The Verdict
The CBSC's Ontario Regional Council considered the complaint under the Code of Ethics and the Sex Role Portrayal Code of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB). Although violence was not at issue here, the Council also referred to the relevant provisions of the Voluntary Code Regulating Violence in dealing with the issue of scheduling. The pertinent clauses that related to this complaint, read as follows:
Clause 3, Code of Ethics
Recognizing that programs designed specifically for children reach impressionable minds and influence social attitudes and aptitudes, it shall be the responsibility of member stations to provide the closest possible supervision in the selection and control of material, characterizations and plot. Nothing in the foregoing shall mean that the vigour and vitality common to children's imaginations and love of adventure should be removed. It does mean that programs should be based upon sound social concepts and presented with a superior degree of craftsmanship; that these programs should reflect the moral and ethical standards of contemporary Canadian society and encourage pro-social behaviour and attitudes. The member stations should encourage parents to select from the richness of broadcasting fare, the best programs to be brought to the attention of their children.
Clause 4, Sex-Role Portrayal Code
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.
Clause 3.1.5, Voluntary Code Regarding Violence
Broadcasters shall take special precautions to advise viewers of the content of programming intended for adult audiences which is telecast before 9 pm in accordance with article 3.1.3.
Conclusions:
The Regional Council members viewed a tape of the program in question, and reviewed all of the correspondence. For the reasons given below, they unanimously agreed that the program did not violate any of the Codes referred to above. The important issues raised by the viewer's letter are each discussed below.
The Content of the Program: Parents and Children
It was the view of the Council that the complainant had done the right thing in viewing the program with her children. Council assumed that the viewer, having obviously found the program unfit for her home, would likely have discouraged, if not forbidden, the watching of the series in future by some or all of her children. This would represent media literacy in action and would constitute an example to be followed by Canadian parents.
There are, however, circumstances in which programming may be so contrary to the standards established in one or more of the Canadian broadcast Codes, that it ought not to air at all. This was the Council's view in 1994, when they dealt with an episode of the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and concluded that the entire series would likely be in breach of the articles of the voluntary violence code, and not just the episode in question.
In the case of The Simpsons, the Council felt strongly that, despite the fact that the program is animated, it's not necessarily a program that's intended for children to watch unsupervised. Even though the content is presented in a tongue-in-cheek or satirical way, the program contains much material that exemplifies what children should not do - such as rudeness to parents, drinking, etc. Because of this, it's a program whose suitability ought to be judged in each home. Since the Council did not consider The Simpsons to be "designed specifically for children," in accordance with the provisions of Clause 3 of the Code of Ethics, it did not believe that that Code applied to The Simpsons episode in question.
The Scheduling Issue
Furthermore, the program was aired by the broadcaster from 7:30-8:00 pm - in a time slot when parents can easily determine the suitability of a program for their own households. Since The Simpsons, or at least the episode in question, did not, in the Council's view, fall into the category of "programming intended for adult audiences which is telecast before 9 pm," the Council did not believe that "special precautions to advise viewers of the content" were required. The program at issue here was considered an example of programming in the satirical genre, arguably aimed at older kids, but still a part of the mix of legitimate family fare which could be overseen by responsible parents if appropriate.
Council was of the view that the last sentence of Clause 3 of the Code of Ethics applied, namely,
The member stations should encourage parents to select from the richness of broadcasting fare, the best programs to be brought to the attention of their children.
In this case, by offering the program in the 7:30 pm time slot, the broadcaster was providing precisely that opportunity to the general viewing community. In its decision, the Council noted that there had been a tendency, since the introduction of the 9:00 pm "watershed hour," for everyone to treat that moment as the "Great Divide" - that all programming after 9:00 pm falls into the "adults only" category, and that all programming before 9:00 pm falls into the "suitable for everyone, including young children" category. Neither generalization is wholly accurate.
The watershed hour is only the hour before which no programming containing scenes of violence intended for adult audiences may be shown. Private broadcasters have voluntarily tended to extend this principle to all programming containing any material intended for adult audiences, even if it's not of a violent nature.
But this doesn't mean that all programs aired before 9 pm are suitable for all members of the family. That would be true of programming intended for children below 12 years of age, which airs in a different time slot, but material broadcast in the early evening falls within that "rich broadcasting fare" mentioned above, and should be vetted by parents as to its suitability in their homes.
Similarly, the Council took no position for or against the suitability of the program for audiences at another hour of the day, such as the 5:00 pm time slot in which the CBC was airing the series in Toronto at the time of this complaint.
In general, the Council does, however, regret the fact that the standards applied carefully by it to private over-the-air broadcasters are not applicable across the entire Canadian broadcasting system for the benefit of all Canadians.
Sex-Role Portrayal
In the portion of the episode in question, Moe, the bartender, is portrayed as a chauvinist, a particularly uncouth chauvinist at that. His dialogue regarding the waitress applicant's measurements is hardly role model material. Then again, much of the behaviour on the program could be characterized in the same way. However, the program does not suggest that this dialogue is suitable, and because of this, Moe's actions don't amount to exploitation. Nor are there negative or degrading comments on the role of the waitress. The fact that they are depicted in the same bed together within the half-hour show is not exploitation either. If anything, the tongue-in-cheek approach makes something of a mockery of Moe's behaviour. No approval is implied.
Overall, the Council concluded, the continued exaggeration of Moe's inappropriate behaviour emphasizes the unacceptable nature of such behaviour. The producers of the show have not made Moe a likeable character and thus, creatively, have not positively reinforced his actions. To the contrary, the program could be seen as reinforcing the rules within the Sex-Role Portrayal Code regarding exploitation and degrading statements.
Broadcaster Responsiveness
This was an unusual case in the experience of the Council, as far as the question of broadcaster responsiveness was concerned. In general, Council limits itself to the broadcaster's written response to the viewer's complaint. In this case, Council also considers it appropriate to comment on the viewer's allegations of what happened before the CBSC was involved in the dossier.
First, on the level of the broadcaster's obligation to respond by letter to the viewer, the Council finds that CFMT-TV's letter constituted a sufficient response to the complainant. Consequently, its overall view of this matter is that CFMT-TV had breached neither the Codes nor the standard of responsiveness.
On the other hand, if the viewer's claims about the initial oral response she had from the station are correct, the Council hopes that such actions are not the rule for either this broadcaster or other broadcasters adhering to the various CAB Codes and the principles established in the CBSC Manual. Simply stated, every broadcaster is responsible for all of the material it broadcasts, whatever its source. A broadcaster may, for quite positive reasons, wish to encourage a viewer to also contact the producer of the program, but it should not attempt to side step its own responsibility in that regard on the grounds that it was not the producer of the show at issue.
Canadian broadcasters are also required to direct complainants to Canadian resources, specifically the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, when they have a problem with material they have aired which they have been unable to resolve directly with the complainant. The Council regrets the frustration which the viewer apparently underwent in attempting to find the correct venue for her complaint within her own country.
