On August 1, 1996, CFRA-AM (Ottawa) broadcast a Commentary by regular contributor BrianHenderson which focussed on a comment made by actor Jack Nicholson during the course of afilm production. The text of the Henderson Commentary follows:
Well, here's a news tip from the week-end you may have missed. Hollywood reporterscovering the filming of Danny DeVito's new flick about Jimmy Hoffa saying that star JackNicholson is so friendly on the set that he's freely mingling with many of the 1,200extras in the cast. One of them, retired history teacher Bob Morowski confiding that whenhe and Jack were chatting about the recent birth of Nicholson's son, Jack slapped him onthe back and guffawed, “We guys can still roll, can't we?”
Jack Nicholson is a great actor, some say even a sex symbol (which certainly gives therest of us a boost) but, when it comes to biology and baby birthing, apparently he doesn'thave a clue. “We guys can still roll” would still seem to suggest that some menstill believe that it's the guy who makes the baby when, in truth, the guy doesn't doanything but water the seed. She plants it; she nurtures is; she harvests it; she feedsit. And, in most households, it's mostly hers to care for.
The child-rearing process is getting a little more progressive, more of a sharedresponsibility. But making babies is women's work. And any man who boasts about his partin the process is an idiot. It's like an injection and the length of the needle hasnothing to do with it. So I'll be darned if I know why men still puff up andcock-a-doodle-do, look at me, I'm a stud, Jack, and I can still roll. Certainly ablow to the male ego to discover that their part in the life-creating process is onlyabout 30 seconds in duration. But it's true.
And for a long time now, some women, thankfully only a few, have been searching for away to eliminate the launching pad altogether. Now it's like a dating service. Pick yourpotion from a suitable donor and the rest of the impregnating process is purely clinical.From there on, it's all up to her, just like it's done when it's au naturel.Remember a couple of weeks ago when Mike Tyson was found guilty of rape, at the sentencinghearing, Tyson again professing that he hadn't done anything wrong, the judge shaking herhead and responding “You just don't get it, do you?” A sad indictment in morethan one way against more than one man. I'm Brian Henderson.
The Letter of Complaint
The complainant took issue with the Commentary, viewing it as “a personal affrontas well as a blatant violation of your gender policy.” His letter of August 1 alsostated
The commentator took a comment by actor Jack Nicholson that “we men can stillroll” and built a wild and angry attack on fathers' participation in creating andnurturing kids. He extended this to all men and fathers. He stated that men'sparticipation was only 30 seconds, suggested that fathers were unnecessary and stated thatany man who was proud his part [sic] in raising children was “anidiot”. He further made an analogy, suggesting that men creating children were like arapist who “just doesn't get it”. This is gender hatred and I am offended by hisuse of the public air waves to demean and belittle fathers in their children and in theeyes of society.
Children know the importance of the presence of a caring father with pride in theirgrowth. CFRA apparently is not as aware. I am offended by the bias and gender attack onfathers in these comments on public airwaves.
It is only anti-male bigots who feel that the health and nurturing of the father isunimportant. It is only anti-male bigots who feel that child poverty can be solved withoutthe presence of a proud, responsible and caring father. If gender bigots used hatred andhumiliation on the radio to silence women about their part in child raising would you notact?
… I feel that these comments are clear violation of the spirit and the letter of yourcode and that the station and commentator should be required to provide equal air time andresources for a positive portrayal of fathers.
The Broadcaster's Response
The News Director of the station responded to the complainant on August 20. Hiscomments were as follows:
The commentator's perception is that some men feel it is men who handle the biggestresponsibility in the development of the fetus. He addresses the pre-birth development ofthe child when he says some men “still believe that it's the guy who makes thebaby.” …
You are absolutely wrong in suggesting that the comment “built a wild and angryattack on fathers' participation in creating and nurturing kids.” In fact,he said just the opposite. He said “the child rearing is getting more progressive,more of a shared responsibility.” You are also absolutely wrong when you claim hesaid “that any man who was proud his part [sic] in raising children was an idiot.”He said no such thing. You were also absolutely wrong in claiming he said “mencreating children were like a rapist who just doesn't get it.” The reference to”just doesn't get it” was citing the judge's comments when Mike Tyson wasconvicted of rape, but repeatedly said he “hadn't done anything wrong.” Surely,Mr. …, you are not condoning Mr. Tyson's actions?
Your lengthy use of the unattributed statistics and “evidence” is notrelevant to this issue. Your topic change to the relevance of men in nurturing ofchildren, and your further non sequitur [regarding anti-male bigots] are out of the blueand make it abundantly clear that you have a private agenda which is not relevant to thisradio broadcast or this radio station.
Mr. …, you have repeatedly taken on-air comments out of context, and attempted totwist their meaning to include some kind of broad attack on all men. …
… [Y]ou have very strong views on the issues you address. We must now stronglyprotest…because you are unfairly targeting CFRA in your personal agenda.
The viewer was unsatisfied with this response and requested, on September 30, that theCBSC refer the matter to the appropriate Regional Council for adjudication.
The CBSC's Ontario Regional Council considered the complaint under the Sex-RolePortrayal Code of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB).
Sex-Role Portrayal Code, Clause 2: Diversity
- Television and radio programming shall respect the principles of intellectual andemotional equality of both sexes and the dignity of all individuals. Television and radioprogramming should portray women and men as equal beneficiaries of the positive attributesof family or single-person life. Women and men should perform in a range of occupationsand function as intellectual and emotional equals in all types of thematic circumstances.This should be the case for both work and leisure activities requiring varying degrees ofintellectual competence.
Guidance: Women and men should be portrayed as working toward a comfortableexistence through mutual support, both economically and emotionally, and in both publicand private spheres. Despite the problems of societal systemic discrimination, televisionand radio programming should reflect an awareness of the need to avoid and overcomediscrimination on the basis of gender.
The Regional Council members reviewed a tape of the program in question as well as thecorrespondence. The Council concludes that the broadcaster did not breach Clause 2(c) ofthe Sex Role Portrayal Code.
The Content of the Broadcast
The complainant has tried, without foundation, to build a case against this broadcaston the basis of gender discrimination. He targeted this Commentary despite the fact thatit was based on and reflective of reality and despite the fact that the content did notreinforce negative stereotypes. By highlighting the role and importance of women inprocreation, these comments actually counteract negative stereotypes which frequently tendto minimize the positive attributes and contributions of women. As was discussed in CFRA-AM re PSA (CBSC Decision 95/96-0149, October 21, 1996),it is the Council's view that Code violations based on discrimination require an elementof unfair or unjustifiable negativity.
[T]he question for the Council to address is whether the pointed portrayal isunjustifiably negative or degrading. The notion of equality which is proposed in Clause2(c) does not mean congruence or absolute identity in all respects. It implies rather theprinciple of equatability, that it, an equality of treatment and the equality ofapplication of standards to both sexes. It implies that it may in circumstances beappropriate to draw attention to differences between the sexes, provided that thoseconclusions are based on and reflect reality. The fact that a portrayal may have somenegative implications does not mean that it will be in breach of the Code. For that resultto occur, the portrayal must be unfairly or unjustifiably negative.
The Council finds the complaint to be utterly without substance.
A CBSC Concern: Frivolous, Vexatious or Harassing Complaints
The purpose of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council is to be responsive to theserious concerns of individuals who have been troubled by a newscast, commentary, drama orother radio or television program to which they have been exposed. To this end, theCouncil assists in the resolution of complaints by encouraging or facilitatingcommunication between the audience member and the broadcaster. It is only when thisprocess fails that the complaint is adjudicated by the appropriate CBSC Council, whichwill evaluate the program in question against the terms of one or more of the Codes itadministers in the light of the accompanying correspondence.
While it not unexpectedly occurs that some individuals are the source of morecomplaints than others, this does not mean that the habitual complainant will be viewed asunjustified in his or her written concern by reason of the frequency of thecomplaints. Where, however, the recurrent complainant returns time and again withcomplaints which repeat a theme on which the Council's position is clear, and known to thecomplainant, the complaints may justifiably be seen as vexatious or harassing. To treat suchcomplaints with the care and attention which are characteristic of the process becomesunfair both to the broadcaster and to those other complainants whose seriousconcerns must then await the resolution of a frivolous matter.
The case at hand is, in the view of the Ontario Regional Council, just such a frivolousor vexatious matter. It harps on a theme already dealt with by the CBSC in numerousearlier decisions, including those in CTV re F.A.C.E. PSA(CBSC Decision 95/96-0140, April 30, 1996), CFRA-AM reInternational Women's Day (CBSC Decision 95/96-0157, October 21, 1996), CFRA-AM re Family Fortune (CBSC Decision 95/96-0145, October21, 1996), CFRA-AM re PSA (CBSC Decision 95/96-0149,October 21, 1996) and CFRA-AM re Dr. Tomorrow (CBSCDecision 95/96-0152, October 21, 1996), as well as in matters dealt with at this verymeeting of the Ontario Regional Council, namely, CIII-TV re anEpisode of Seinfeld (CBSC Decision 96/97-0074, May 8, 1997) and CIII-TV re Canadian Heritage Spot (CBSC Decision 96/97-0236,May 8, 1997). Moreover, the complaint on this occasion clearly takes aspects of theCommentary out of context, distorts others and generally attempts to make of theCommentary something which it is not. The letter is not a complaint; it is an argument,and one which attempts to turn a rather straightforward Commentary on the relative rolesof men and women in procreation and child-rearing into a diatribe.
In addition to assessing the relevance of the Codes to the complaint, the CBSC alwaysassesses the responsiveness of the broadcaster to the substance of the complaint.In this case, the Council considers that the broadcaster's letter responded fully andfairly to each of the issues raised. While the Council notes that CFRA's News Directorclearly expressed the station's frustration at being inundated by complaints of a nearlyidentical nature from a single complainant, the Council also notes that he managed toresist any temptation to dismiss the complaint out of hand, no small feat in thecircumstances. Nothing more is required.
This decision is a public document upon its release by the Canadian BroadcastStandards Council. It may be reported, announced or read by the station against which thecomplaint had originally been made; however, in the case of a favourable decision, thestation is under no obligation to announce the result.