Communications White Paper Consultation:
A New Future for Communications
A response by The Christian Institute

©2001 The Christian Institute

To view the consultation documents click here

Contents

Introduction

Religious Broadcasting Freedom

Broadcasting Standards

Conclusions


Introduction

The Christian Institute is a registered charity for the promotion of the historic Christian faith. Our work is supported by individuals across the Christian denominations. We have a particular interest in public policy. Our work in this area has included research in the fields of family policy, divorce reform, religious liberties, sexual offences, education, and religious broadcasting.

We believe that broadcasters should uphold the highest standards of taste and decency. Our view of the role of broadcasting is reflected in the inscription found in the entrance hall at BBC Broadcasting House, which expresses the hope that,

'everything offensive to decency and hostile to peace will be expelled, and that the nation will incline its ear to those things which are lovely, pure and of good report and thus pursue the path of wisdom and virtue.'

This response addresses our two main issues of concern: religious broadcasting freedom and broadcasting standards.

Top

Religious Broadcasting Freedom

'Diverse communications'

We note with interest that the Government's objectives include a commitment to 'more choice and diverse services' (para 1.2.8). We particularly welcome the commitment to 'make sure these services are of the highest possible quality, and conform to basic standards of decency.'

In the foreword, the Government's goal is said to be,

'...to ensure the widest possible access to a choice of diverse communications services of the highest quality. All of us can benefit from new services - as citizens, as parents, as workers, as students, and as consumers. We want to include every section of our society in the benefits of these services, and use to the full the opportunities now available for enhancing their diversity and quality'.

In the light of this statement, it is all the more surprising that the Government appears willing to maintain the most discriminatory aspects of current broadcasting legislation. We refer, of course, to the fact that religious persons are disqualified, subject to limited exceptions, from holding broadcasting licences.1

The basic position of broadcasting law in relation to faith groups is that it is hostile towards them solely on the basis of their religion.

It is hard to think of any other distinction of this kind that would be similarly tolerated. There would be widespread condemnation if, for example, applicants for broadcasting licences were deemed to be 'disqualified persons' on the basis of their skin colour, gender or physical disability.

There is a discretion to grant certain types of licence to religious groups and a small number of groups have benefited from the exercise of this discretion.

We are grateful that paragraph 4.9.1 of the White Paper says the Government is prepared to remove the anomaly to do with the fact that there is a discretion to grant local analogue licences to religious groups but not to grant them local digital licences. It is not clear if the proposed change extends to allowing ownership of digital multiplexes or just individual programme licences.

But we call on the Government to remove all discrimination based purely on the religious identity of the licensee.

The White Paper makes reference to the 'strong demand' for religious content. This is well illustrated by the number of letters received by the Government on the subject. Between 1 January 1999 and 15 May 1999 alone, 16,500 letters were sent to the DCMS calling for greater religious freedom in broadcasting.2

It is a matter of great offence to people who hold sincerely to a religious belief that they are labelled in legislation as inherently dangerous and untrustworthy. Many are also surprised by how far the legislation goes to keep them out of broadcasting. For example, if a company has a subsidiary which owns an ITV franchise, it becomes a 'disqualified person' if it also purchases a Christian book publishing business.3 (We are curious as to whether this affects the licence held by BSkyB, since it is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation which also owns Zondervan, one of the world's largest Christian publishers.)

The White Paper refers to 'terrestrial licences where scarce spectrum means that choice is naturally limited for viewers'. This is obvious. But it is much harder to see how religious faith can reasonably be used as a primary basis for reducing the number of potential holders of these licences. If spectrum scarcity is really the justification for Schedule 2 of the 1990 Act, then many other categories need to be added to that Schedule to keep out other broadcasters whose output would be too 'narrow'.

To have religious disqualification written into the law makes assumptions about the content of broadcasting by religious groups which are offensive and unjustified. A religious broadcaster is just as capable of producing output which appeals to a broad audience as a secular broadcaster. But the current law doesn't even give them the opportunity.

If the legal restrictions are lifted as we request, at the end of the day, it will be for the regulators to decide to whom licences should be granted. If a broadcaster makes an application for a national licence and its proposed output is too narrow, its application can be rejected. This judgement will be made on the basis of their proposals, not on the basis of discriminatory assumptions about religious people.

We therefore call on the Government to remove any restrictions on the ownership of a licence based on the religious faith of the applicant. It should be added that, if the restrictions are not lifted, the current legal regime seems ripe for a challenge under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Top

Other discriminatory restrictions

Unfairness towards religious groups is also enshrined in the programme content codes. Paragraph 9.6 of the ITC Programme Code prohibits 'recruitment' through religious programmes. This saw an end to the broadcast of evangelistic rallies by Billy Graham. These were shown throughout the 1980's, complete with an appeal to the viewer, without controversy. The ITC does not place a similar ban on recruitment by secular groups. Political parties, for example, routinely attempt to recruit members at the end of party political broadcasts.

Both the ITC and the Radio Authority prohibit 'denigration' of one faith by another.4 This prohibits the kind of robust discussion we are used to seeing in relation to differing political beliefs. Yet at the same time, secular programmes frequently denigrate religious faith but are not subject to the same restrictions.

It is argued in the White Paper that 'religious content has a particular capacity to offend those with different views and opinions'. It is hard to believe that religion is really more offensive than many of the late night comedy shows or more offensive than the pornography which is increasingly a part of mainstream TV output.

Top

Necessary Safeguards

Of course there should be safeguards to protect the viewing and listening public. However these safeguards should apply equally to secular broadcasters and religious broadcasters. Any broadcaster that seeks to 'exploit the susceptibilities of the vulnerable' should be proscribed by legislation and regulations. This should apply to the manipulative sales techniques of advertisers and the scare-mongering of some documentary-makers just as much as to the content of religious programming

The ITC ownership code for satellite services states that:
'the ITC will not consider it appropriate to grant a licence ... if any of the bodies in question practises or advocates illegal behaviour or has rites or other forms of collective observance which are not normally directly accessible to members of the general public.'5

This is a perfectly reasonable proviso and is consistent with the desire to prevent undesirable groups from obtaining any licences (on satellite or any other medium). However, this proviso should not just apply to religious groups but to any group which promotes illegal behaviour, or is secretive or otherwise not susceptible to public scrutiny.

Top

The popularity of the Christian faith

In relation to Christian broadcasting, it is important to recognise that the Christian faith is by no means a minority point of view.

Speaking in 1988, Jack Straw, now the Home Secretary, said
'We can have no understanding of our history and culture unless we understand that we have a Christian tradition.'6

The legacy of this Christian heritage is still very much present in National life. Oaths taken by MPs, Peers, others in public life and by witnesses in a Court are Christian oaths. Both Houses of Parliament start their daily proceedings with prayer. The BBC still broadcasts daily prayers. Schools are legally obliged to start every day with Christian collective worship.

The Head of State is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The Church of Scotland is also 'by law established'. Ordinary people as well as those most senior in public life attend Remembrance Day services. National disasters always have a Church memorial service.

But faith in Britain is much more than just civic religion. Researchers measure religious commitment in many ways. Surveys can look at religious practice, to find out whether people say they pray, read a Bible or attend a Church or place of worship. People can also be questioned on what they believe.

In 1994 the Independent Television Commission, the regulator for Independent Television in the UK, published a study on religion and television entitled Seeing is Believing. The study estimated that 17% attend a Church or other place of worship every week.7

British Social Attitudes (BSA), often accepted as the leading survey of public attitudes in the UK found in 1996 that, excluding special services, such as weddings and baptisms, 19.0% attend a place of worship every month, with 11.2% every week.8

BSA has also found that 27% of the population claim to 'pray weekly'9 and that 18% claim to have been 'born again' or had a Christian conversion experience. 10

Like many other studies, the one by the ITC found that when a sample of the public were asked what was their religious faith, if any, over 70% said that it was Christian, with around 3.5% claiming allegiance to a non-Christian faith. The ITC report cites numerous other research findings which arrive at similar percentages.11 The ITC study asked a specific question about whether a person was 'born again' or considered themselves an evangelical. Some 6.6% of the sample answered 'yes' to this question. 12

Questions about religious allegiance tend to yield around 70% claiming Christian allegiance. When asked in 1996 a tougher question about 'belonging to a particular religion' BSA found that 52.8 % claimed Christianity, with 3.4% saying a non-Christian faith. 13 Interestingly another BSA study in 1991 has found that of those who say they have no religion, 8% pray weekly, 28% believe in God and 45% back daily school prayers. 14

The BSA has also asked questions about religious belief. In a 'secular age' the answers are quite remarkable. In 1991 69% said they believed in God and 45% said they believed in religious miracles.15 When asked whether 'Right and wrong should be based on God's laws', 29% said they 'strongly agreed', with an additional 36% saying they 'agreed'. When asked about the Bible, 30.9% said it was the 'actual word of God', with another 45.5% saying it was 'the inspired word of God but not everything should be taken literally, word for word'. 16

Research by the predecessor of the ITC also confirmed these findings. The 1988 Godwatching study found that 74% believed that 'Jesus Christ is the Son of God', 54% believed that 'the miracles of the Bible really happened' and 44% said 'Without belief in God, life is meaningless'.17

It is obvious that the major tenets of secular humanism are denied by the vast bulk of the population, even amongst those who do not see themselves as 'religious'.

There are therefore strong grounds for arguing that there is a considerable untapped market for religious broadcasting. And certainly grounds for arguing that Christianity, at least, is nothing like as controversial as the White Paper makes out.

Top

Broadcasting Standards

Programme Codes

The Christian Institute is strongly in favour of restrictions on the content of programmes.

Pornography is increasingly accepted by regulators, on specialist and on mainstream channels. Indeed, Channel 5 obtained its licence on the basis that its schedule would include nightly instalments of pornography.

The proposals in the White Paper appear to make for a 'lighter touch' regulatory regime. Those who broadcast pornography will no doubt benefit from this liberalisation.

(We find it ironic that such a decline should have taken place at the same time that restrictions on religious broadcasting have been made more stringent. In the 1980s, Billy Graham rallies were broadcast on ITV, complete with an appeal to members of the TV audience, whilst the idea of nightly pornography films on national TV would have been unthinkable. The current standards regime means that the opposite is now true.)

We object strongly to this continued lowering of broadcasting standards.

In June of last year, in response to widespread public concerns about broadcasting standards, especially in relation to the output of Channel 5, the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport said:

'Government cannot and should not directly intervene, but I believe that the broadcasters have a commercial and a moral duty to take good account of the views of the public, and I urge them to do so.'18

Given that graphic portrayals of sex and violence in the media are blamed for encouraging the commission of crime, we do not believe the Government can take such a hands-off approach.

The proposed new regulator, Ofcom, must be given a firm mandate to cut down on the amount and the explicitness of violence and sex portrayed in the media.

The British Social Attitudes Study found that 27% of respondents believed that a scene showing stabbing, filmed at a distance, should not be shown at all on regular TV. (The figure was little different for showing on satellite/cable or even on video.) A further 52% believed it should only be shown on regular TV after 10pm or later. Only 20% believed such a scene was suitable for showing before 10pm.19

When asked about a film with a frank scene of a man and woman having sex, 27% believed it should not be shown at all on regular TV. (21% believed it should not be shown on satellite or cable either.) A further 58% believed such a scene should not be shown on regular TV until after 10pm or later. Only 15% thought it was appropriate viewing earlier than 10pm. Even on a satellite or cable channel, only 16% believed the scene was appropriate before this time.20

Despite the conservative views of such a high proportion of viewers, broadcasters regularly show graphic portrayals of violence and sexual activity during evening hours and occasionally during the daytime.

There is clearly a gulf between how ordinary viewers interpret 'decency' and 'good taste' and how broadcasters and their regulators interpret them. Therefore the Government must ensure that viewers are given a much greater role in regulating the content of broadcasting in order that higher standards are maintained.

To this end, the Consumer Panel referred to in and paragraphs 6.4.3 and 7.5 must be given a clear taste and decency mandate. It should be very broadly-based and not skewed towards the interests of broadcasters or any other special interest group. Active efforts should be made to ensure that parents of children can participate (for example, soliciting views by post or email rather than requiring attendance at meetings). It must also be representative of all age groups. The religious make-up of the viewing public should also affect the make-up of the panel.

Ofcom must be required to consult regularly with this panel on questions of taste and decency. Furthermore, the views of the public must be reflected in the wording of the codes produced by the new regulator and broadcasters must be held accountable for breaching these codes by the use of substantial fines combined with public rebukes.

Broadcasters are continually pushing at the boundaries of decency yet the ITC have done little to halt the decline.21 The case of the Channel 5 quiz show conducted in the nude is only one recent example where the ITC failed to act, despite numerous protests.22

There is a widespread perception that regulators are weak and concerned more about the commercial interests of broadcasters than the sensibilities of viewers. Tougher codes, greater consumer accountability and serious penalties for offenders will go some way towards restoring public confidence.

Top

Conclusions

Religious Broadcasting Freedom

Religion is popular in the UK. The current ban on religious ownership of broadcasting licences is offensive and unjustified and may well provide the basis for a successful challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Religious broadcasters should be free to compete for all types of licences. There should be a level playing field between them and secular broadcasters.

It will still be up to regulators to ensure that licences are granted to those who will provide a service which is suitable for the particular audience. A prima facie ban on religious persons is not a necessary or proportionate response to the restrictions of spectrum scarcity.

There clearly should be limits on what can be broadcast but these limits should apply equally to secular and religious broadcasters.

Top

Broadcasting Standards

There is a gulf between what broadcasters and their regulators view as acceptable, and what the general public think. Standards are in decline.

There is a lack of public confidence in the system for upholding standards of taste and decency which can only be restored by greater public involvement in assessing standards, and by issuing tougher codes to broadcasters and stiffer penalties to those who breach the codes.


The Christian Institute
12 February 2001

Top

References

1 Broadcasting Act 1990, Schedule 2, Part II, paragraph 2
2 House of Commons Hansard, Written Answers, 15 May 2000, Column 12W
3 Broadcasting Act 1990, Schedule2, Part II, Paragraph 2(1)(c)
4 Section 7.7 of the Radio Authority Programme Code and Para 9.6 of the ITC Programme Code
5 Licences for Satellite Television Services and Licensable Programme Services, Notes for the Guidance of Licence Applicants, Appendix A - Ownership Guidelines, ITC
6 House of Commons, Hansard, 23 March 1988, col 418
7 Gunter B and Viney R Seeing is Believing, ITC/John Libbey, 1994, page 14
8 Jowell R et al British Social Attitudes(BSA), The 14th Report, SCPR, 1997/98 edition, Dartmouth, 1997, page 288
9 Jowell R et al British Social Attitudes(BSA), The 9th Report, SCPR, 1992/93 edition, Dartmouth, 1992, page 61
10 Jowell R et al BSA, The 9th Report, Op cit, page 355
11 Gunter B and Viney R Op cit, page 11-13
12 Ibid page 27. Nine percent of the 73% of those in the population who claim to be Christians describe themselves as 'born again' or evangelical Christians.
13 Jowell R et al BSA, The 14th Report, SCPR, 1997/98 edition, Dartmouth, 1997, page 288
14 Jowell R et al BSA, The 9th Report, Op cit, page 60
15 Loc cit
16 Ibid, page 351
17 Svennevig M et al Godwatching:Viewers, Religion and Television, IBA/ John Libby, 1988, page 46
18 House of Commons Hansard, 12 Jun 2000, Column 621
19 Jowell R et al BSA, The 14th Report, Op cit, page 177
20 Jowell R et al BSA, The 13th Report, SCPR, 1996/97 edition, Dartmouth, 1996, page 27
21 In stark contrast to its usual weakness, in December 1999 the ITC fined a Christian broadcaster £20,000 for implying that Christianity was unique and that homosexual activity was condemned in the Bible.
22 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_930000/930201.stm

Top

This content requires the Adobe Flash Player. Download Adobe Flash Player here.