The miracle here will be if responsible people continue to step forward and put the brakes on this station, which stands to make over 50 million (as a charity) if it expands.

The Miracle Channel, a religious television station that has come under fire for its on-air fundraising campaigns, could lose its broadcast licence in the future if it doesn’t follow new rules on how donations are solicited.

Federal regulators told the station yesterday they are considering a rare step that would see the Miracle Channel’s right to broadcast linked to how well it abides by its own internal standards.

The cable channel, which raises more than $5-million a year, was ordered to revise its internal fundraising policy last year after controversial on-air statements led to complaints. Hosts during a 2004 fundraising campaign urged viewers to cash in their retirement savings and charge up credit cards to make donations. In some cases, viewers were told they would be rewarded by God with cash or higher real estate values.

At hearings in front of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the channel was told its new internal fundraising policy could be made a condition of its licence.

Let’s hope a cumbersome and outdated board can actually regulate. This is not about freedom of religion, we have responsible religious broadcasting in Canada. The Miracle Channel  received it’s licence in 1995 and went on the air in 1996.

We would not have difficulty accepting that as a condition of licence,” said Gordon Klassen, vice-president of broadcasting for the Miracle Channel Association, which runs the station as a non-profit charity.

The channel’s revised fundraising policy sets out examples of appropriate statements that can be made on air. Hosts are allowed to make comments such as: “We ask you to consider the best gift that you are able to pledge at this time.” They are not allowed to say: “If you don’t give today, you are robbing God and could go bankrupt.”

The document also states “fundraising appeals must not create unrealistic donor expectations of what a donor’s gift will actually accomplish.” Allowable phrases include: “We believe that as you give, God will bless you in your area of need.” The new policy does not allow statements such as: “Because you gave a gift of this amount, God says you will see your income double this month.”

I think they do have difficulty and I think they need to be stopped. The practises are appalling - background. (.pdf Internal fundraising policy)

I’m a Christian, I make no bones about it. So why would I strongly oppose this station? It’s shameful and has nothing to do with the good news, nothing to do with the love of God, regardless of what participants say their motives are. Once they know the bottom line (900 thousand in one week of fundraising) they have a decision to make. Many of us have had to make a similar one. God or money? Preying or praying? If people who follow Christ cannot stand up and say enough, then let the CRTC do so.

Anton Hein at Religion News Blog, linked to this story with the following verses from I Timothy 6: 3-10.

3 If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

People who are vulnerable have fleeced long enough. The CRTC hearings in Edmonton and Calgary are addressing five applications, including CTS expansion. Decisions are usually handed down within a three to six month period.

The Miracle Channel

CRTC - February 6, 2007

6 February 2007

Mr. Gordon Klassen
Vice President, Broadcasting
The Miracle Channel Association (CJIL-TV)
450-31 Street North
Lethbridge, Alberta
T1H 3Z3

Re:   The Miracle Channel Association’s internal fundraising policy submitted on 10 November 2006 (Case ID 289089)  

Dear Mr. Klassen:Thank you for the filing of the Miracle Channel Association’s (MCA) revised internal fundraising policy (the policy) submitted on 10 November 2006.  We note the inclusion of all of Commission staff’s recommendations in the revised version of the policy.  We also acknowledge Mr. Thibault’s comments on your policy via letter dated 4 December 2006 and appreciate his concerns.  We further note your reply of 20 December 2006.

The following will address a number of specific principles Mr. Thibault identified in his letter regarding MCA’s revised policy that will, in our opinion, help MCA in the application of its guidelines and clarify certain aspects of the Commission’s approach in assessing complaints concerning the solicitation of funds, namely the role of personal testimonies, the concept of context, and finally, the role of the Regulatory Review Committee.

Personal testimonies

Mr. Thibault argues that the broadcast of selective personal testimonies, such as messages aired from donors who claim that after giving to the organization, they gained an increase in business revenue or a family member was healed of a sickness or disease, increases the potential for exploitation of viewers.

In its response to Mr. Thibault’s concern, MCA states that it is pleased to share the many positive reports it receives from its valued donors and refers to a number of quotes taken from fundraising campaigns which, in its view, illustrate that results of giving are not predicted or promised.

Commission staff agrees with Mr. Thibault’s concern that personal testimonies are examples of messages that have the potential to be used to encourage giving and imply that a specific tangible benefit will be granted by simply giving to the station or organization.  Staff will consider personal testimonies of that nature to be problematic if they are not properly contextualized with statements such as those quoted by MCA in its 20 December 2006 letter, or statements that otherwise introduce or explain that such testimonies are not predictions or promises of similar results to potential donors.

The context

In his comments, Mr. Thibault also emphasizes the importance of context in the assessment of the licensee’s compliance with its guidelines during fundraising campaigns.  He argues that when a complaint is filed with the Commission regarding a fundraising campaign on CJIL-TV, the campaign as a whole must be examined, not only specific statements that may be considered problematic.  He adds that, “[d]uring a typical fundraising campaign, you will hear repeatedly about the tangible gains people experienced in the Bible and in real life and the situation always qualifies it by saying these gains were made by people “giving”.  Following every lengthy discourse, there is always a plea for money and an encouragement for people to give.  The theme is ever-present during the fundraising, again, reinforcing the motive or intent.”

Commission staff agrees with Mr. Thibault’s argument that the context in which the solicitation is done is essential.  However, it is important to clarify the manner in which such contextual analysis is undertaken.

First, Commission staff recognizes that CJIL-TV’s fundraising campaigns do create a context wherein giving is the central theme of the programming.  However, staff disagrees with Mr. Thibault’s premise that solicitation of funds as part of a religious broadcaster’s programming is inappropriate.  This premise implies that entire campaigns are problematic, whereas staff is of the view that specific statements said during campaigns may be found inconsistent with the provisions regarding solicitation of funds without rendering an entire campaign to be problematic.

Commission staff has been assessing past complaints relating to CJIL-TV’s fundraising campaigns on a statement basis.  In other words, staff identifies concrete examples of problematic statements, while taking into consideration the context in which the statements were said to determine whether or not they are problematic.  This includes considerations of the frequency of statements and assessments of whether statements encourage or manipulate viewers to donate.

Commission staff is of the opinion that encouraging viewers to donate does not pose a problem in itself; however, manipulating viewers into giving to the station is not acceptable and will not be tolerated in any circumstances.  In our view, there is a considerable difference between encouragement and manipulation.  Specific intent articulated in specific statements is the most critical aspect of this difference.

Note also that the frequency of statements that merely encourage to give on-air, despite Mr. Thibault’s suggestion, will not constitute the focus of staff’s assessment of complaints.  Rather the statements themselves would be the determining factor as to whether an undue responsibility has been placed on the viewer to give to the station.  The frequency of inappropriate statements would then become a further factor.

In that regard, MCA states in its response to Mr. Thibault’s comments that on-air hosts and guests during fundraising campaigns “are instructed to qualify their statements to ensure that viewers understand clearly the theological principles of giving in such a way as to prevent miscommunication or exaggeration of what a gift will or will not accomplish.”

Commission staff will continue to use this contextual approach in the analysis of future complaints regarding solicitation of funds on CJIL-TV.

Secondly, taking all of the above into account, we would like to take this opportunity to remind the licensee that on-air hosts and guests appearing on CJIL-TV’s fundraising campaigns need to exercise caution so as not to get carried way with the excitement that may be experienced during the live and often lengthy broadcast of campaigns, which may lead to undesired and inappropriate statements by these individuals. <

Finally, Commission staff considers it important to clarify Mr. Thibault’s understanding that “if the same positive results cannot be applied to ALL donors, then they are exaggerated.  If potential donors are led to believe they will not please God if they don’t give, then this is prediction of divine consequences.  Either way, it’s unethical.”  In Commission staff’s view, this rationale does not take into consideration the fact that individual viewers interpret what they see and hear differently depending on a number of factors (e.g., education, religious background, age group, etc.), therefore, assuming that all should interpret one statement in the same manner is not realistic.  Rather, what is essential in Commission staff’s contextual analysis is what the reasonable viewer would take away from any particular statement.

Regulatory Review Committee

In relation to MCA’s Regulatory Review Committee, Commission staff would like to thank the licensee for providing clarifications as to its membership and the role it played in the establishment of MCA’s revised internal fundraising policy.  Also, we note the Committee’s role in reviewing how balance is provided in the station’s programming, how complaints are handled and how funds are solicited, as per CJIL-TV Lethbridge and its transmitters – Licence renewal, Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2004-372, 7 June 2004.

In closing, taking into account concerns addressed above by Commission staff, we are satisfied that the proposed internal fundraising policy is an effective tool to ensure compliance with the provisions regarding the solicitation of funds as set in the Religious Broadcasting Policy.  We also appreciate Mr. Thibaull’s input into our review of the internal fundraising policy.

We would also like to reiterate that we will continue to be concerned with specific statements broadcast during fundraising campaigns in the analysis of future complaints as opposed to reviewing entire campaigns.  We will assess and adjudicate any complaints about solicitation of funds on CJIL-TV in light of these revised guidelines in the future.

Calgary Public Hearing

Commission staff also wishes to advise MCA that the Commission may wish to discuss MCA’s approach to solicitation of funds, including its revised guidelines on solicitation, and the activities of its Regulatory Review Committee, as part of the examination of its applications for digital retransmitters of CJIL-TV Lethbridge, for Calgary and Edmonton, scheduled to be heard at the Public Hearing of 12 February 2007 in Calgary, Alberta.  To this end, this letter, including the finalized version of MCA’s internal fundraising policy, is being placed on CJIL-TV’s public file related to its two applications being considered at the upcoming Calgary Public Hearing, for review by any interested party.  Please also place a copy of this letter and the finalized version of the internal policy on CJIL-TV’s own publicly accessible files related to these applications.

Please note that both documents will also be placed on CJIL-TV’s complaints file for review by any interested party at any time.

Should you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact Caroline Poirier, Broadcasting Analyst at 819-994-2700 or via email at (removed to prevent spam).  Please refer to the following case number in any future correspondence: 289089.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Nick Ketchum
Senior Director
Television Policy and Applications

cc  Mr. Tim Thibault