Astrology and Television
Consultation on the proposed ITC Code for Paranormal Programming:
Submission from The Astrological Association of Great Britain
Introducing the Astrological Association of
Great Britain
The Astrological Association is Britain's premier astrological
organisation with a world-wide reputation. Founded in June 1958,
it is now in its forty-sixth year.
The Association's objects officially stated in its constitution
are "the advancement of education of the public by the critical
study of astrology in all its branches, to encourage and draw
together all students of astrology, to enlarge and integrate the
knowledge of astrology, to co-ordinate and publish results as
desirable and generally work for its more widespread understanding
as an art and science. Astrology is the practice of relating heavenly
bodies to lives and events on earth, and the traditions that have
thus been generated."
Its membership consists of a wide range of professionals and
enthusiastic amateurs. Many have been studying and exploring the
subject in a varying and complex range of ways for several decades.
As well as younger people, we have members with thirty years or
more experience. Our oldest is approaching 102 and boasts of more
than "75 years in astrology". A much higher proportion
than the average have Bachelor, or higher degrees, including a
number holding or studying for doctorates.
 For
the last 35 years, it has organised annual conferences that are
attended by more than 250 delegates. Numbers are often much higher,
reaching over 600. Delegates and presenters come from the leading
astrological schools and organisations in Britain and throughout
the world. Some of these are older than ourselves - up to 100
years. Delegates travel from as far away as Japan, Australasia,
South Africa and American to attend.
The Association publishes a quality AA
Journal every two months, containing incisive and erudite,
socially aware astro-analysis and comment. Bi-annually it publishes
fully academic journals: Correlation for astrological research
and Culture and Cosmos for cultural studies. We would be happy
to provide the Commission with copies of our journals and programmes
of our conferences, and further information of the academic qualifications
of all those involved.
The Association is regularly asked to comment on astrology by
all areas of local, national and international, television, radio
and the press. In 1997, it was proud to play a major part in assisting
BBC1 in its Everyman production of "Twinkle, Twinkle".
Its President has appeared in BBC1's Heaven and Earth Show. A
less fortunate example was Channel 5's "The New Zodiac"
(2002). This was the subject of an official complaint from the
Association to the ITC (your reference and contact were 1574 -
Stuart Paterson).
With this background and experience, we feel that the Association
is in a unique position to give to the ITC's considerations of
"Paranormal Programming" the perspective of an important
and highly relevant body of opinion that unfortunately that seems
to have been overlooked until now.
The Association feels, therefore, the need to outline its concerns
with some strength below, to correct misunderstandings, ignorance
and the consequent injustice that has existed generally and in
media for far too long, and which has been reflected in television
regulation.
Synopsis of the main Submissions
We understand that broadcasting legislation, and most recently
the Broadcasting Act 1990, require the ITC to consult with interested
parties about the Rules in its Codes. Therefore the rules on "Paranormal
Programming" should be made with proper advice from, and
understanding of the work of, those concerned. The Astrological
Association of Great Britain, the principle organisation representing
astrologers in Great Britain was not advised about the consultation,
although it was in contact with the ITC on another matter at the
time, but now wishes to make the following submission.
We understand that the proposed Code changes are based partly
on the ITC/BSC research document "Beyond Entertainment"
which sought opinions of viewers about a number of matters, which
the researchers grouped under the "psychic" / "occult"
banner, including astrology. We believe there was a fundamental
flaw in this process, in that it did not test the research respondents'
uninformed knowledge and prejudices against truth or fact, but
reflected them without seeking confirmation from experts in the
proposed new Code Rules. We would like to correct the misinformation.
Firstly, Astrologers are especially dismayed to be grouped arbitrarily
in a loose classification under the ill-defined words "psychic"
and "occult". Astrology is based upon theoretical formulations
about observable phenomena. It is a system of analysis that may
be learnt / acquired by any person. It does not require any occult
skills or powers of mystical divination. It is as inappropriate
to associate it with such powers as it would be to associate graphology,
psychometry and psychology with them.
We believe that failure to consult on the research initially
and make proper definitions led to an essentially flawed research
design, with consequent results that may well be prejudiced against,
or irrelevant to astrology. Yet, in spite these critical limitations,
the report's findings still do not justify the proposed wording
of the ITC Code.
If implemented as proposed, the ITC Code will undermine multi-cultural
development in our society, by giving unfair disadvantage to sub-groups,
by suggesting their actions are harmful, without a clearly stated
reason or evidence. This could encourage cultural, racial and
religious prejudice. The process may be subject to judicial review
and the Code itself in breach of racial / religious discrimination
and human rights legislation.
Accordingly, we ask that
1) all references to astrology and horoscope be withdrawn immediately
from the present and proposed Codes on Paranormal Programming.
2) if it is felt that further consideration is needed to decide
the best way to care for the public, when giving advice on television,
then the time deadline for discussing this should be extended.
The consultation process should be widened to include everyone
offering and depicting individual advice on television.
The Association is ready to assist in every way possible in this
process.
Just before submitting this report, we were most grateful to
Martin Booth and Francesca O'Brien of the ITC for agreeing to
a meeting, which helped to clarify many of our concerns and established
a process for the future. A brief account of this meeting in on
the following page 3.
To take account of this new information; in our submissions and
our proposals at the end, we have inserted additional paragraphs
in bold italics .
Just before submitting this
report, we were most grateful to Martin Booth and Francesca O'Brien
of the ITC for agreeing to a meeting, which helped to clarify
many of our concerns and established a process for the future.
A brief account of this meeting in on the following page 3.
To take account of this new
information; in our submissions and our proposals at the end,
we have inserted additional paragraphs in blue italics.
Account of the Meeting with the ITC on 16th
September 2003
Between Roy Gillett, President, Astrological Association
of Great Britain (AA), Komilla Sutton, Chair, British Association
for Vedic Astrology (BAVA), and Martin Booth, Francesca O’Brien,
of the Independent Television Commission. Janet Lee, Radio Authority,
also present.
On behalf of the ITC, Martin expressed regret that representatives
of the astrological community had not been previously consulted,
and advised that the two organisations were now on file and would
be involved in future consultations. Especially, they would be
consulted regarding two major processes that were planned once
the new regulator, Ofcom, was in place at the end of December.
Meanwhile, he advised that the restrictions on “horoscopes”
in section 10.1 of the ITC Code did not apply to astrology that
was part of a religious practice. Such presentations should be
considered under section 7 of the Code, and the ITC would assure
any programme maker concerning this.
Furthermore, section 1.10 was seeking to protect vulnerable members
of the public, not from exposure to discussion and general explanation
of serious astrology, but from the exploitation of specific advise
based on direct psychic “insight”, and Sun-signs of
the kind presented in the newspapers. The Commission had not taken
account that the word “horoscope” meant literally
the “chart of the hour” - that is a precise birth
chart. The astrologers explained the differences.
In all these circumstances, the Commission was open to a change
in wording and invited suggestions.
It would welcome as well suggestions, as to wordings that would
protect vulnerable members of the public, yet not put the exploration
of serious astrology at any unfair disadvantage when being presented
on the media.
The AA welcomed this clarification, but also emphasised the urgency
of implementing a change. The present operation of the Code was
having the opposite effect to what the Commission seemed to be
intending. Sun-sign astrology was allowed as entertainment, but
serious astrology was only being permitted if it was the subject
of genuine investigation. This meant serious astrology was always
“put on trial”. This was fundamentally unjust and
led to ignorance in the media concerning astrology, which could
actually be the cause of many of the problems from which the Commission
sought to protect those members of the public who were vulnerable.
The AA also agreed to make available to the ITC the wording of
a Code of Ethics to which any proper professional astrologer would
adhere. Such a wording is given in recommendations at the end
of this submission.
The AA and BAVA would like to thank Martin, Francesca and Janet
for the time and consideration that have given to our concerns
and look forward to a successful completion of the process.
A. Consultation Process Limitations & Consequent
Shortcomings of the Beyond Entertainment Research
1) To seek for such a Code is a denial of natural justice
That there should be a Code at all concerning what the Commission
calls "Paranormal Programming" is a historical assumption
that stems from some now-outdated prejudices against certain activities
and social groups in our society, rather than any valid need to
protect the public. For, while abuse of personal charisma and
use of power and position for malevolent ends on television is
certainly a problem to be addressed, to pick out what the ITC
refers to as psychic or occult activity, without qualifying whether
it harmful or not, for special (and particularly repressive control)
is unreasonable and unjust.
In fact, it could be argued that many of the beliefs and practices
concerning God, justice, hell, karma, the afterlife and burial
processes of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist
religions can seem, to parents who feel strongly against one or
more of these religions, like an offensive danger to their children.
Many parents may feel that evangelical and fundamentalist damnation,
stories of the terrible punishments of hell, encouraging feelings
of guilt and remorse, rushing bodies warm to the grave, having
a wake with alcohol around the corpse are all practices of some
mainstream religions to which they do not wish their children
to be exposed. Yet, apparently, none of these activities is singled
out for investigation and restriction.
It can also be argued that the tendency of television to idolise
celebrities as role models can do far more harm to young minds.
In recent years of BSE and market downturn, scientific and financial
advisers have probably done more harm to families than any "paranormal"
activity. Contradictory expert "scientific" findings
on health, crime and personal behaviour are presented unchecked
on the news. Representatives from all these areas of our society
can appear on television without investigative challenge at any
time. If studies like Beyond Entertainment were undertaken on
these, or many other social activities represented on television,
the findings might well also seem to suggest the need for a repressive
Code to protect the public.
In paragraph 1, page 4 of the research report, the Commission
seems to assume it knows what "paranormal" activities
are, that they may well be harmful and it has a duty to act. However,
it gives no authority for this assumption, except to mention (paragraph
6) that its proposed new Code has the approval of the Central
Religious Advisory Committee (CRAC). We understand "Its membership
is drawn from the major Christian traditions and world faiths
represented in the UK",
and that some of the Christian representatives are chosen because
they have multi-cultural and interfaith experience.
However, it still may not be entirely the appropriate body to
advise on this matter.
Certainly astrology is a crucial tool that assists spiritual
insight in the Hindu, Buddhist, some Christian and other religious
cultures in our society. Their ceremonial calendars, as well as
Jewish, Muslim and Christian ones are astrologically based. Yet
most mainstream religious leaders and evangelical Christians know
very little about astrology, or condemn it by their way of interpreting
the Old Testament. Many wrongly assert that astrologers seek to
usurp the position of God, which is the opposite of the truth.
Such people have the same authority to restrain astrology, as
would a Labour government have to restrain the Conservative Party.
Furthermore, many aspects of astrology's relationship with Jungian
psychology, cultural history and academia generally, business
and human resource strategy, medical, social and personal development
may be secular and not lie entirely within CRAC's remit.
2) The pre-research consultations were unbalanced.
Even if it is valid to engage in research to determine policy,
we submit that the consultation process leading to the research
design was unbalanced and prejudiced. The first paragraph of page
17 indicates that the established religions were asked their opinion,
but not astrologers, or any of the other groups actually being
studied.
The ITC failure to make contact with the Association is especially
surprising, as at the time the Beyond Entertainment research was
being undertaken and compiled, we were in contact with it regarding
a serious complaint concerning "The New Zodiac" (your
reference 1574, Stuart Paterson) - a biased and unfair programme,
that we feel was encouraged by the present ITC Code.
It would not be appropriate for the ITC to make decisions, or
conduct research into: medicine without referring to the BMA,
or on scientific affairs without referring to the Royal Society?
3) The unbalanced consultations led to poor definitions and
prejudiced sampling and grouping. As a result the research design
is essentially flawed and its results likely to be prejudiced
against astrology.
Because it failed to take proper expert advice, the research
draws poor definitions of psychic and occult and assumes horoscopes,
astrology and palmistry to be "similar psychic practices"?
Where is the association between psychic activity and astrology
and where is the evidence that suggests they are associated?
Astrology is based upon theoretical formulations about observable
phenomena. It is a system of analysis that is based on defined
principles and rules for interpreting astrological factors in
a birth chart, i.e., the map of planetary positions in the sky
for the time, date and location of an individual's birth - an
event. Potentially the interpretation of these factors may be
learnt / acquired by any person. It does not require any occult
skills or powers of mystical divination, with or without a medium
or contact "with the other side". Computers can and
have been programmed to generate insightful reports with no psychic
involvement whatsoever.
If there are special indefinable and intangible skills they are
in the synthesis of the various elements and factors suggested
by the calculations, that is down to special individual skills
- and that is as true of a doctor or a scientist as it is of an
astrologer. The same applies with equal logical force to other
disciplines that are widely used for assessing human characteristics
and potential such as graphology and even psychometric testing.
So, why has the ITC decided not to bracket these and other similar
disciplines with "palmistry and other psychic practises."
Indeed, we think that the palmists may also have a strong case
against this blanket bracketing "with other psychic practises,"
because their discipline is also based on a system of long established,
widely acknowledged and pre-determined rules and principles for
interpretation. 'It can be, and has been taught for thousands
of years.
We now
understand that the word "horoscope" was intended to
guard against the giving of specific individual advice based on
sun-signs alone. Sun-signs divide the world population into twelve.
Genuine astrologers would be as critical of this as the Commission.
However, the word "horoscope" means the "chart
of the hour" . This is not the way to refer to Sun-sign comments.
An alternative wording is needed. We would say that to give specific,
individual advice based on sun-signs alone would be a psychic,
not an astrological practice. The restriction is therefore sufficient
without reference to "horoscope", or any alternative
word.
A code reading "that palmistry
and similar 'psychic' practices..." would achieve the Commission's
purposes without any counter-productive side-effects.
Page 17 of Beyond Entertainment outlines the nature of the samples
and suggests they were balanced. This misses the point - unless
it is the ITC's aim to use majority taste to justify censoring
minority opinion and cultures.
Yet, even if we suspend this objection, the sampling was not
balanced, as is claimed. It was unrepresentative. Many who adopt
astrology as a part of their religion and culture live in particular
areas of the country, but the quantitative groups were chosen
by sex, age and social class alone. By not considering regional
balance as well, the research is in danger of under-representing
Hindu, Buddhist and other religious groups.
The qualitative groups are fundamentally flawed. Four "mainstream
religion", five agnostics / atheists in each group. Which
"mainstream religion" could be critical, or indeed prejudicial,
but this is not stated? Religious believers are more likely to
have feelings against astrology (see the reference to CRAC in
A 1) above). This could intimidate the opinion of the others,
who, by the other criteria set for the group (no practitioners
/ astrologers etc.), are unlikely to know much about the subject.
So, the groups are set up to deny the certainty of a single knowledgeable
person in favour of astrology being present. On the other hand,
it is certain that one or two, even four people will be against
it. With regard to the other five: since astrology is not taught
at school and has always been subject to repressive, restricted
coverage in the media, it is unlikely that a representative sample
of the population will have a reasonable understanding of what
they are being asked. The wording and presentation of the questions
need to be carefully constructed by people who understand this.
As far as we know, no astrologers were consulted.
So, even within its own terms, the research seems to have asked
the wrong people the wrong questions. Hence the answers they gave
are of no use in determining whether there should be an ITC Code
on the paranormal and what its wording should be.
4) In spite of its obvious structural and prejudicial limitations,
the report's findings still do not justify the proposed wording
of the ITC Code.
The first paragraph on page 12, shows most people in the qualitative
groups found horoscopes as "relatively harmless" and
about "the acquisition of positive, comforting information
and generic advice." On page 13, paragraph 5, the research
does not say how the poorly constructed qualitative groups came
to the conclusion they did about the watershed. Were they asked
whether they agreed with the watershed formula in the proposed
Code alone, or given a number of options? What group action preceded
their stating an opinion? In any case, the paragraph talks about
the "programming watershed" with regard to "psychic
programming on BBC1 and ITV1". This is an arbitrary and an
ill-defined general group of activities. As has been shown in
A 3) above, astrology is not a psychic activity, so the group
could not have been referring to astrology. Any reference to it
should be deleted from the Code.
That the group did not mean to include astrology is further corroborated
by the findings from the quantitative group. The table on page
26 shows the following percentages of the quantitative group did
not agree, or strongly did not agree that the following practices
were harmful: a personal horoscope 72%; a personal reading from
an astrologer 76% and a general horoscope 86%. So, although the
questionnaire was designed to encourage them to be negative, very
large proportions of these possibly prejudicially designed samples,
declined to be so.
Page 43, first paragraph shows that at breakfast-time, when children
are preparing for school, the percentage of ITV1 viewers willing
to accept the following astrological information were: newspaper
horoscopes 83%; personal horoscopes 73%; personal astrology readings
68%. Although the second paragraph shows the first remained the
same and the last two increased by 6% and 11% respectively after
the watershed, clearly a majority of viewers surveyed are happy
to see all the main kinds of astrology on their screen before
the watershed.
In summary, none of these findings from the ITC's own report
Beyond Entertainment justifies any restriction on the presentation
of astrology on television, either before or after the watershed.
The word "horoscopes" and all reference to astrology
should be deleted from the Code.
The section on the historical and social background that follows
suggests now-outdated prejudice led to the creation of the ITC
Code. It also explains why, because of unfortunate programming
problems, we feel so strongly that the Code should be changed
without delay.
B. The Historical and Social Background to the
Present and Proposed ITC Codes on Paranormal Programming
The use of the term "paranormal" is of uncertain meaning
and intended to be pejorative. What is "normal" and
what "beyond normal"?
If only tangible material science is normal, then all religion,
most psychology and some of the more advanced ideas in modern
physics are all paranormal. Is the proposed Code designed to apply
to all these things? In the year 1900, Einstein's Theory of Relativity
would have been paranormal. In 1830, Faraday's work on electromagnetism
that led to modern electric generators and the very world we live
in today would have been paranormal. At the time of the Renaissance
"paranormal" people were burned for suggesting the world
was round and the solar system heliocentric. The concept of what
is normal changes.. To fix what can and cannot be known and exchanged
as "normal" is to freeze knowledge and limit our children's
future.
The grouping of a number of poorly understood and very different
activities under the one heading of "paranormal", and
seeing them as harmful to individual well-being is a product of
the early 20th century world view. This saw white Anglo-Saxon
Christian culture and a narrow understanding of Newtonian science
as supreme and anything else dark and dangerous. Such a view was
used to justify colonialism, racism, male chauvinism and other
forms of discrimination.
We are reassured by the clarification
in our recent meeting that the restrictions on "horoscopes"
in section 10.1 of the ITC Code do not apply to astrology that
is part of a religious practice and that such presentations should
be considered under section 7 of the Code. However, as explained
in section A 1), this does not include all serious, academic and
responsible astrology. Furthermore, because misinterpretation
of the ITC Code has led to misunderstandings about astrology,
a clear change in code is needed immediately. A detailed description
of the problems that make this urgently necessary is given below.
Because it is arbitrarily grouped in this way, astrology is only
allowed to be shown as "entertainment, or the subject of
legitimate investigation". "Entertainment" means
that only sun-sign, newspaper style "horoscopes", are
allowed without challenge. These roughly divide the world population
into twelve. Well-written, these may have some general use; but
are to genuine astrology as playing Chop Sticks is to a Beethoven
symphony. The difference in complexity is as great. Yet, without
a proper education in the subject the general public can feel
no more than incredulous fascination.
The phrase "the subject of legitimate investigation"
may at first sight seem to offer a fair chance for the public
to learn and judge. In practice, it does not. Nearly every attempt
to talk seriously about astrology on television puts "astrology
on trial". All the astrologer's statements are challenged
and argued against. (Please refer to our complaint - your reference
1574 -for full details of just one of many such examples.) How
would a Christian priest, a Jewish rabbi, an eminent physicist,
or doctor feel, if subjected to such a treatment? Frequently psychologists,
political, financial and sociological commentators are allowed
to comment, or present whole documentaries without a contrary
view being expressed. Why should astrologers be singled out?
As our complaint shows, a group of prejudiced sceptics have taken
advantage of the current ITC ruling to deny astrology reasonable
and balanced airtime, in which to breath and express itself. Because
of the ITC ruling, an associate of this group known by its initials
CSICOP is usually asked to appear when astrology is discussed.
Unsuspecting astrologers are encouraged to take part. Facts are
misrepresented. Nearly every programme is a repeat of discredited
"research", well-trod biased accounts, old arguments
and counter-arguments. The ITC ruling forces the programme makers
to have the debunkers there. So discussion rarely gets passed
first base and little is learned.
Ignorance of the true nature of astrology creates fear and vulnerability
concerning it. A society denied proper knowledge of electricity,
might see it as lethal. Some people might urge access to it be
barred. Their world would lose many of the benefits we enjoy.
By having a Code that bars progress and is open to misuse, we
feel the ITC denies proper knowledge of astrology in the media.
In our experience, it is this that "leads to distress and
harm being caused to vulnerable individuals" and their children
- not astrology.
Legal Implications and Proposals for a Positive
Way Forward
In addition to its effect on the public, the existence of the
ITC Code has caused considerable distress, inconvenience and hardship
to our members and associates in their business and family life.
The incorrect impression given by the Code leads to constant challenges
to astrologers and their families in their normal day-to-day experiences.
This has led to a number of members urging the Association to
take legal action should the ITC Code regarding astrology remain.
It has been suggested that the way the Code has been decided and
implemented may be the subject of judicial review and that it
may contravene legislation outlawing racial and religious discrimination,
or abuse human rights.
Of course, the Association has no wish, or expectation that it
will be necessary for it, or its friends to take legal action.
We are sure that the ITC was intending to act in good faith to
amend an old regulation in an area where opinion is fast changing.
We hope that this submission will clarify what is wrong and needs
to be corrected. We seek to open the door for a proper decision
to be made. The recommendations that follow are designed to make
this possible.
The Association's Proposals
1) That the words "horoscope", "astrology"
and any reference to astrological activity be deleted from the
present and proposed Code altogether and immediately.
No replacement is necessary
as it is impossible give specific advise to an individual using
knowledge of the Sun in the birth chart alone, unless one is
demonstrating "psychic" ability. "Psychic"
activity is already covered by 1.10.
If the ITC feels a specific
reference to "Sun-signs" is needed, the implications
of inserting the phrase "Sun-signs" instead could
be discussed .
2) The whole question of how advice is given on television
should be reviewed by the ITC. Ill-informed opinions are to
be found in a wide range of expert disciplines - be they normal,
or paranormal.
The intention of the advice and how flexible it is needs to
be measured. People should be encouraged to make their own decisions.
Experts should open up the background. Assistance with relationships
should encourage understanding and refrain from giving specific
instructions or judgements on individuals. "Agony aunts"
should follow this ruling, as much astrologers.
Below is the wording of a code that any good astrologer would
follow. We would hope that anyone giving advise on the media (whatever
their field of expertise) would follow its spirit.
"To
respect the dignity and worth of every human being and their right
to self-determination. To accept a responsibility to encourage
and facilitate the self-development of the client, whilst having
due regard to the interests and rights of others.
"To refrain from offering
any specific medical, legal, or financial advice to a client on
astrological grounds unless the appropriate skills or qualifications
have been obtained."
The Association would gladly discuss all matters necessary to
ensure the public can get the very best benefits from astrology
and the other arts, sciences and disciplines that exist to benefit
peoples' lives. So we can all work together for the greater good.
Roy Gillett - President - on behalf of the Astrological Association
of Great Britain
19th September 2003
|
