After increasing irritation, a Briefing article, and a letter to Derryn Hinch, Ross Nicholson found himself on national television…
Three and a half million TV viewers sit primed ready to enjoy a bit of controversy. Current affairs programmers scour the papers, news bulletins, letters to editors or letters from viewers to feed this desire. It’s called the ratings game. The gospel doesn’t rate so the television medium is almost a closed shop to any presentation of the gospel in prime time.
On the 10th August I wrote a letter to Derryn Hinch asking him what is wrong with paedophilia, drunken driving and businesses ripping off consumers (see over). A week later came a telephone call from the producer of Hinch at Seven. Are you Ross Nicholson? Did you write this letter? Are you what the ‘Rev.’ in front of your name suggests you are? An affirmative to all the above led to a request for a camera crew to come out and investigate what appeared to be rather controversial views by an Anglican clergyman.
I don’t often, in fact rarely do I write letters expressing my views on issues. I, like most people, get steamed up, threaten to write, then cool off the next day. For months, however, I’d watched Hinch at Seven and had, on numerous occasions, seen a presenter who condemned paedophilia, condemned drunken driving, but condoned pornography (censorship is bad) and abortion on demand (that’s a woman’s right). Moral inconsistencies leapt from the screen and right up my nose. Then came the Briefing article “I’d like an Argument Please” (Briefing #7).
When we, as Christians, climb on our moral soapbox the media kicks it from under us or ignores us as fruitcakes. I thought maybe it was time we kicked the soapbox. The result: four minutes in prime time and 3.5 million views nationwide being exposed to the gospel. I say ‘being exposed to the gospel’ rather than the more common ‘hearing the gospel’, for the whole experience taught me a lot about communication.
First, the positives. If you want to get access to the media, especially TV, you must bear in mind that the name of the game is ratings. Controversy and conflict are the commodities of television. The letter I wrote was controversial but it was written ambiguously. I only asked a question–I didn’t say I supported those things. That conclusion was drawn in the mind of the reader. This secured the interview but was a hook with two barbs.
If as Christians we see our prime task as sharing the gospel, then whether we share with three or three million is irrelevant. To be able to present a rational Biblical perspective on morality to an interviewer and his crew is in itself a great gospel opportunity. Building a relationship with the crew and making sure the journalist understood me and my position was as important as anything that went to air. Some of the things which were left in, such as “What was the greatest sin you ever committed?” I’m sure were left because of the time spent talking before the interview was even taped.
The negatives? Be prepared to be misunderstood. An ambiguous letter hooked the interview but the second barb snagged me.
Communication is not about just sending a message–it’s about getting the message understood correctly. Within fifteen seconds of the interview going to air my phone rang. Clearly the woman on the end of the line had made up her mind about me and my position just from the segment of the letter which was read out. A friend correctly observed, “You won on argument; they won on presentation”. If a person was not willing to listen to the whole argument I had lost them before my face appeared on the screen. A second comment he made was “You were too subtle”. Unfortunately that comes back to the power of the medium. The interviewer had eleven minutes of material and four minutes in which to present it. Conflict and controversy are the stuff of television; sustained argument is for print.
Do you want an argument? Then by all means have ago. The media is not as tough as you think. It is peopled by men and women who’s job is to observe, note and report on life. They are not experts on life nor on every aspect of life. They are as sloppy in their thinking, vulnerable to exaggeration, myth and falsehood as any of us are when we step outside our own area of expertise. But if we take them on, we need to be experts in what we’re saying.
Talk with other people about what you’re going to do. Rehearse your arguments with friends–use them to give you the unexpected question or illustrations for your points. Meditate on your responses to imagined questions. The night I wrote the letter I lay tossing in bed till 2am thinking of all the responses and questions that could be raised.
Most important of all, however, is prayer.
Ask God to give you wisdom to know what to say and peace in the saying of it. Ask your friends to be praying for you and the team that will be talking to you. My stomach was jelly until the crew arrived but as we talked together I knew that I was not alone. As the camera rolled I realised that not only was the Spirit giving me the words to say, but he was also providing the questions.
Of over thirty telephone calls and four letters only five were negative. All of those positive people were Christians, and herein lies the value of what I did. Criticism and misunderstanding can be expected whenever the gospel is proclaimed. For God’s people, success or failure is not measured by one off events. I may have lost a television battle but the kingdom of God won the war. Human nature being what it is, I’m sure the hostile pagan on the shop floor, in the office or on the campus could not have resisted the opportunity of challenging the first Christian they could find with the things they thought I’d said. Unwittingly they were opening themselves up for another exposure to the gospel. Four minutes of primetime led to thousands of hours of witnessing face to face. That is victory. That is the power of the gospel. That’s new life.
Rev. Ross Nicholson
Lt 15 Church Rd
Rossmore. 2171
10th August, 1988
Mr D. Hinch
c/- Hinch at Seven
ATN Channel 7
Mobbs Lane
Epping.
Dear Mr Hinch,
I have been watching your show since its inception and am interested by the ‘crusades’ which you embark upon. I am writing because of the confusion that arises in ,y mind over your moral position.
Last night you opened decrying the suppression of the name of a ‘churchman’ who was convicted of assaulting a young girl. Your programme has attacked paedophiles and their activities. Through the ‘Shame File’ you pillory drunk drivers and you have hounded businessmen who are just trying to make a living in these hard times.
What exactly is wrong with these things? On what basis do you decide whether an activity deserves public reprobation? Why is it wrong to assault a young girl on your holidays? If a man or woman enjoys sex with little boys or girls why is that different to enjoying a pornographic magazine? Surely if a person doesn’t like any of these activities they should take the advice you gave your viewers regarding erotic magazines: don’t engage in that type of behaviour.
I suspect you object to certain things because they offend. Erotic magazines don’t offend you so they are acceptable; child molestation offends you therefore paedophilia is unacceptable. I’m surprised that a man who has such a refined sense of moral outrage, and I’m not being facetious when I say that, could make moral judgements based on his own personal likes and dislikes.
If you could spare the time to outline your position I’d be delighted to read it.
Yours sincerely,
Ross Nicholson (Rev.)
