CASE NUMBER: 02/2007 – RAUTENBACH VS ELECTRONIC MEDIA NETWORK – CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

A complaint was received regarding the airing of an interview with an author who holds contentious views on Jesus. The interview was broadcast on Carte Blanche on 17 September 2006. The complaint was that the broadcaster did not present opposing views or a debate on the author’s controversial views. 

The respondent replied that it did not contravene the Code of Conduct, as the broadcast did not amount to hate speech based on religion; nor did it contravene clause 36.1 of the Code, as the programme was merely a profile and not a discussion programme and the broadcaster was therefore not obliged to present opposing views or a debate.

An adjudicator accepted the respondent’s arguments and dismissed the complaint. The complainant appealed against the adjudication.

In a de novo adjudication the Commission held that clause 36.1 does not relate to interviews such as the one to which the present complaint relates. Clause 36.1 applies to “a programme in which controversial issues of public importance are discussed” (emphasis added). Although there may sometimes be a fine line between a programme that is merely an interview with a person who holds controversial views on matters of public interest, on the one hand, and a programme in which controversial issues of public importance are discussed, the distinction can indeed be made in the present case. Although there might be some discussion on matters of public interest during an interview with a person, this does not bring the programme within the ambit of clause 36.  In the present case, the objective with the programme was clearly not to elicit discussion but only to profile an author. As the programme was not a discussion, it fell outside the scope of clause 36.1 of the Code. Therefore, the broadcaster was not obliged to present opposing views or a debate. The programme explicitly identified the segment as an interview in which an author’s views were presented. It was left entirely to each viewer to accept or reject the author’s views.  Therefore the broadcast was in line with the right to freedom of expression and did not violate any clause of the Code. Complaint dismissed.