items on this serious intellectual issue had not involved the views of children at all.

In conclusion, Mr Fox referred to National Radio’s Sunday programme, A Question of Religion. That, he wrote, achieved a balance on this issue by interviewing Dr Veitch as representing the extreme liberal position in one programme. In a later programme, it presented Dr Alan Missen, as representing the orthodox view on the subject. To rectify the imbalance, the other side of the argument should also be presented by this programme, he concluded.