The Verdict
The CBSC's Ontario Regional Council considered the complaint under the Sex Role Portrayal Code of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB). Clause 4 of that Code reads as follows:
(4) Exploitation
Television and radio programming shall refrain from the exploitation of women, men and children. Negative or degrading comments on the role and nature of women, men or children in society shall be avoided. Modes of dress, camera focus on areas of the body and similar modes of portrayal should not be degrading to either sex. The sexualization of children through dress or behaviour is not acceptable.
Guidance: "Sex-ploitation" through dress is one area in which the sexes have traditionally differed, with more women portrayed in scant clothing and alluring postures.
Conclusion:
The Regional Council members viewed a tape of the program in question and reviewed all of the correspondence. The Council decided that the segment of Fashion Television in question did not breach the Code.
The Content of the Program
The Ontario Regional Council agrees with the complainant that the six photographs by Ellen von Unworth exposed women's breasts in several cases - an embrace between two women in one instance and a full frontal nude exposure in another. The Council does not, however, agree with the complainant's characterization of these as "sexually explicit material" or as "naked pornographic female images." Furthermore, the Council does not consider that the showing of partially clothed or even naked models is equivalent to pornography or sexual explicitness.
Without getting into fine legal definitions, the Regional Council considers it relevant to observe that the Oxford English Dictionary defines pornography as "Description of the life, manners, etc., of prostitutes and their patrons; hence, the expression or suggestion of obscene or unchaste subjects in literature or art." There is, in other words, an element of obscenity required to elevate mere images to the level of pornography. In a more modern sense, pornography implies exploitation of the weak by the strong in an obscene or unhealthy context. Those elements are completely absent in the material complained of.
The show in question is clearly not simply a show which is obliged to remain within the bounds of "what women today are wearing." Fashion is clearly the root of the show, but its offshoots are manifold. The episode which is the subject of this complaint included fashion, the work of a leading make-up artist, and the photographic career of a former model. This appears to be consistent with the content of other shows which, according to CITY-TV's spokesperson, have included interviews with "feminists such as Gloria Steinem and Naomi Wolfe" and dealt with subjects as diverse as "photographer and former model Matouchka and how she dealt with her breast cancer and the fashion industry's reaction to her after a mastectomy." In other words, the series is diverse in its approach to the world of fashion.
It is also clear to the members of the Ontario Regional Council - who have been called upon to evaluate the Fashion Television episodes on three occasions - that there is nothing pornographic or exploitative about the series segments which they have viewed. In fact, in a 1994 response, the Council agreed that CITY-TV's Fashion Television was entertainment which highlighted the fashion industry in a manner similar to other programming on the same subject and did not feel that it exploited women or presented a negative or degrading portrayal of them.
The Broadcaster's Response
In addition to assessing the relevance of the Codes to the complaint, the CBSC always assesses the responsiveness of the broadcaster to the substance of the complaint. The council felt that the response of CITY-TV's Program Director's was sufficient, and that nothing more was required of the broadcaster.
