OTTAWA – The content of CP24’s broadcast of the 30th Annual Gay Pride Parade held in Toronto on July 4, 2010 had at least one viewer’s shorts in a bunch.
As a part of the 2010 festival, CP24 provided a live three-hour broadcast of the week-long finale at 2 p.m., and rebroadcast at 8 p.m. Knowing that the parade isn’t everyone’s cup of feathers, CP24 broadcast a viewer advisory during every commercial break which noted: “The following is a live event and may contain scenes of nudity. Viewer discretion is advised.”
On the day of the broadcast, a complainant, acknowledging that the program was preceded by a warning of nudity, complained “that it was an inappropriate program to be broadcast live at 14:00 on Sunday” and that even “the rebroadcast at 20:00 was too early in the TV schedule for this type of programming.”
During its review, the National Specialty Services Panel noted “that the challenged broadcast did not display any nudity or discuss any sexual activity” and found the coverage not in breach of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) Code of Ethics in terms of any visual content.
However, three occasions when bystanders being interviewed by one or another of the reporters used the adjective “fucking” or a variant of the f-word to enthusiastically describe some aspect of the parade, the people in attendance or the weather.
Regarding the use of that word, the Panel took no issue with “the long-applied principle of ensuring a ‘safe haven’ for audiences uncomfortable with the use of coarse or offensive language on broadcasts outside of later evening hours.”
It also added the following perspective on that policy: “It considers that the policy relating to the broadcast of such language applied by the CBSC strikes an appropriate equilibrium between freedom of expression and respect for the values of those viewers (or listeners) concerned by such content. The securing of a pre-9 p.m. safe haven for the more conservative sector of society is nicely balanced against a more liberal post-9 p.m. policy, which imposes virtually no limitations on the use of coarse or offensive language.”
However, in a journalistic context, bad words outside the post-9 p.m. hours need some flexibility. “(T)here are viewers (and listeners) who are genuinely disturbed or offended by such language on the airwaves,” notes the decision and for that reason, the Panel believes that, wherever it is reasonable to do so and the context for the inclusion of the language is not compelling, broadcasters should employ the inexpensive techniques that exist to filter out such language.
However, in the limited case of a “live news broadcast” and in circumstances like those encountered in the 2 p.m. live coverage, the use of such coarse language could be excusable. While the broadcaster did not incorporate a tape delay in its coverage, “the Panel considers that the innocent enthusiasm of the reactions, the infrequent inclusion of the f-word in an unaggressive way in the lengthy event coverage, the contextual basis for the usage, the journalistic nature of the program, and the reaction of the reporters serve as a fair explanation for the use of the f-word during this live broadcast,” says the decision.
“Moreover, the Panel considers that the inclusion of such language in a similar set of journalistically-contextual circumstances could be reasonably understood as justifiable, and thus excusable, on future occasions.”
