the
facts
On January 5, 2007, TSN broadcast the final game of the 2007 International
Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) World Junior Hockey Championships live from
Cybulski: Jonathan, your second gold medal.
How does this compare to last year?
Toews: Oh, it's unbelievable.
It's a great feeling. You know,
we've come, uh, overcome so much and, uh, you know, tonight was a battle from
start to finish and we did a fucking great job.
Cybulski: You guys seem to do, initiate on the
forecheck as strong as you guys ever have in this tournament.
Toews: Yeah, you know, it's, uh, the Russians were a great team
and we expected them to skate the puck. And,
uh, you know, they were a great team tonight, but, uh, you know, we came out
hard and we finished off hard too.
Cybulski: Did the coaching staff challenge you
as a group of forwards before this one?
Toews: Yeah, you know, it's, there's some of are, some of us
that had to produce and, and, uh, you know, we came through in the crunch
tonight.
Cybulski: Congratulations, Jonathan.
Toews: Thank you.
When the hockey game was rebroadcast that evening, the interview with Jonathan
Toews was excised from the package.
A viewer in Nova Scotia filed a complaint shortly after the initial broadcast,
which read, in part, as follows (the full text of all correspondence can be
found in the Appendix):
TSN [...] just before 5PM ADST,
was broadcasting the IIHF World Junior Hockey Championship. Immediately following the game, TSN began an
interview with Canadian player Jonathan Toews, during which TSN broadcast
Jonathan Toews using the "f" word.
I was shocked and offended as I listened to this with my nine-yr. old.
I listened and looked for an apology from TSN, but have seen no acknowledgement. If you view the tape, you will see it is clearly
there. Toews' interview is the very
first one following the game.
TSN's President replied to the complainant on January 18 in the following
terms:
I understand your concerns regarding a comment
by Team
In no way does TSN condone this type of language.
However, the broadcast was airing live from
While there are no excuses for Mr. Toews' use of
language, it is important to remember that Mr. Toews is an 18-year-old, who
having just won a gold medal for his country, got caught up in the excitement
of the moment.
TSN is sensitive to these types of situations and
had no intention of insulting our viewers.
We regret that you and your nine-year-old child were offended. Please accept my apology on behalf of the network.
We hope this letter clarifies the situation and conveys how seriously
we take our programming and broadcast responsibilities.
The complainant filed his Ruling Request on January 18 with the following
note:
Given that this is not the first
time a hockey player has used inappropriate language in an interview, I am
of the conviction that it is incumbent upon broadcasters to anticipate this
possibility and take necessary measures to insure they do not broadcast such
language. I further believe that TSN's
reasoning is weak: "an 18-year-old
... caught up in the excitement of the moment." I am of the conviction that someone at TSN must
be tasked with the responsibility to make sure that when an "18-year-old"
uses inappropriate language, the comments do not air.
I would like to have assurances that TSN is taking measures to insure
this does not happen again.
the decision
The National Specialty Services Panel examined the complaint under the
following provision of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' (CAB) Code of Ethics.
Clause 10 - Television Broadcasting (Scheduling)
a)
Programming which contains
sexually explicit material or coarse or offensive language intended for adult
audiences shall not be telecast before the late viewing period, defined as
9 pm to 6 am. Broadcasters shall refer to the Voluntary Code Regarding
Violence in Television Programming for provisions relating to the scheduling
of programming containing depictions of violence.
The Panel Adjudicators
read all of the correspondence and reviewed a tape of the 2007 IIHF World
Junior Hockey Championships. The majority
of the Panel (M. Harris and P. O'Neill dissenting) concludes that TSN violated
the aforementioned Code provision.
The CBSC's Coarse Language Rules
CBSC decisions occasionally begin with the statement
that "there is no mathematical formula that can be applied to determine whether"
the broadcast content complained of is in breach of a particular standard.
That being said, the airing of coarse language, in particular the f-word
and its family of derivatives, comes closer to a mathematically predictable
determination than almost any other content issue.
The set of principles that applies to that issue is as follows.
While it is a tenet of the Broadcasting Act
"programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should [.] be varied
and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment
for men, women and children of all ages, interests and tastes," the CBSC understands
that this does not mean that all types of program content should be
available at all times of day. Believing that many Canadian families wish a
safe broadcast haven that will be free of the coarsest of language (and other
kinds of adult fare), Canada's private broadcasters have established the Watershed
period (from 9:00 pm to 6:00 am). Extremely
coarse language, which has been defined as including the f-word and its derivatives,
must be limited to that time period. Families' safe haven, therefore, runs from 6:00
am to 9:00 pm. Outside of that time
period, the CBSC's standards relating to the use of such coarse language have
been extremely flexible, reflecting a rather untrammelled freedom of expression.
[See, on the issue of coarse language, inter
alia, Showcase Television
re the movie Destiny to Order
(CBSC Decision 00/01-0715, January 16, 2002), WTN
re the movie Wildcats (CBSC Decision 00/01-0964, January 16, 2002),
Showcase
Television re the movie Muriel's Wedding (CBSC Decision 02/03-0882,
January 30, 2004), Bravo! re the movie
Kitchen Party (CBSC Decision 03/04-0928,
December 15, 2004), and Bravo!
re the film RKO 281 (CBSC Decision 04/05-0584, July 20, 2005). On the issue of safe havens, see Global
re ReGenesis ("Baby Bomb")
(CBSC Decision 04/05-1996, January 20, 2006).]
The foregoing principles have been consistently
applied (with the exception of a single circumstance). It should also be noted that the principles
have been independent of the non-gratuitous nature of the usage. Indeed, the Panel cannot do better than to refer
to a recent decision of the CRTC in which relevant illustrative language makes
this very point. In Complaints relating to the broadcast on CBC Radio One
of A Literary Atlas of Canada,
episodes entitled Whiskeyjack Blues
and Room Available, Broadcasting Decision
CRTC 2007-87 (16 March 2007), the Commission, in finding a breach of their
applicable standard, made the following
point:
While
the readings [during the Sunday morning radio program in question] were often
illustrative and explicit, the words used were not gratuitous in the sense
that they were integral to the writings being broadcast, as explained in the
discussions with the authors. Nor was the language used in a manner that was
intended to be negative or rude, or to purposefully shock or outrage the listener.
Rather, as the host and interviewers attempted to explain during the program,
the language and content of the readings were meant to convey an authentic
experience.
The issue, after all, is not whether there was
intellectual justification or serious intention to the usage of such language;
it is, as explained above, the reaction or concern of the audience that is at issue for the CBSC. The matter is not driven by notions of morality
or purity. It is that there are viewers
(and listeners) who are genuinely disturbed or offended by such language on
the airwaves. Nor is the fact that
the f-word and its derivatives may be known to, and used by, segments of the
population a satisfactory defence to the usage. After all, the broadcasting environment can
and must be shared by its users. Thus,
for the CBSC, there is a pre-Watershed safe haven and post-Watershed freedom
of even coarse expression.
The foregoing being said, the CBSC is conscious
of the fact that the public's standards relating to content issues are constantly
evolving and that such evolution is likely to affect the coarse language area
as much, if not more, than any other. In CHOM-FM
re the song "Locked in the Trunk of a Car" by the Tragically Hip (CBSC
Decision 04/05-0324, April 4, 2005), for example, the Quebec Regional Panel
anticipated such evolution in the following language:
The
CBSC has consistently ruled that broadcast of the f-word on radio during daytime
and early evening hours constitutes a breach of the CAB Code of Ethics. The Quebec Panel is aware of the fact that language
usage is constantly in a state of evolution, both on the French and English
sides of
Until such time, though, as that evolution is deemed
by thoughtful, reflective CBSC Panels to be nigh, there is that above-described
fairly predictable set of rules pursuant to which the coarse language spectral
environment can be shared.
Live
Coarse Language
There
is an understandable dilemma posed in the application of the "fairly predictable
set of rules" in the case of live
broadcasts. In CTV re a segment featuring Eminem at the
Junos (CBSC Decision 02/03-1130, January 30, 2004), the National Conventional
Television Panel dealt with a live broadcast of the Canadian music awards,
familiarly known as the Junos, which began at 8:00 pm.
The problematic segment of the awards show, however, was in the form
of a pre-recorded message from American rap
artist Eminem, who had been recognized by the Canadian music industry with
the "International Album of the Year" award.
Since CTV had known that Eminem would not be present at the gala to
accept the industry award, the broadcaster had arranged that a message from
him to the audience would be videotaped and played.
In his message, the artist used a derivative of the f-word. Although the show was live, the fact that the
Eminem bit was not sealed the fate of the broadcast. Clearly controllable, the offending matter had
been left in the broadcast by the broadcaster's choice. Consequently, the broadcaster was found in breach
of Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics.
In a true live performance situation, namely, CFNY-FM re the
Show with Dean Blundell (David Carradine Appearance) (CBSC
Decision 03/04-1305, October 22, 2004), the actor David Carradine, who was
a guest on the Dean Blundell show, used the f-word. There was no discussion of the live versus taped
issue and the broadcaster was found in breach of Clause 9 of the CAB Code of Ethics (the radio equivalent
of Clause 10). The Panel only observed:
The
use of the f-word by the guest David Carradine was gratuitous. The broadcaster was responsible for avoiding
such an occurrence, whether by tape delay or otherwise. The failure to do so constitutes a breach of
Clause 9 of the CAB Code of Ethics.
Similarly, in CFGQ-FM
(CKIK-FM) re a live Tragically Hip
concert and interview (CBSC
Decision 03/04-1850, November 1, 2004), an interview (in this case with Gord
Downie of the Tragically Hip) included the use of the f-word in non-gratuitous
circumstances (a discussion of the lyrics of one of the group's well-known
songs). The Prairie Panel concluded that there had been
a Code breach in similar language.
While the use of the f-word appears
not to have been gratuitous, the broadcaster ought to have had a delay (or
other) system in place to prevent such an on-air occurrence. In any event, its obligation was to avoid the
broadcast of unduly coarse or offensive language. By failing to do avoid that language, CFGQ-FM
has breached Clause 9(c) of the CAB Code of Ethics.
In yet another live performance situation (on
television), namely, CTV
re the Green Day performance during Live 8 (CBSC Decision 04/05-1753,
January 20, 2006), CTV provided coverage of an international concert, which
featured musical artists performing at venues around the world.
During the performance by American pop-punk band Green Day, the lead
singer told the crowd to "sing so loud that everybody hears you all over the
fuckin' world" and the song they played contained once instance of the phrase
"mind fuck". Viewers in
The
broadcaster was participating in an event with a large number of rock bands,
punk bands, rap artists and other musical acts from around the world. The Panel considers that it would have been
disingenuous on the part of CTV not to anticipate that there might
be coarse language by one or another of the divergent mix of performing artists.
Even Seamus O'Regan, CTV's own host, anticipated on-the-edge, if not
over the edge, possibilities [when he said at the beginning of the broadcast]:
"What's going to happen? Who
knows. Throw out the rule book. We have."
CTV's
responsibility was not to throw out the rule book. It was to plan for the avoidance of the occurrences
already anticipated. It could have
done so. It chose not to.
The eventuality became a reality. The
broadcast of the coarse language intended for adult audiences in the early
afternoon constituted a breach of Clause 10(a) of the CAB Code of Ethics.
The Matter
at Hand
On the one hand, the reaction of Canadian junior
hockey star Jonathan Toews was likely genuine, spontaneous and unpremeditated
(as opposed to the other examples cited immediately above). On the other hand, the f-word is hardly unknown
in the sport of hockey. Indeed, it
is frequently seen but not heard, in the sense that it may be yelled by a
player on the ice or on the bench and thus "seen" by lip-reading viewers. In the mouth of an excited junior player, inexperienced
in dealing with the media, the unintentional use of a coarse word in an interview
may be likelier than such a usage on the part of a veteran professional.
In any event, at the end of the day, young gold medallists are role
models for their younger viewing audiences and broadcasters must simply find
a way to avoid the use of such coarse language during audiences' safe haven.
While a tape delay is one solution, broadcasters may also help by reminding
inexperienced interviewees (before they go to air) not to use such language.
There is no reason to imagine that they would not comply with the practice.
The solution is, of course, for the broadcaster to find. The failure to adopt it, especially in circumstances
where the use of coarse language, advertent or inadvertent, can be anticipated,
will result in a breach of Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics.
The Minority
Perspective (M. Harris, P. O'Neill dissenting)
The minority Adjudicators attach far more importance to the live
nature of this sports broadcast than do their colleagues. The f-word was, after all, uttered but once
and this in a moment of high excitement by a young hockey player who could
not be expected to have the media savvy of older professional players. It was clearly an inadvertence, an enthusiastic
slip-of-the-tongue at a moment of high-energy victory, an utterance by one
of the stars of the entire World Championship. The game was aired live and without a tape delay,
and, in disagreement with the majority, the minority considers that TSN was
under no obligation to plan any such technical safety net. While the dissenting Adjudicators understand
the general need to avoid coarse language at the hour of the challenged broadcast,
they believe that this means that all reasonable steps should be taken
to achieve this goal. They do not consider
that the obligation is one of result rather than one of means or best
efforts. Moreover, they believe
that one must weigh what they view as the slight cost of a single
fleeting expletive against the benefit of natural, spontaneous, unconstrained
sports or news broadcasting. They fear
that the constraints that will result from the position of the majority in
the matter at hand will impose a chill on live broadcasting, not only in the
sports area, but also, potentially, in news coverage. The minority Adjudicators would conclude that
the broadcaster was not, in the circumstances of this broadcast, in breach
of Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics.
Broadcaster Responsiveness
In all CBSC decisions, the Council's Panels assess
the broadcaster's responsiveness to the complainant. In the present instance, the Panel finds that
the response of TSN's President was honest and forthright. It pointed out the additional editing step that
was taken for the rebroadcast of the hockey game, with the interview edited.
The Panel considers that TSN has fully met its CBSC membership responsiveness
responsibilities.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE DECISION
TSN is required to: 1) announce the decision, in the following terms,
once during prime time within three days following the release of this decision
and once more within seven days following the release of this decision during
the time period in which the interview with the Team Canada player was broadcast;
2) within the fourteen days following the broadcasts of the announcements,
to provide written confirmation of the airing of the statement to the complainant
who filed the Ruling Request; and 3) at that time, to provide the CBSC with
a copy of that written confirmation and with air check copies of the broadcasts
of the two announcements which must be made by TSN.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has found
that TSN violated provisions of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters'
Code of Ethics in its broadcast
of the 2007 IIHF World Junior Hockey Championship final game. During a live post-game interview with a player
in the afternoon broadcast, TSN aired coarse language contrary to requirements
of Clause 10 of the CAB Code of Ethics.
This decision is a public document
upon its release by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.