First Reactions
Sections that might be relevant to astrology can be found in Harm and Offence Section, Items 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and also the Protecting the under Eighteens section, Item 1.19. You may also wish to consider Section 4: Religion.
Sections 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8 - Harm and Offence
The original ITC code and temporary Ofcom one have been amended considerably. It now reads:
"2.6 Demonstrations of exorcism, the occult, the paranormal, divination, or practices related to any of these that purport to be real (as opposed to entertainment) must be treated with due objectivity
"2.7 If a demonstration of exorcism, the occult, the paranormal, divination, or practices related to any of these is for entertainment, this must be made clear to viewers and listeners.
"2.8 .....whether such demonstrations purport to be real, or for entertainment, they must not contain life-changing advice directed at individuals. It defines life-changing advice as that that where individuals could reasonably rely on about health, finance, employment, or relationships."
This section goes on to say religious programmes are exempt for this rule, but must comply with Section Four conditions (4.7 says people can not claim to have special powers / abilities) Also, it says Films, Dramas and fiction are generally not bound by this rule.
There is good news in the new wording that suggests our efforts have bourne some success.
Firstly, "horoscopes" no longer front the list and are not specifically mentioned at all. Indeed, if astrology is not "occult" "paranormal", or divination then it is not covered. Over the coming years it may be seen as no more paranormal than electricity - compare how electricity would have been seen in the 16th century!
Secondly, the emphasis is on demonstrations. This should mean that discussing astrological ideas no longer requires a barracking "token sceptic" to be in attendance.
Thirdly, the requirement is "due objectivity", not "legitimate investigation". I should think that some challenging questions would suffice - we welcome these!
Fourthly, it is now clear that if astrology is part of a religion, it does not come under section 2 at all and is not subject to any of these restrictions. While many astrologers do not wish to see their knowledge as a religion, it does provide a proper respect for those who do.
However, bad news remains.
Firstly, a tight definition of "life-changing" has been included. While many of us would agreed that the media is not an appropriate place for any life-changing advice, we find it offensive to single out one range of methods as particularly harmful. The present practice of psychologists plying their trade in reality television and especially in intrusive child behaviour advice programmes may be seen as harmful and offensive to many people, but there is nothing in the code to protect the public from this. Such psychological advice may affect millions of lives, but be disputed, or soon out of accepted fashion in counselling practice - look at what happened to Dr Spock!
Secondly and fundamentally, while many of us may support the idea of protecting the general public from false claims and commercial manipulation at the "bottom end" of "occult activity", to pick out a particular cultural attitude for exceptional regulation, while leaving commercial exploitation possible in so many other ways, is in itself profoundly offensive.
Section 1.19 - Protecting the under Eighteens.
Prevents such "Demonstrations......." to be shown before the watershed, or when children are particularly likely to be listening - although the rule does not apply to "drama, film, or comedy." It seems that the broadcast regulators feel children should only find out about what the "occult" is not about - silly things, such as ghouls coming out of graves, vampires dominating the world, or people appearing and disappearing at the click of a finger, or turning into frogs.
With so much of the deeper reaches of consciousness blocked off from our children by school, higher education and now the media, small wonder they can only express their Neptune at the lower levels of alcohol abuse and the idolisation of attractive, but immature sporting and entertainment "celebrities".
In Conclusion
One still senses ill-informed prejudice against a particular way of looking at the world. Clearly, there is more work to be done by all the communities affected.