(address)

16.01.1993.

 

Broadcasting Standards Authority,
PO Box 9213,
Wellington.

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I recently wrote to you about my complaint to TVNZ about the use of the word "gunman". I made a similar complaint to TV3 (I often see/record all or parts of both 6 o'clock News programmes). The TV3 Complaints Committee declined to uphold my complaint, and I am hereby referring the matter to you, for the purpose of an investigation and review of the decision. I quote below the two letters I sent to TV3 on the matter.

(I)

'I am writing to complain of the sexist double-standard you seem to operate under as regards so-called "sexist language". In the 6 o'clock TV3 News on 12.11.1992, your newsreader quite clearly referred to a "gunman" in Melbourne.

Where it suits the Feminist pressure-groups, you are at pains to use "non-sexist" terms, such as "humankind" for the less grotesque "mankind", and "actor" for "actress" (even though sex and gender are usually very relevant to the work and appeal of people in that line of work). But of course no Feminist pressure-group wants you to say "gunperson" instead of "gunman", so you don't.

This exposes the myth that your concern to be non-sexist is a matter of principle. In fact, it is just a question of doing what the Feminists tell you to do, and ignoring the rights of Man.'

 

(II)

'Thank you for your letter of 24 November 1992. I accept that you have an editorial policy, and that you do not (directly or invariably, at least) just do what any group tells you to do. Nevertheless, society's "prevailing interpretations on such matters", as you put it, are heavily influenced by pressure groups -- and there are masses of Feminist pressure-groups, and virtually no men's pressure-groups.

Thank you also for saying that I had made my point. However, you did not say how or if my letter had affected your policy, and subsequent language on TV3 (see below) has led me to believe that your policy had possibly not changed. In order to clarify this issue, I am now making a formal complaint -- both in respect of the use of the word "gunman" in the 6 o'clock News on 12.11.1992, and the use of the terms "gunman" and "chairwoman"in the six o'clock News on 26.11.1992.

Those uses of language appear to breach the Codes of Broadcasting Practice relating to the portrayal of people in a manner that encourages denigration of, or discrimination against sections of the community (in this case men) on account of sex. If you operate a policy of transforming words such as "postman" into "postal worker" (to avoid discriminating against women), then you should also transform words such as "gunman" into "gunperson" (or some other gender-neutral term), in order to avoid discriminating against men.

I realise that the "gunman" involved on the occasion in question was in fact a man, and the "chairwoman" involved was in fact a woman, but I would like to know what your policy is with respect to plural words ("gunpeople" or "gunmen", and "chairpersons" or "chairmen"), when groups of people are involved, and you don't know whether they are all of the same sex.'

TV3's response to my second letter was largely incoherent. After quoting section 26 of the Codes of Broadcasting Practice, their first paragraph questions my motives, insinuating that my motive was to form a men's pressure group. I am not intending to form a men's pressure group, for the simple reason that I don't have the time to do that. But I don't see how making a complaint to TV3 has anything directly to do with forming a men's pressure group ! Anyway, my supposed motives are not relevant. TV3 are just avoiding the issue by raising irrelevant points.

Their only other stated reasons for rejecting my complaint were worded as follows:

'The Complaints Committee asked the question whether a significant portion of the New Zealand male population was denigrated or discriminated against by the broadcast of the words complained of. A unanimous viewpoint to the negative was expressed. Intellectual argument to dissect this issue could be made to infinitude.

The Complaints Committee is of the view this matter has been raised from the academic viewpoint as opposed to that of some substantial grievance on the part of the sizeable "mankind" percentage of the New Zealand total population.'

The TV3 Complaints Committee seems somewhat confused. I was not complaining about 'mankind' -- I was complaining about 'gunman'. To use the word 'gunman/gunmen' (which has negative overtones), while avoiding words such as 'mankind', 'chairman/chairmen', 'spokesman/spokesmen', etc. (which have positive overtones), discriminates against ²all± men. It suggests that words that appear to apply only to men are O.K., as long as they have ²negative± connotations, and that only words which have ²positive± connotations should be made 'gender responsible', as TV3 puts it.

TV3 seems to be prejudiced against 'intellectual argument' and 'academic viewpoints'. They obviously have an inferiority complex in this regard. I would like to draw the attention of the Broadcasting Standards Authority to the ethics of the issue. What is fair, what is just ? These are the questions I hope you will be asking yourselves.

Sincerely,

Peter Zohrab

 

Letter No. 3