About 7 months after David Rutledge, Reynold Mainse and Ronald Mainse were named as finders in the Axcess Automation/Fund ponzi scheme last year, it came to my attention Crossroads Christian Communications Inc. non-profit network Crossroads Television System (CTS) had been running a donor solicitation campaign called Hope for TV.
That was a long sentence.:^)
You can read about it here, here and here. I gave CITS the benefit of the doubt when I saw tax receipts being offered to potential donors with the Hope for TV scare campaign, I called Revenue Canada because the charity “CITS Media Resources Organization/CITS Media Research Organization” was not listed online that I could find. I also wrote CTS.
Alert BDBO readers who understand ethics and public trust and public responsibility helped out. CTS chose not to respond to public concerns until their organizational back was against a regulatory wall.
Revenue Canada was very helpful. There was no charity to be found, and therefore no tax receipts could be given by CTS. End of issue. CTS Our Cause/Hope for TV/CITS Media Resources/Research Organization was not granted a charity license.
In moving up the regulatory ladder complaints were filed with the CBSC (Canadian Broadcast Standards Council) and the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission).
The CBSC received a complaint query in November 2009, and accepted a complaint in January 2010. The CRTC received a complaint shortly after. The hope was that the CTS behavior BDBO readers noticed would be a matter of wider public record. An informed public can make informed choices.
CTS was required to respond to the CBSC within 21 days. What irked me at the time was that the solicitation of public money was not taken off the CTS website until shortly before Rob Sheppard, CTS Programming Director formally responded to the CBSC.
Sheppard pointed out the PSA’s for Hope for TV (Public Service Announcements) had been approved by Telecaster – a broadcast industry advertising clearance resource.
The 30 second “Hope For TV” spot is a public service announcement produced by CTS TV that encourages viewers to think about the type of media they and their family view and directs them to a website to learn more. In this particular PSA, an elderly gentleman walks past a storefront window and sees a young person watching TV in a television store. The young person is reading text appearing on the TV of statistics concerning sex, violence and course language in television programming. The voice over from the elderly gentleman describes how television has changed over the years and contains too much “sex, violence and swearing” and that “something has to change”. Graphics containing the words “Hope for TV.ca” fill the screen at the end of the PSA. Nowhere in this PSA is there a solicitation for public funds as you point out in your letter of complaint. Prior to the CTS broadcast of this PSA, CTS voluntarily submitted this PSA to the Television Bureau Telecaster Committee for their review of the PSA. The Telecaster Committee reviews the contents and message of the PSA to ensure it complies with Telecaster guidelines for broadcast. This PSA has received a Telecaster approval number.
That’s nice – but Telecaster approval was not the issue; promising a tax receipt for a none existant charity and solicting donor dollars anyway from PSA’s and a website were. A Telecaster number is procedure and in responding to complaints broadcasters have to lay out the steps they have taken. Sheppard also acknowledged:
If viewers were to visit the “Hope for TV” website, they will find information on how to also a link to the CTS website where at one time viewers could make a donation to the CITS Media Resource Organization. There is also a link to the CTS website where at one time viewers could make a donation to the CITS Media Resource Organization. That opportunity to donate no longer exists on the website and the following statement has been issued by the CITS MRO: CITS Media Resources Organization launched in the winter of 2009 and applied for charitable status with the Canada Revenue at that time. We received notice from the CRA in December that this application was refused. While we consider our next steps, all parties donating to CITS MRO have been contacted offering a refund of their donation(s). make wise choices for their family when choosing media entertainment.
That cracked me up. The only public acknowledgement I could find by CTS was an emailed response to BDBO just before Sheppard responded to the CBSC and the Hope for TV and CTS Our Cause websites were finally changed to reflect reality. The email was public because it was posted here. Bit lame, but better than nothing. No one who saw those TV spots, no one who went to Hope for TV online or CTS Our Cause were informed.
But wait, there’s more! I think the issue was and is ethical. Any Tom Dick or Harry can follow simple Telecaster guidelines, get an ad approved and throw in a link to a website in their commercial. What happens on that website seems not to be the responsibility of broadcasters, broadcast bodies or broadcasters. An employee or employees at CTS chose to promise a tax receipt to donors. Public concern was ignored. It took a regulatory complaint. That the four PSAs are coercive makes me wonder what kind of pressure was put on the finally contacted donors.
After Rob Sheppard dutifully reported to the CBSC in February, an adjudication by a CBSC panel was requested. I think his response was incomplete. Often it isn’t what is said, it is what is implied or not said that can be relevant.
Ethical guidelines for Canadian broadcasters aren’t complicated. This issue didn’t fall under Clause 8 of the Code of Ethics (religious broadcasting), although it involved a Canadian religious broadcaster. The Hope for TV PSA’s linking to CTS Our Cause seemed to fall under Clause 14 – Advertising. You can’t promise what you don’t deliver and cannot deliver. Well, you can – CTS did. And if I’m understanding Mr. Sheppard correctly, CTS is not planning on putting this scheme to bed.
A response has been received by the National Chair of the CBSC. Concise. Well laid out. Appreciated. But it’s not an panel adjudication. No public slap on the errant religious broadcasting organizational wrist.
A couple of things caught my attention, including this:
Your complaint raises some rather complicated and unusual matters compared to those which the CBSC customarily examines.
Well, yes it did. The rest soon.
Thoughts?
