Astrology and Television
The Astrological Association's Response to Ofcom
Contents
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-seventh 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 36 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 90 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 (reference and contact were 1574
- Stuart Paterson).
With this background and experience, we feel that the Association
is in a unique position to give Ofcom the perspective of an important
and highly relevant body of opinion that unfortunately 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.
Ofcom Consultation: Section 5 Harm and Offence
Item 2.6
Demonstrations of exorcism, the occult, the paranormal, divination
and related practices must be treated with due objectivity. Entertainment
programmes that contain such demonstrations must be clearly labelled
as such for the audience. No potentially life changing advice
may be given. (Religious programmes are exempted from the rule
about life-changing advice but must, in any event, comply with
the provisions in the section regarding religious programmes in
this Code.) (Please also note the scheduling restrictions contained
in section 1 of this Code.) Films, dramas and fiction generally
are not bound by this rule.
AA Objections to the proposed wording
1) The range of activities covered here is far too wide and
not justified by any public research findings.
The Ofcom Consultation Document (page 26, background comments
Number 15) seeks to justify the inclusion of this item by reference
to findings in the ITC’s Beyond Entertainment research.
This showed that a considerable percentage of the public interviewees
did not wish to see “Satanism, black magic, ouija and voodoo”
and were borderline about demonstrations that “contacted”
the ‘“known” dead and clairvoyance”.
However, respondents were not asked about “occult, paranormal,
divination and related practices” as a whole. Where some
individual activities were asked about, no more negativity was
found towards them than there would be towards a particular cultural
minority, or special-interest group or activity. This in spite
of the prejudicial methodology of the Beyond Entertainment research
itself (Please refer to full argument submitted by the Association
in 2003 – reprinted in our Appendix that follows –
pages 10 and 11 make particularly precise and detailed criticisms).
2) To bundle together all “occult, paranormal, divination
and related practices” and to assume that they are intrinsically
harmful in themselves are anachronistic cultural prejudices and
are not based on scholarship or knowledge.
It is not logical, or fair to select a myriad range of activities
and designate them as always harmful and needing to be handled
with extreme caution. Many things in life, which are shown without
restriction on the media, are extremely harmful, but only if misused.
“Occult, paranormal, divination and related practices”
have not even been shown to be harmful; rather there is prejudice
against them by some special interest groups. Ofcom must take
proper advice on the code for the regulation of these topics from
respected experts. In the academic field Dr Nicholas Campion (Bath
Spa University College), Dr Percy Seymour (University of Plymouth)
and Dr Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (University of Lampeter) are only
three of the many academic authorities who can offer Ofcom guidance
in this area. The AA would be happy to suggest further authorities.
It is in the public interest to help the public understand “the
occult, paranormal, divination and related practices”, so
they can approach these areas of knowledge with sensible, open
eyes and make up their own minds. However, cultural prejudice
against these activities, often fuelled by media, is frequently
in the same tradition of prejudice that in the past restricted
equal opportunities for “blacks and coloureds”, “Jews”,
“Catholics” and women.
3) Rather than labelling specific activities that, if misused,
might be harmful to vulnerable viewers, it
would be more beneficial to identify the actual harm. Ofcom’s
focus of concern should be on the giving of specific, life-changing
advice in whatever form and on the giver’s bona fides. Advice
giving may in itself be harmful (whatever cultural assumptions
the advice is based upon) and should always be presented in a
broad, objective context.
We agree with Ofcom that vulnerable adults and children should
be protected from being exploited and inappropriately advised
by invalid methods and individuals.
However, we object to the assumption that all people using astrology
are likely to be harmful, whereas people using more fashionable,
or socially acceptable methods are not restricted at all. Ofcom
allows agony aunts, life-style gurus, body-language experts, journalists,
commentators and any kind of celebrities to give unrestricted
individual, “life-changing” advice. Even economists,
psychiatrists and qualified medical experts may not be competent
to give professional advice on the media, either because of their
particular professional prejudices, or the very nature of the
broadcasting situation itself. Astrological Association members
are both responsible and take great care to encourage clients
to make their own personal decisions and not base them on superstition.
Certainly, there is no reason to assume that our advice is so
potentially harmful that it warrants a special rule to protect
the vulnerable. It should be sufficient to ask the broadcaster
to ensure that all advice given by experts
of any kind is thoroughly examined by
the recipient before he is called to act on it. If the code is
to protect the vulnerable then it must focus on the way the advice
is given and what warnings might be necessary.
4) It is the picking on, humiliation and intimidating of vulnerable
people for selfish pleasure that harms not only the people involved,
but also viewers and listeners.
It is clear from interviewees’ responses to the Beyond
Entertainment research (see appendix) that it was the broadcasting
of black art activity that they were rejecting, not the entire
an entire range of activities arbitrarily worded “paranormal”.
Indeed the actual meaning of paranormal is likely to change as
research leads to new discoveries and cultural fashions move on.
Ofcom’s role is to reflect, not to dictate the concerns
of society, and it will not wish to change its code regularly
to keep up to date with cultural fashion. Rather Ofcom should
seek to make rules of deep human principle that will stand the
test of time. To achieve this, we suggest the following wording.
Rule 2.6 New suggested wording
Demonstrations and attempts to possess,
manipulate, emotionally exploit, harm and ridicule people by any
real, or imagined means must be treated with due objectivity.
Entertainment programmes that contain such demonstrations must
be clearly labelled as such for the audience. (Please note the
scheduling restrictions contained in section 1 of this Code).
Films, dramas and fiction generally are not bound by this rule.
No specific potentially life-changing advice should be given,
except by people with recognised qualifications and bona fides
to do so. It should be offered with due objectivity. Religious
programmes are exempted from this rule, but must, in any event,
comply with the provisions in the section regarding religious
programmes in this Code.
Section 4 Protecting the Under Eighteens
Item 1.21
Demonstrations of exorcism and the occult must not be transmitted
before the watershed, or when children are particularly likely
to be listening.
Items 82 to 97 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment
87. Option two - bring all televisions services under one
rule.
The distinction regarding PSBs could be removed. The proposed
rule could read "Demonstrations of the paranormal must
not be transmitted when significant numbers of children may be
expected to be watching in the case of television or are particularly
likely to be listening in the case of radio. (Religious programmes
are exempted from this rule but must comply with the provisions
in the section regarding religious programmes in this Code)."
88. This would be contained in section 1 of the Code - Protecting
the Under Eighteens. Other related rules concerning due objectivity,
preventing the giving of life-changing advice and appropriate
information would be contained in section 2 of the proposed Code
on Harm and Offence.
Benefits
89. The benefit of option one is that children would be 'protected'
from exposure to programmes about the paranormal until 2100, on
PSB services. The present prohibition on PSBs is particularly
relevant in the light of 319(4)(d) and may particularly protect
children during term time day time.
90. The benefits of option two is that all broadcasters including
PSBs could make decisions based on the likely number of children
in the audience as allowed for by section 319(4)(b) and can also
provide information as also allowed for by section 319(4)(c).
This would allow adult audiences without multi-channel services
(or who have not bought, or have no access to, a relevant premium
subscription service) access to such programmes. This is potentially
significant for viewers.
91. Any change that allowed PSBs to transmit such material pre
watershed would be a potentially significant change in that it
would give the PSBs access to a new potentially highly commercial
genre of programming. They have not previously been allowed to
schedule paranormal programming such as medium entertainment shows
in the afternoon during term time. That may open new sponsorship
and advertising opportunities.
Disadvantages
92. During the ITC consultation some PSB broadcasters objected
to the principle of applying specific regulation which differentiated
between PSB and niche channels.
93. Option one would maintain that distinction.
94. However with option two certain television services who have
built up a niche audience for such programmes may suffer commercially
if there is competition, particularly from PSBs who have a significant
share of the audience. This is potentially significant for these
services.
95. Children may be more likely to come across such material
if it is potentially available on all television services given
the large audiences of the PSBs. However, they may be unable to
assess it as objectively as an adult and may be offended, distressed,
confused or potentially harmed. Adults who have not chosen to
see such material may also come across it in error and may be
offended.
Recommendation
96. Ofcom recommends that the proposed rule contained in option
two should be included in the Code so that regulation is targeted
where it is necessary and proportionate, and so that regulation
is applied consistently across all services.
97. Please see related question in section 4.
AA Objections to the proposed wording
1) The assumption that a range of activities loosely
and incorrectly defined here as “paranormal” must
be intrinsically harmful and therefore not shown to children is
based on mistaken cultural prejudice and a grossly over-simplified
reading of the Beyond Entertainment
research results.
It is right, proper and socially beneficial that children have
the opportunity to know about many other kinds of cultures and
religions as well as their own. Indeed, to deny such experience
is a direct cause of ignorance and prejudice. The Beyond Entertainment
research found a majority content to receive astrology readings
on the media at Breakfast time. Only particularly dark and negative
activities received high rejection.
Yet Ofcom appears to want to rule against a broad and undefined
area, which it broadly labels “paranormal”. This is
unhelpful and therefore unacceptable, particularly since most
religious material could also most likely be labeled ‘paranormal’.
Both scholars and experts would agree that it is ignorance about
the paranormal (including the ignorance and prejudice of many
broadcasters) which could cause harm to children and to adults
by exposing them to exploitation by those who distort, and make
“black” use of, the knowledge.
Rule 1.21 should say precisely what it wishes to protect
children from, not allow out-of-date prejudice to blanket reject
a vast number of very different activities. For these reasons,
we see no justification for the wording under Item 1.21, or for
the recommendations under RIA 96 and 97. Instead, we suggest the
wording below.
Rule 1.21 New suggested wording
Except as drama or fiction, where it is
clearly labelled as such, demonstrations of exorcism, Satanism,
black magic, and attempts to possess, manipulate, emotionally
exploit, harm and ridicule people must not be transmitted before
the watershed, or when children are particularly likely to be
watching or listening.
Appendix
NOTE (September 2004) The Ofcom consultation
document does answer some of the criticisms written last year
and re-printed below, but the fundamental problem remains. The
basic assumption that an entire area of knowledge (arbitrarily
termed “paranormal” or “occult”) is of
itself harmful, however and by whomever it is practiced, is simply
unacceptable in a modern, multi-cultural society. Public ignorance
in this area, compounded by the existence of this extremely restrictive
broadcasting regulatory stance, is considerable. Viewers and listeners
have the right to be properly and correctly informed in these
areas rather than kept in ignorance, as this is dangerous. Analysis
of the ‘Beyond Entertainment’ research findings shows
no support from the public for Ofcom’s current blanket position.
(The following is reprinted from the Astrological Association’s
submission to the ITC in the Autumn of 2003)
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 advice 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 Crack’s remit.
In all these circumstances, it is surprising the CRAC has not
met with representatives of the astrological organisation, or
other groups it chooses to label “paranormal”. We
would be happy to correct this situation.
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 breathe 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.
End
Back to the top of the page
|
