BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The Human Body, episode one of an eight part series, was broadcast on TV One at 8.30pm on Monday 28 September 1998. The next seven parts were broadcast at the same time on consecutive Monday evenings. The series, presented by Professor Robert Winston, showed viewers what happened to the human body from conception to death. Part One comprised an overview of the full series.

Mr Walker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that as the series assumed that the human body was the product of evolution, it was unbalanced and misleading. He argued that the programme omitted the belief that all life was the product of creation by God.

Mr Fox complained that the series was biased, as it did not acknowledge that evolution was a controversial issue. Many people, including many scientists, he said, accepted a worldview based on the veracity of the Bible.

Describing the series as propaganda, C M Salt complained that the series lacked any scientific balance as it ignored the debate surrounding the theory of evolution.

Acknowledging that the series assumed the truth of evolution, TVNZ denied that it was unbalanced, biased or that it was propaganda. The theory of evolution, it added, was supported "by a mountain of empirical evidence", and was no longer a controversial question for which balance was necessary.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, each complainant 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

For the purpose of determining these complaints, the members of the Authority have viewed the parts 1 and 2 of the series complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendices. In this instance, the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

The first programme consisted of an overview of the full series, and the acceptance of an approach based on evolution was readily apparent. The members have also watched the half-hour programme From a Frog to a Prince, which supports the creation approach, supplied by Mr Fox.

The Programme

The Human Body is a BBC series in eight parts in which the presenter, Professor Robert Winston, described as a scientist and a doctor, shows viewers what happens to the human body from conception through to death.

The Complaints

Three complaints about the series, and each which referred specifically to the first programme, were referred to the Authority. They were made by Mr Walker, Mr Fox and C M Salt, and each was concerned by what was described as the acceptance in the series of the theory of evolution.

In his complaint to TVNZ, Mr Walker emphasised that evolution was "but a theory", and expressed the view that the series should have explained the "viable belief that man and all of life are the product of creation by God". He considered that the first programme breached standards G6, G11(i) and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Referring to the programmes one and two, Mr Fox also claimed that standard G6 was contravened. He nominated standard G20 in addition. Because the programmes adopted an evolutionary worldview, he maintained that they were totally biased. He argued that as evolution was a controversial issue, the point of view of creationism should have also been acknowledged in the series. He submitted a video tape entitled From a Frog to a Prince, as part of the evidence in support of his complaint.

C M Salt also stressed the approach that evolution "is at best still only a theory". In view of the mistakes advanced because of the evolutionary tack adopted, C M Salt said that viewers were "being seriously misinformed". Describing the series as propaganda, C M Salt cited an example from the first programme which allegedly displayed a clear lack of objectivity, and intellectual and scientific integrity. In view of the matters raised, this complaint was assessed under standards G1, G6 and G21.

The Standards

Standard G6 was common to each complaint. It requires broadcasters:

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

The programmes complained about were also assessed under the following standards. The first two require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G11  To refrain from broadcasting any programme which, when considered as a whole:

(i) Simulates news or events in such a way as to mislead or alarm viewers.

The other three read:

G19  Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that the extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original event or the overall views expressed.

G20  No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested parties on controversial public issues. Broadcasters should aim to present all significant sides in as fair a way as possible, and this can be done only by judging every case on its merits.

G21  Significant errors of fact should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

TVNZ's Response to the Complaints

TVNZ's response to each of the complainants was similar. It agreed that the first programme, which provided an overview for the series, assumed the truth of evolution. However, TVNZ continued, it did not accept that such an approach was unbalanced or misleading.

In support of this decision, TVNZ referred to what it said was a "mountain of empirical evidence" in support of evolution. The mountain, it added, grew daily in such areas as palaeontology, genes research, chromosome studies, microbiology, developmental biology, and physical anthropology. TVNZ maintained that the basic principles advanced by Charles Darwin in 1859 and been steadily reinforced by subsequent scholarship, discovery and experimentation.

TVNZ said that while the series was clearly an "authored" work, the presenter's work (Professor Robert Winston) had been checked and double checked by experts in the particular fields explored. As an example of this process, TVNZ noted that Dr Michael Richardson of Sir George's Hospital Medical School in London had been the chief consultant on the section in the first episode dealing with the embryo.

The complaint from C M Salt referred specifically to the comment in the first programme when the presenter stated that the human embryo contained parts which echoed "our evolutionary ancestry when we were fish". In its response, TVNZ discussed at length what it said was now known as the Haeckel's fraud. One of Dr Michael Richardson's tasks it observed, was to ensure that a script was not tainted by Haeckel's incorrect construct.

In its response to each complainant, TVNZ argued that standard G6 was not relevant "for the simple reason that evolution is not, in our view, ‘a question of a controversial nature’". As there was no inaccuracy as claimed by C M Salt, TVNZ did not uphold the standard G1 aspect. Accordingly, standard G21 was then not relevant. As it did not accept that the series was misleading, TVNZ did not uphold the standard G11(i) aspect. It did not consider standards G19 or G20 were breached as the series reflected current scientific thinking and, as noted above, evolution was believed not to be controversial.

The Referrals to the Authority

Each complainant adopted a somewhat similar approach when the complaint was referred to the Authority. Mr Walker's repeated his argument that evolution remained only a theory, and maintained that evolution did not explain the beginning of life. Evolution, he insisted, had been, was currently, and would remain "a question of a controversial nature".

Mr Fox said that evolution was not controversial only among scientists and citizens with an atheistic worldview. He referred to a range of material which challenged "neo Darwinian Evolution". He also submitted the video tape From a Frog to a Prince for the Authority to view.

In C M Salt's referral, concern was expressed that TVNZ relied on naming scientists rather than quoting them to prove that they actually produced the evidence that evolution was a fact. In reply to this approach, C M Salt contended that "evolution has not and cannot be tested empirically". In support of this view, C M Salt attached a summary of the evidence against evolution which had been compiled by a Wellington engineer, Mr B Fulford. C M Salt concluded:

While it is true that a large percentage of scientists hold to the theory of evolution it is not true that they necessarily accept that it has been proven to the extent that it can be accepted as fact.

Further Correspondence

When asked to comment on each referral, TVNZ reiterated the point about the authored nature of the series. Accordingly, it wrote, Professor Winston was entitled to assume the truth of the theory of evolution as that was accepted by most scientists and most lay people. TVNZ contended that standard G6 did not apply generally when the complaint about one aspect of any documentary did not refer to an issue of substance.

TVNZ also noted that the British Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Authority's equivalent body in the UK, had not received any complaints along the lines of the three referred to the Authority subsequent to the screening of the series in the UK.

On 25 November 1998, while the Authority was collecting the information to enable it to deal with these complaints, it received a fax from Dr Michael Richardson of St George's Hospital Medical School. Dr Richardson noted that a complaint had been made to the Authority that some of the programme's statements about human embryos were incorrect, and that TVNZ in defence had said that the script had been approved by experts, including himself. He responded:

I would like to point out that this is untrue. I was indeed an expert adviser on the programme, but I did not approve the script. In fact I expressed strong reservations to the BBC which were ignored.

TVNZ was asked for its comments and, on 8 December, it sent the Authority a copy of a later fax received from Dr Richardson. In view of the comments contained in the fax, TVNZ withdrew its contention that Dr Richardson had approved the script, but maintained nevertheless its approach that the programme did not breach any of the standards cited. In a fax to TVNZ dated 29 November, Dr Richardson observed (among other matters):

I don't feel that the complaints reflect discredit on anyone involved in the programme. However it is not entirely true to say that I approved the script; as my emails show I expressed a number of reservations on the very issues now being complained about. The job of an adviser is to give advice, not to sanction or 'approve'.

The background is that I gave scientific advice about embryology to the BBC team engaged on The Human Body, and was paid a fee of £100. I am an embryologist and I believe in Darwinian evolution. … I was delighted to be named on the closing credits of the programme.

The complaints made in New Zealand – that the programme was wrong to talk about evolution and not Creation – are, in my view, unreasonable. The presenter, Robert Winston, introduced himself at the beginning of the series as a 'doctor and scientist', so it was clear to the viewer that this programme would be a discussion of contemporary scientific ideas.

Dr Richardson dealt in detail with his reservations about the series which, he said could have led a viewer to reach the conclusions that the series supported the old idea of "recapitulation" put forward by Ernst Haeckel. Dr Richardson also described the programme's reference to "the evolutionary tree" as an innocent but unfortunate mistake as it was related to one of Haeckel's favourite ideas.

The Authority's Findings

Standard G6 is the complainants' central concern. They were concerned that the entire series, when it assumed evolution, did not deal with a controversial issue in a balanced and impartial manner.

TVNZ's response on this point was that evolution is not a question of a controversial nature. Evolution, it commented, was assumed in The Human Body series, as it is assumed in many programmes, such as wildlife ones.

The Authority does not need to be drawn into a debate as to whether evolution has been proven as correct, given the peripheral nature of the contest between evolution and creationism in the context of The Human Body series. Rather, it is required to decide whether the series The Human Body, when it assumed the theory of evolution, breached the requirement for balance and impartiality contained in the code of broadcasting practice.

In determining the complaints before it, the Authority takes into account the specific point that the series was presented by Professor Robert Winston, who was described as a doctor and a scientist. He was not giving, nor did he pretend to advance, the ultimate truth about the human body, or specifically about life and death. Rather, he gave a review of the current scientific knowledge about the human body – from birth through to death – making use of recent advances in scientific technology to illustrate his story, and relying on scientific experts' opinion in the areas which he was describing. The series was not advanced as an impartial account any more than one dealing with the same issues which, for example, would have been presented by a theologian with advice from other theologians. The Human Body was a scientific series, and the Authority accepts that the series presented current scientific knowledge in a balanced way. Because the series complied with balance and impartiality within the boundaries it set for itself, the Authority does not accept that standard G6 was endangered by the omission of any comment about creationism.

In view of its conclusions on standard G6, the Authority decides that the series did not transgress standards G11(i) G19 or G20. In view of Dr Michael Richardson's comments that the programme was accurate in the context of current scientific thought, the Authority does not accept that standard G1 was breached. Standard G21 is not therefore relevant.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
11 February 1999

Appendix I

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority in determining Mr Walker's complaint:

1. Mr Walker's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 30 October 1998

2. TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 22 October 1998

3. Mr Walker's Referral of the Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority –
   5 November 1998

4. TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 11 November 1998

5. Mr Walker's Final Comment – 21 November 1998

6. Dr Michael Richardson's fax to the Authority – 24 November 1998

7. TVNZ's Response to the Authority on Dr Richardson's fax – 8 December 1998

8. Mr Walker's Final Comment – 18 December 1998

Appendix II

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority in determining Mr Fox's complaint.

1. Mr Fox's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 6 October 1998

2. TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 23 October 1998

3. Mr Fox's Referral of the Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority (plus
   attachments and video From a Frog to a Prince) – 20 November 1998

4. TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 7 December 1998

5. Mr Fox's Final Comment – 15 January 1999

Appendix III

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority in determining C M Salt's complaint.

1. C M Salt's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 7 November 1998

2. TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 9 November 1998

3. C M Salt's Referral of the Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority –
   23 November 1998 (plus paper from Bruce Fulford Creation or Evolution)

4. TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 7 December 1998

5. A final comment was not received from C M Salt