BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

"The Radio Pacific guarantee: that every opinion is welcome" was a promo broadcast

by Radio Pacific on 20 May 1994.

The Secretary of Credo Society Inc (Mrs Barbara Faithfull) complained to Radio

Pacific Ltd that the promo was both misleading and false. She referred to the station's

policy, acknowledged before the Broadcasting Tribunal, of censoring the Society by

refusing to allow her to speak to Felix Donnelly during his Sunday evening session.

Maintaining that it complied with the standards by allowing the Society and Mrs

Faithfull to participate on other programmes, Radio Pacific declined to uphold the

complaint. Dissatisfied with Radio Pacific's response, on behalf of Credo Society

Mrs Faithfull referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority noted that Radio Pacific acknowledged as correct the

wording of the broadcast about which the Credo Society complained. They have also

read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix) which, in addition to Decision

No: 45/89 of the Broadcasting Tribunal (dated 25.9.89), included some of the

correspondence between Credo Society and Radio Pacific since 1980.

"The Radio Pacific guarantee: that every opinion is welcome" was Radio Pacific's

promo which was broadcast on 20 May 1994.

Mrs Barbara Faithfull, secretary of the Credo Society, complained to Radio Pacific

that the guarantee was not accurate. She pointed out that she had been barred from

speaking to Felix Donnelly during his Sunday evening session for some years. The

promo, she maintained, was "false, dishonest and misleading".

Radio Pacific assessed the complaint under standards R4 and R5 of the Radio Code of

Broadcasting Practice. They require broadcasters:

R4  To acknowledge the right of individuals to express their own opinions.

R5  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any

programme.

Pointing out that, as required by the standards, it encouraged a wide range of opinions,

Radio Pacific maintained that the standards did not require broadcasters to allow

individuals to express their opinion on a particular programme. As Mrs Faithfull had

expressed her opinions on other programmes, Radio Pacific did not believe that the

promo was misleading or that Mrs Faithfull had been dealt with unjustly or unfairly.

When referring the Society's complaint to the Authority, Mrs Faithfull stressed the

point that she was not concerned about whose opinion was being censored but that

some opinion was being withheld. While acknowledging the right of a broadcaster to

suppress calls, Mrs Faithfull said that the promo suggested Radio Pacific would

accept all calls and was open to accept all shades of opinion at all times.

In its report to the Authority, Radio Pacific enclosed some files of correspondence

between itself and Mrs Faithfull since 1980. It also enclosed a copy of a decision

from the Broadcasting Tribunal (the Authority's predecessor), No: 48/89, when the

Tribunal declined to uphold a complaint from Mrs Faithfull that she had not been

allowed by a panel operator to talk to Felix Donnelly. Extracts from that decision

which contains some comment about the approach of the Credo Society and Mrs

Faithfull are recorded in the Appendix. In the Society's final comment, Mrs Faithfull

rejected Radio Pacific's comments with regard to the specific complaint and, in

addition, commented at some length on the reasons for the Society's dissatisfaction

with Mr Donnelly as a host.

The Authority acknowledges the ongoing dispute between the complainant and the

broadcaster but has disregarded the material relating to the dispute sent by both

parties in its determination of the current complaint.

The first issue for the Authority with regard to the present complaint was to decide

under which standard or standards to assess it. Mrs Faithfull in her letter headed

"Formal Complaint" alleged that the promo breached the standard requiring fairness

and accuracy. Whereas standard R1 requires accuracy on points of fact, it is confined

to news and current affairs and the promo could not be so described. Standard R1

therefore does not apply. Standard R5 – noted above – is not applicable as the promo

did not refer to any person. Standard R4 – also noted above – requires broadcasters to

acknowledge the right of individuals to express their own opinion. The promo which

was broadcast by Radio Pacific did just that – ie it acknowledged the right of

individuals to have their say. Having assessed the complaint against these and all the

other standards in the Radio Code, the Authority was unable to find one which it

could be said was contravened by the broadcast of the Radio Pacific promo.

There was no evidence that the broadcast of the promo on 20 May breached the Radio

Code of Broadcasting Practice. The promo does not guarantee that every opinion is

welcome on every programme. In other words, on this issue where there is

disagreement in the correspondence between the broadcaster and Mrs Faithfull as to

the meaning of the promo, it records that it believes that the broadcaster's

interpretation is the correct one.

The Authority has not reached this decision lightly. Should it receive and uphold a

complaint that a broadcaster not only breached a nominated standard but, in addition,

contravened the broadcaster's self-promotion, then the Authority could well take that

matter into account when imposing a penalty.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
24 November 1994

Appendix

Credo Society Incorporated's Complaint to Radio Pacific Limited - 20 June

1994

On 22 May, the Secretary of the Credo Society Inc of Auckland (Mrs Barbara

Faithfull) complained to Radio Pacific Ltd about the station's promo broadcast on 20

May.

She said that the promo stated:

The Radio Pacific guarantee: that every opinion is welcome.

Pointing out that the Society had been censored from Felix Donnelly's programmes in

the past, Mrs Faithfull asked the broadcaster to clarify that the guarantee was genuine.

In the formal complaint, Mrs Faithfull acknowledged Radio Pacific's reply to her

earlier letter and wrote with regard to being censored:

As you well know this has occurred over lengthy periods from the early 1980's

with you yourself even voicing your support of this to me in a phone

conversation we had on the matter on 18.3.83. In your own words, on that

occasion, unbelievably, you said you were quite in agreement with this practice

"If it makes (Donnelly) more "comfortable"!

She also referred the to the recent response from Radio Pacific to her first letter of

complaint on this occasion, describing it as "dismissive, flippant and rude". She

argued:

Notably absent from that reply, however, was any addressing of the critical

point at issue. We were thus left with some disturbing conclusions, such as that

that promotional advertisement had not been genuine, that every opinion is not

welcome, not mine, nor perhaps those of many others also. Therefore that that

promotion was false, dishonest and misleading. As well, that the censoring is to

continue, while at the same time Radio Pacific wishes to be seen as a station

which does not censor! In other words, you want to have it both ways!

Radio Pacific in its reply had referred to a decision in 1989 from the Broadcasting

Tribunal which, Mrs Faithfull said, amounted to a travesty of justice.

Radio Pacific's Reply to the Formal Complaint - 12 September 1994

After an apology from Radio Pacific for the delay in responding, Radio Pacific's

barrister (Mr Brent Impey) advised that the complaint had been assessed under

standards R4 and R5 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Referring to the requirement in the Broadcasting Act that opportunities must be given

for the presentation of "significant" points of view, Mr Impey wrote:

This is interpreted as being to present a balance of programming by encouraging

a wide range of opinions throughout its programmes. This means that hosts are

engaged with widely differing opinions and callers are encouraged from all points

of the spectrum. In that way the responsibility under the Act is discharged.

Mr Impey stated that he understood that Mrs Faithfull had been a regular contributor

to Radio Pacific's talkback programmes - both as an individual and Secretary of Credo

- other than Felix Donnelly's Sunday evening show.

He continued:

Nowhere in the Act nor in the codes is there a requirement for broadcasters to

allow individuals to express their opinions in any one programme, or to force

broadcasters to include an individual in any programme. In other words there is

no obligation on Radio Pacific to include you on the Felix Donnelly programme.

As Mrs Faithfull had had the opportunity to express her opinion on other

programmes, Mr Impey argued that the promo was not misleading and that Mrs

Faithfull had been dealt with justly and fairly.

Credo Society's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 6

October 1994

Dissatisfied with Radio Pacific's reply, Mrs Faithfull on the Society's behalf referred

the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

Referring to the promo which claimed that every opinion was welcome on Radio

Pacific, Mrs Faithfull maintained that she, individually and as the Society's

spokesperson, had been frequently censored during the years and, in particular, during

Felix Donnelly's Sunday evening programmes. When she had asked Radio Pacific

whether the promo was genuine, she had received a curt response which included the

admonition:

Go and annoy someone else.

Mrs Faithfull emphasised that the formal complaint was not concerned with the point

about whose opinion was being censored but that some opinion was being withheld.

Accordingly:

Therefore with that station promotion Radio Pacific had painted a false and

misleading picture of itself as being fair minded, utterly democratic and open to

all shades of opinion while knowing this not to be the case at all.

Describing Mr Impey's response to the Society's formal complaint as haphazard and

containing diversionary irrelevancies, Mrs Faithfull acknowledged - indeed defended -

the right of any talkback station to suppress calls. That should occur, she added, for

responsible and professional reasons. However, Radio Pacific did not accept the

suppression of any calls and guaranteed that every opinion was welcome. That

approach, Mrs Faithfull maintained, was false given the systematic censorship of calls

documented over the years. She concluded:

We thus contend that with that station promotion Radio Pacific has not been

fair and accurate in its programming and would thus have breached the Code of

Broadcasting Practice already mentioned. Also, that it has been less than

responsible in its overall handling of our initial enquiry and subsequent Formal

Complaint on the matter. We therefore would appreciate having the Authority

review Radio Pacific decision on our complaint.

Radio Pacific Response to the Authority - 20 October 1994

On Radio Pacific behalf, Mr Impey made three points to the Authority when asked to

comment on the complaint:

1) The words complained about were used.

2) His reply to the formal complaint was not haphazard. He added:

... it comprehensively answers the complaint and no further comments are

necessary.

3) He noted that Mrs Faithfull had been a constant correspondent with

Radio Pacific since 1983 and her concerns had resulted in a hearing before

the Broadcasting Tribunal. Mr Impey enclosed some files of

correspondence and a copy of the Broadcasting Tribunal's decision 45/89

(dated 25.9.89).

That decision was issued after a hearing following two complaints from the Credo

Society Inc against Radio Pacific that, on two occasions in June 1987, Mrs Faithfull

had not been allowed by the panel operator to speak to Felix Donnelly during his

Sunday evening talkback session.

In declining to uphold the complaints, the Tribunal observed (inter alia):

Mrs Faithfull (and possibly her society) is clearly obsessed with the fact that

Father Donnelly is able to broadcast. She believes he has a political message

which is wrapped up in a Christian presentation.

...

Fundamentally, Mrs Faithfull and her group proved unable to consider this

programme objectively although she herself has criticised Donnelly for lack of

objectivity.

...

The slightest criticism of her is described as false and malicious but the briefest

reading of her newsletters show that they contain a great deal of character

assassination, denigration, guilt by association and a number of similar

propaganda devices.

Mrs Faithfull is sincere in her beliefs (as no doubt are other members of her

society) but she does not appear to accept that anyone with opposing views can

be sincere. She appears ready to believe that other people have hidden motives,

unexpressed aims, are endeavouring to seduce public option and are engaged in

harmful activities.

The complaint was totally coloured by this attitude and Father Donnelly had

become the focus of the Society's attention.

The Tribunal also noted that Mrs Faithfull was aware that efforts had been made to

jam the telephone lines in an attempt to get Felix Donnelly's programme off the air.

Nevertheless, the Tribunal expressed pleasure that Mrs Faithfull and the Credo

Society had recently been showing restraint and expressed the hope that the Society's

focus had changed and thus both parties were now therefore able to pursue more

constructive matters.

Credo Society's Final Comment - 7 November 1994

On the Society's behalf, Mrs Faithfull's final comment addressed the specific

complaint first and then what she described as the "irrelevant material" introduced by

the broadcaster. That material, Mrs Faithfull argued, should not be taken into account

by the Authority in reaching its decision on the specific complaint.

With regard to the broadcaster's comments about the specific complaint, Mrs

Faithfull described them as unconvincing and not addressing the issue.

As for the other material supplied by Radio Pacific, which was described as a red

herring designed to complicate and personalise a simple issue, Mrs Faithfull pointed

out that Mr Donnelly as a host had been criticised extensively but, nevertheless,

Radio Pacific had persisted with his employment. The Broadcasting Tribunal, she

added, had allowed the broadcaster to introduce extraneous material from which it

drew "grotesque and entirely unjustifiable conclusions". Mr Donnelly, Mrs Faithfull

concluded, used prevarication and subterfuge and Radio Pacific's promo was

misleading.