The CBSC’s National Specialty Services Panel examined the complaints under various provisions of the CAB Code of Ethics and Equitable Portrayal Code. The majority of the Panel concluded that the discussion dealt with political and social issues and did not constitute abusive or unduly discriminatory comments about black people in general, nor did it contain unduly negative portrayals of that group. There were, therefore, no violations of any Code provisions. One adjudicator dissented because she felt that Coren had unfairly attributed all the blame for the riots to the black community.
Here is the dissent from Mr. D.-Y.:
While I agree with the majority with respect to Clause 2 of the CAB Code of Ethics and Clauses 2 and 4 of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code, I disagree with respect to Clause 3. Coren’s choice of words and the overall sense of his message was that black people were the sole cause of the riots. He repeatedly attributed the riots to “black thugs”, “black young men” and then broadened his scope when he said “you have to have a large urban black community; the rioting begins there.” Coren argued that it was “not about race, it’s about culture”, but, either way, he was labelling an identifiable group as the source of the problem. Although Coren acknowledged that there were white participants in the riots, he claimed that those white youth were simply trying to “pretend they’re part of black culture”, again linking the problem back to the black community. These comments were insulting and unfounded generalizations about the black community and clearly constituted an unduly negative portrayal of that group, contrary to Clause 3 of the CAB Equitable Portrayal Code.
So there you have it.
A philosophical question to end with: if a controversy arises on Sun TV that nobody sees it, was it really controversial?
No comments:
Post a Comment