'Don't Promote Homophobia Or Transphobia' : NBDSA Issues Guidelines To TV Channels On Reporting LGBTQIA+ Issues

This move follows a complaint lodged by activist Indrajeet Ghorpad regarding a program aired by India Today titled "Nudity sparks outrage at USA pride parades - How India's LGBTQ+ lead Responsibly," which allegedly contained factual inaccuracies and aimed to spread fear and demonize LGBTQ+ individuals.

Ghorpade's complaint highlighted that the program portrayed pride parades in the United States in a negative light, contrasting them unfavourably with those in India.

While asking the channel to expunge the objectionable remarks or remove the video totally, the NBDSA, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice AK Sikri, issued a set of guidelines.

NBDSA noting that since several complaints concerning reporting on the LGBTQIA+ community have been received and in order to take care of the sensitivity of the issue and bring objectivity while broadcasting such issues, it deemed appropriate to issue the following Guidelines to the Members of NBDA:

“Apart from following the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards and Guidelines, Members while broadcasting on issues concerning the LGBTQIA+ community, must adhere to the following guidelines: -

1. That the Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage, state that "Reporting should not sensationalise or create panic, distress or undue fear among viewers." Therefore, in view of the aforementioned Guidelines, Broadcasters must avoid broadcasting any news which sensationalizes the issues related to LGBTQIA+ community, perpetuates stereotypes or creates undue fear in respect of the community.

2. That the Guidelines for Prevention of Hate Speech, require Editors, Editorial Personnel, Anchors, Journalists and Presenters to refrain from "Using any and all forms of expression which, when judged contextually, targets, vilifies, ridicules, dehumanizes, reinforces prejudices or stereotypes and/ or advocates violence or engenders hatred against any individual and/ or communities based on their religion, gender, race, national or ethnic origin and/ or sexual orientation." In View of the aforementioned Guidelines, Broadcasters must refrain from using any expression or slurs which may be construed as Hate Speech against the LGBIQIA + community. While reporting any issue concerning the LGBTQIA+ community, broadcasters must ensure that reporting does not promote homophobia or transphobia or negative stereotypes about the LGBTQIA+ community.

3. That the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards requires as a rule that "channels must not intrude on private lives, or personal affairs of individuals, unless there is a clearly established larger and identifiable public interest for such a broadcast." That apart, privacy is also treated as a Fundamental Right of every citizen by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore needs to be honored. In view of the above, broadcasters must respect the privacy of LGBIQIA+ individuals and not disclose the personal information, including gender identity or sexual orientation of a person without their consent.

4. That since news media has the most potent influence on public opinion, broadcasters while reporting on any member of the LGBTQIA+ community must endeavor to use inclusive and gender-neutral language, respect the individuals' preferred pronouns and names.

5. That as far as possible, broadcasters while reporting on any issue concerning the LGBTQIA+ community must strive for diverse representation and ensure that voices from different segments of the LGBTQIA+ community are provided a platform to express their views.”

NBDSA directed that the aforementioned Guidelines to be circulated amongst the Members and Editors of NBDA for strict compliance.

Details of the complaint

The complainant further submitted that the NBDSA Guidelines very clearly state that the tone of the anchor or participants cannot be a defense in the event that the language, words, terms promote hate speech against a particular community. In view of the same, merely because the anchor at the end of the broadcast praised the pride. parades organized in India the same cannot mitigate the impact of the first half of the broadcast, wherein the anchor essentially went on a rant and gave unsubstantiated and baseless examples to defame an entire community, the complainant stated.

The complainant submitted that the broadcaster had relied on several historically used negative stereotypes. He submitted that the anchor, while talking about Pride rallies in the United States, aired a video which was not from the Pride rally but was from a function hosted by the White House and was therefore inaccurate.

The complainant submitted that by being judgmental the channel had violated the Guidelines for Prevention of Hate Speech and the Guidelines on Broadcast of Potentially Defamatory Content. He submitted that by saying that there were naked people during the NYC Pride Parade, the channel had acted in a manner akin to slut shaming which is often used as a tool for moral policing.

The complainant submitted that while the broadcaster in its defense had submitted that in the impugned broadcast it was merely expressing the concerns raised by parents in USA, however at no point in the broadcast, was it stated that treating members of LGBTQIA+ community as being part of grooming groups and as being pedophiles are historical stereotypes used against the community.

However, the broadcaster refuted the allegations levelled by the complainant stating that it was transphobic and homophobic.

The broadcaster submitted that the impugned broadcast was not a documentary but reporting as part of a news programme; it had praised the movement to a vast extent and also educated the viewers about the LGBTQIA+ community and the advancements made in India in terms of the community's representation in the country.

The broadcaster then submitted that when the entire broadcast is seen as whole and in full context, it is evident that the video was a celebration of diversity in sexual orientation and it promotes the Pride Movement, while lending unabashed support to the community.

The broadcaster submitted that the impugned broadcast was part of reporting during the Pride Month.

In response to the allegation raised by the complainant regarding the trans activist, the broadcaster submitted that it had in the impugned broadcast clearly mentioned that the said incident had taken place during a family event outside the White House and not during the pride parade.

Further, the broadcaster stated, “nowhere during the broadcast it is alleged that this was illegal or that any charges were framed against the said trans activist for their conduct. Its reportage of this incident was limited to reporting the official statement of the White House, who clarified the incident as being "indecent, disrespectful and unfair to the hundreds of the attendees who were there to celebrate their families".

No judgment was passed by it, it had merely referred to the said incident to show how the Indian pride movement was completely different.”

In respect of the complainant's allegation concerning its reporting of the NYC Pride Parade, the broadcaster submitted that its anchor was merely commenting on the "unnecessary nudity" and "twerking" that was happening at various marches and nowhere had it alleged that to dress half-naked is any form of crime in New York.

The broadcaster denied that it had labeled the LGBTQIA + community as grooming groups; rather it had expressed the concerns raised by certain conservative groups in the USA, which was also reflected in many media reportage in the U.S. In fact, it had implicitly critiqued the views expressed by conservative groups/parents by calling them as radical religious views.

NBDSA in its order observed, “there would have been no problem with the broadcast if the broadcaster had merely reported the concerns of some conservative groups and parents. However, the broadcast was not limited to that aspect alone. While doing so, the broadcaster used visuals and images totally out of context, which were not part of the incident covered.”

As far as the complainant's grievance regarding the LGBTQIA+ community being labeled as "grooming groups" was concerned, NBDSA noted, “it was not the broadcaster who had called the members of the LGBTQIA+ community as "grooming groups" rather, it had only expressed the concerns of conservative parents who believed so.”

NBDSA opined, “since news channels have a potent influence on public opinion, it would have been better for the broadcaster to have informed the viewers that "grooming groups" was a negative stereotype which was part of the anti LGBIQIA+ thetoric.

“using visuals and images totally out of context, which were not part of the incident covered was a violation of the principle of accuracy as enshrined under the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards,” NBDSA held

NBDSA advised the broadcaster to use factually correct images and ensure strict adherence to the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards in future broadcasts.

NBDSA further also directed the broadcaster to edit the video of the said broadcast by expunging the objectionable parts or if that is not possible, to remove the video, if still available on the website of the channel, or YouTube, and remove all hyperlinks including access which should be confirmed to NBDSA in writing within 7 days of the Order.

Click Here To Read Order