Author: Ophelia Benson

What procedural process does the BBC have in place to deal with serious complaints about one of its programmes? I recently have had the opportunity to discover this from the point of view of a complainant. The background is as follows.

In April 2008 I posted an article concerning a BBC World Service radio programme that gave a completely one-sided account of the reception in Britain of a lecture by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, in which he floated the notion of some recognition within the British legal system of certain civil applications of Sharia law that are currently practised under the auspices of the Islamic Sharia Council. (Given the characteristically convoluted expression of his views, what Dr Williams was actually proposing for consideration remains somewhat obscure; indeed, he later acknowledged some “unclarity” in his remarks.)

In my article I reported that my written complaint that the item was inaccurate (by omission) in the reporting of the responses to the Archbishop’s suggestions, and biased in the way it presented the workings of Sharia courts in Britain and of Muslim experience in Britain, was rejected by the editor of the World Service programme in question, Gavin Poncia. I subsequently went to the next stage of the BBC complaints procedures, and wrote to the Editorial Complaints Unit. The Head of Editorial Complaints, Fraser Steel, investigated the matter and concluded that he didn’t feel he had grounds for upholding my complaint.

The relevant correspondence was also passed to the Executive Editor of World Service Production, Anne Tyley, who in a thoughtful response acknowledged that the item was “flawed” in certain respects, and partially agreed with some of my criticisms. However, she nevertheless felt that my strongly negative view was not justified by the programme’s contents taken as a whole.

I then proceeded to the third stage, the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust, an independent body that adjudicates on matters pertaining to the Corporation. I have been impressed by the thoroughness with which the Committee dealt with the matter. Before it met to consider my complaint I was sent a forty page dossier giving a very detailed summary, including significant quotations and the citing of submitted supporting documents, of the basic elements of my communications at all three stages, with an equivalent summary of the responses from the relevant BBC personnel. I was also invited to submit any additional material I thought would be supportive of my case.

The BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee has now issued its detailed report (pp. 7-8, 32-44) of the proceedings, informing me that:

The Committee upheld both elements of your complaint and found that the item had breached the BBC’s guidelines on accuracy and impartiality.

There are several observations worth making on this whole process. The first is to give credit to the BBC for the opportunity it gives for complainants to submit criticisms of its programmes to which the BBC personnel concerned are obliged to reply. Most important, given the natural propensity of programme makers to defend their productions, and of their immediate superiors to support them, is that if complainants are dissatisfied with the responses at the first two stages of the procedures they have the opportunity to submit the complaint to an adjudicating body independent of the BBC management.

Nevertheless, I have to add an important caveat to this commendation of the BBC. The fact remains that both the programme makers and the Head of Editorial Complaints rejected my complaint that the item had contravened BBC editorial guidelines on impartiality and accuracy. This was in spite of the fact that the programme gave a completely uncritical portrayal of the workings of Sharia courts in Britain, totally ignoring widely publicised concerns such as those of the Government advisor on Muslim women, Shaista Gohir, who
stated:

Although Islam gives women numerous Islamic rights, many Muslim women would fear discrimination due to patriarchal and cultural reasons. Muslims, particularly women, may be pressurised by families and communities into using Sharia courts.

It is notable that the presenter’s abnegation of his role of questioning the two Muslim interviewees on these well-known concerns about Sharia court practice in Britain was of a piece with the introductory report that also avoided all mention of them. It is unsurprising that on this section of the programme the BBC Trust Committee noted the failure to indicate that “there were other relevant viewpoints to the ones expressed in the programme”, and concluded that “the item had not met the impartiality guidelines”.

Again, the programme producers evidently saw no serious breach of editorial guidelines in the fact that the Religious Affairs Correspondent, Frances Harrison, portrayed the situation for Muslims in Britain in an unrelentingly negative light. Apart from the obligatory allusion to widespread “Islamophobia”, listeners were told that “the Muslim communities in Britain, the Muslims I’ve talked to, feel a great sense of alienation”, experience a diminution of their freedom, and are supposedly faced with a pervasive attitude of “this idea that if you’re a Muslim, if you wear a headscarf you’re a terrorist”. Given the heightened emotions among more extreme Muslims in the political climate of recent years, presenting such a one-sided view of the supposed plight of Muslims in Britain to a World Service audience verges on the irresponsible.

The BBC Trust Committee noted in regard to this part of Frances Harrison’s contribution “that additional context was needed and that the description was not sufficiently nuanced so as to present an appropriately accurate and balance picture of the position of Muslims in Britain”, concluding that “the item had breached the impartiality and accuracy guidelines”.

How does one account for the current affairs section of the BBC World Service broadcasting a programme item so deficient in the above respects? I can only hazard a guess that there is a pervasive mindset among the programme makers such that on a controversial topic relating to British Muslims, overwhelmingly comprising an ethnic minority, they feel some kind of obligation to present a viewpoint that makes no concessions to the less palatable views to be found among the general population.

Even so, this hardly explains the uncritical portrayal of the workings of current Sharia courts, and the one-sidedly bleak picture of the Muslim experience, which suggests a propensity to portray this aspect of British life in as dark a colour as they reasonably could, complemented by an unquestioning acceptance of selectively sought Muslim viewpoints. Conceivably this is perceived as their demonstrating to a World Service audience a non-partisan “objectivity” in dealing with controversial social and political affairs. It’s as if they are so intent on producing a “warts and all” portrait of the situation for Muslims in the UK that they end up bending over backwards and presenting nothing but purported warts. It’s difficult to avoid the suspicion that there are certain bien pensant viewpoints prevalent among many BBC personnel that are taken as a given so that the team involved with a programme item such as the one in question engage in what might almost be described as a wilfully partial presentation of the issues.

Unfortunately there is no obligation on the BBC to publicise successful complaints against any of their programmes on the BBC website, nor for there to be any broadcast statement of the findings of the Trust Editorial Standards Committee. This means that only a miniscule proportion of the World Service listeners who heard the item in question will learn that it contravened BBC guidelines on accuracy and impartiality.

This brings me to the US Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), and the very different way this organisation deals with serious complaints. In a previous article I reported on my complaint to the PBS Ombudsman concerning the blatant contraventions of their Editorial Standards policies in their co-produced documentary “Einstein’s Wife” and the accompanying website and school lesson plans. The three Einstein specialists who were interviewed for the film have testified
that immediately after the film was broadcast in 2003 they wrote to the writer/producer Geraldine Hilton and to PBS protesting about “the distasteful manipulation of facts” and “entirely false claims” made in the film. They report that they received no response from either party.

My detailed complaint about the film and website to the PBS Ombudsman, Michael Getler, in March 2006 was sent on by VP Oregon Public Broadcasting, David Davis, to Geraldine Hilton, who replied to the criticisms. A superbly comprehensive report of the situation at that stage was posted by Mr Getler on the Ombudsman’s webpage in December 2006. On the basis of his examination of the relevant material he concluded that there was “a factually flawed and ultimately misleading combination of film and Web presentations”, and recommended shutting down the website pending a scholarly investigation.

In the event, PBS commissioned the author and academic (journalism) Andrea Gabor to rewrite the website material. Unfortunately the book chapter on the same subject that she published in 1995 reveals
that her mode of historical research left a great deal to be desired, and this was again evident
in the revised website posted in September 2007.

I submitted my criticisms of the revised website to David Davis, who replied that he would inform me if he and his colleagues intended to take further action. I later repeated my concerns that PBS had not explicitly acknowledged its breaching editorial standards policies and had also failed to notify schoolteachers that the “Einstein’s Wife” lesson plans, available for downloading for some four years, had been withdrawn. However, Mr Davis failed to address my criticisms
of the current website
or to respond to my noting PBS’s failure to make a public acknowledgement that the film and website had contravened PBS editorial standards. Michael Getler’s final word on the matter in December 2007 was that the film and web presentation remained unsatisfactory and recommended that they should be “pulled”. PBS chose to ignore the advice of their own Ombudsman, and there the matter rests.

What is only too apparent from the above is that, unlike the BBC, PBS has no machinery for independent adjudication on complaints about its programmes. This circumstance was made more invidious in the instance in question by the fact that the senior executive dealing with the complaint, David Davis, had a conflict of interest, in that he was also an executive producer of “Einstein’s Wife”. It is surely a matter of concern that a broadcasting and educational organisation as influential as PBS should lack an adequate procedure for independent adjudication on well-documented complaints of its breaching its Editorial Standards policies on verifying the accuracy of a broadcast production and associated website material. PBS have only themselves to blame if commentators conclude that their programme makers can ignore these policies with impunity.

Allen Esterson’s website is here.

Posted February 4 2009

The combination of the passage of proposition 8 in California and Barack Obama’s decision to have Rick Warren give the invocation at his inauguration caused an outcry on the left concerning the issue of gay rights. Among the various arguments that arose during this time, one ideological split struck me as particularly noteworthy, and potentially troublesome. On the one hand there seemed to be a certainty on the left that homosexuality is rooted in biology. On the other hand the right seemed just as certain that homosexuality is not rooted in biology but is instead freely chosen as a “lifestyle.”

My specific concern with this split pertains to the short-sightedness on the part of the left when advancing the argument that gay rights are somehow dependent on the roots of homosexuality being located inside the genetic code or some other physical cause. Now there may well be such a link. Certainly there is some evidence to support it, though such evidence is not considered conclusive at this time. At the end of the day this will be a question for science to answer. Insofar as politics is concerned, however, the question at hand is one of civil rights. After reviewing the argument as I understand it, I can only conclude that the strategy of linking the civil rights of gay people to the notion that homosexuality is rooted in physiology is misguided. We begin our analysis with a real world example rooted in such an argument.

The following is a rough transcript from “The Ron Reagan show,” a radio show broadcast from Seattle by self-described liberal atheist Ron Reagan. Here he is having a discussion with Chuck Wolfe, the president and CEO of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Leadership Institute. Also speaking is a caller to the show from Seattle.

Ron Reagan: Had Rick Warren offered the opinion that black and white people should not be allowed to marry, I don’t suppose that under those circumstances we can imagine Obama would have had had him anywhere near the inauguration but how is that really any different from what he’s saying about gay people?

Caller: Well I know the difference between those two and I know you do too…we don’t have enough people that agree there is a similarity between, you know, the color of your skin and your sexual orientation.

Ron Reagan: Both conditions of birth.

Caller: Yeah I think so too, and a lot of people think so, and in this great city a lot of people think so, but a lot of people don’t, and until you have agreement that it’s not something you can choose, widespread agreement, you’re not going to get to make that comparison.

Ron Reagan: Well I can make that comparison anytime I want; I don’t have to have people agreeing with me.

Rick Wolfe: I think your comparison is fair.

Ron Reagan: I do too, I do too.

Now there is no question that those who are opposed to homosexuality would like very much to push back against the idea that homosexuality is a condition of birth. Here is an excerpt from a NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) paper titled: “Homosexuality and Biological Factors: Real Evidence — None; Misleading Interpretations: Plenty.”

Now what is the truth? First, that not a single genetic, physiological, anatomical, or neuroanatomical correlate of homosexuality has been demonstrated. Secondly, that contrary to the impression they confer, precisely the studies of the last 15-20 years have made the existence of such correlates more unlikely than before. Thirdly, that these realities are either not perceived or purposely kept out of awareness because most academic publications on homosexuality are influenced or determined by the predominant gay ideology.

Clearly these two sides disagree on the subject of whether or not homosexuality has its roots in physical causes. The left feels that it is important to promulgate the notion that sexuality has biological roots and is a condition of birth, and the right is certain that this line of thinking is a “predominant gay ideology” of the left that must be combated.

The left should ask itself however: Is it really necessary to prove the biological roots of homosexuality in order to advance the cause of gay rights? If the right were to become victorious in proving that there is no “gay gene” would this have an impact on the culture war in a way that was meaningful? To answer these questions, let us consider the core arguments.

The argument from the left can be boiled down to something like the following:

1. Sexuality, including homosexuality, is rooted in biology and is a function of genes (or some other physical factor).
2. We are not able to choose the things about ourselves that are determined by biology.
3. Therefore homosexuality is not a function of choice, it stems from nature.
4. Human attributes that stem from nature, like the color of our skin or the orientation of our sexual desire cannot (will not) be made the basis for social discrimination.

The argument seems coherent enough assuming that one accepts all the propositions. For the sake of argument let us accept the first three. But what about the forth proposition? The entire reason for proving that homosexuality is rooted in nature is to get to that fourth proposition, for as the caller to the radio show stated, “until you have agreement that it’s not something you can choose, widespread agreement, you’re not going to get to make that comparison,” i.e. the comparison between the natural attributes “sexual orientation” and “skin color.” But the caller and the argument make an assumption here that is demonstrably false: They both assume that if a given attribute of a human being is rooted in nature this will be a sufficient condition for that attribute to be excluded from consideration when determining whether or not the possessor of that attribute should be granted civil rights. Unfortunately this assumption does not hold.

In the world of power and politics the question of whether or not a particular attribute of a person can be made the basis for discrimination against them is purely a function of the power dynamics of the society they live in, and the commonly shared values that hold sway in that society at that particular historical moment. The question of whether the attribute being controlled by society is biological or is generated by a free mind is utterly irrelevant. Consider Nazi Germany. It did not help the Jews one bit that part of what “makes up a Jew” can be based on a biological lineage. In fact it was precisely this heritage that the Nazi’s used to identify “suspected Jews.” Nor would some fellow who had converted to Judaism of his own free will be safe if after being arrested for his beliefs he declared “I am a Jew of my own free choice, I was not born a Jew.” Women were not given the right to vote because it was discovered that they had a biological basis for their “condition” of being women, nor were African Americans given civil rights because they had dark skin as a “condition of birth.” It was precisely their “conditions of birth” that were used, in conjunction with a whole host of arbitrary and false assertions about what these physical differences signified, to justify their subjugation in the first place.

The civil rights of these disenfranchised groups were granted to them not because of their conditions of birth, but in spite of the conditions of their birth and the false and cruel judgments that society had heretofore made about those conditions. The civil rights of African Americans and of women were granted to them by society not because they have this or that physical attribute, but because those conditions are now considered by our society to be irrelevant to the question of their humanity. Our civil rights are based on what we have in common as sentient free willed creatures capable of pursuing life liberty and happiness in spite of all the various differences between us.

Now just as the particular values of a given society determine how the “natural conditions” of birth will be viewed and treated by that society, so too will the free actions of those who live in that society be scrutinized and judged according to that society’s values. In the case of our own society it is the political and religious right that would like us all to share their judgments about homosexuality, which they regard as immoral and perverse. Their argument runs roughly like this:

1. Sexuality, including homosexuality, is a choice.
2. Homosexuality is perverse and/or immoral.
3. Therefore people who engage in homosexuality are perverse and/or immoral.
4. Perverse and immoral people should not be granted the same rights as other people.

The argument constructed by the left, which we have just considered, is an attempt to take away proposition number one. If homosexuality is not a choice, if sexualities arise in bodies as an expression of genetic code or some other physical factor then, so the argument goes, it will not be possible to accuse homosexuals of being immoral since morality implies a choice, and they do not have a choice since their sexuality is determined by their biology. Is this really the argument that the left would like to make its stand on?

Consider the following thought experiment. Let us assume that absolutely conclusive research has discovered a gene that is 100% determinative in causing homosexuality. There is universal agreement among the sciences on this matter. Also let us assume that it is easy to test for this genetic marker.

If it could be shown through genetic testing for this new marker that 90% of people professing to be gay were gay because of the gene but 10% were gay by choice (so demonstrated because they did not have the gene), would the left then be OK with allowing social sanctions to be placed on that remaining 10% who do not have the luxury of pointing to their genes to “justify” their behavior?

Is it plausible that the revelation of such a genetic marker would end the debate on the right? Yes it is conceivable that some percentage of people who are opposed to homosexuality are only so opposed because they believe it is a choice and not a biological phenomenon. But given that the reasons behind most of the judgments against homosexuality are rooted in religious texts it seems more likely that opponents of homosexuality would merely shift their argument and dispense with proposition 1. They could suggest that the gene itself was a manifestation of biological error or that the gene was “evil,” or “from the devil.” They could recommend the development of gene therapy to expunge the gene. Given our history it is not hard to imagine that a biologically based attribute could be turned against a particular group as a sign of their inferiority or imperfection. In any case there is no logically necessary connection between letting go of proposition 1. and ceding the matter by letting go of proposition 2.

Let us consider an alternative thought experiment. Let us assume that after much research, exhaustive documentation of the human genetic code, brain scans, and so forth, no physical cause for homosexuality is found. Proposition 1. is proven correct. Will the left now concede the whole argument? Will gay people cease and desist from their behavior and agree to proposition two, namely that their behavior is immoral? While it is conceivable that some gay people are only comfortable with their sexuality because of a belief that it is biologically rooted, it seems extremely unlikely that this argument would go very far as it is patently clear that many people do not believe that homosexuality is immoral, regardless of its source.

So now we come to the crux of this entire matter: All of the propositions in all of these arguments are in the end irrelevant to the issue of gay rights except for proposition number two, the proposition that homosexuality is immoral.

The war over gay rights is a war over values and beliefs. On the one hand we have groups of individuals who, largely for reasons rooted in religious beliefs, would like to prevent homosexuals from being granted certain legal rights. Against these groups stand other groups who would like to grant individuals who express the attribute “homosexual” the same set of legal rights currently granted to those who express the attribute “heterosexual,” regardless of the source of this attribute though they seem not to want to explicitly argue for this last point.

This reluctance is curious. Why is it that advocates for gay rights spend so much time fighting for the idea that homosexuality is a biological condition when it seems clear that a) they would not consider homosexuality immoral even if it were determined that homosexuality arises out of choice and b) proof that homosexuality is rooted in genetics would in no way guarantee that persecution of homosexuals would cease?

There are a number of answers to this question but I would like to focus on one in particular here. I think it may be due in part to what philosopher Austin Dacey calls “The Privacy Fallacy.” The Privacy Fallacy is the belief, currently popular in the secular left, that discussion of moral valuations, particularly moral valuations that come from religions, should be banished to the private sphere. The original purpose of this move was to make “matters of conscience—religion, ethics, and values” private. “By making conscience private,” Dacey writes, “secular liberals had hoped to prevent believers from introducing sectarian beliefs into politics. But of course they couldn’t, since freedom of belief means believers are free to speak their minds in public.”

The obsession with some on the left with the biological roots of homosexuality is, I think, a direct result of the Privacy Fallacy. Seeking to avoid a conflict over values, which are “private” and “relative” and therefore “uncontestable,” the left has chosen to try to avoid the entire argument that must inevitably occur by hiding behind the possibility of removing homosexuality from a moral calculus via biological fate. But this move is merely delaying the inevitable, and avoiding important facts at hand.

It is the beliefs and values codified in our constitution that protect our liberties. Each and every value in that document must be fought for, every day, intellectually, morally, and passionately. The reason that we have a separation of church and state is not to shove secularists into a corner from which they cannot speak and to allow advocates for this or that particular religion to say whatever they wish, but to allow for a full collision of all ideas under the umbrella of a free and open society.

The idea that homosexuality is immoral and should treated by society as an attribute that disqualifies the possessor from the legal rights associated with marriage or the legal ability to raise children is an idea that can be questioned and critiqued directly without reference to the cause or causes of homosexuality. If our secular society is to make rational progress on this issue then the claim that homosexuality is immoral must be critiqued directly and honestly using all the tools of reason and not sidestepped with arguments that ultimately have little bearing on the case.