BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Remarks stating that if God was great the Pope might die soon and that he had bizarre

religious interpretations which prevented women from having more power were made

by Paul Holmes on Newstalk ZB on 5 September 1994 about 7.20am. An apology to

those who took offence was made the following morning at about the same time.

Mrs Freer, Director of Communications for the Catholic Diocese of Auckland,

complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the remarks were particularly offensive

because they were factually incorrect, a breach of good taste and decency and

encouraged denigration of the Pope on account of his age and his religious beliefs.

RNZ accepted that the remarks could have caused offence to a significant number of

listeners and noted that an apology had been broadcast the following day. It also

noted that the comments were not part of a news report but were clearly the opinion

of the presenter and were based on an overseas report from the BBC. RNZ declined

to uphold the complaint that there was any factual inaccuracy. Dissatisfied with that

response, Mrs Freer, on behalf of the Diocese, 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 have listenened to a tape, read a transcript of the

comments and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its

practice, the Authority has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

Comments made by presenter Paul Holmes on Newstalk ZB on 5 September 1994 in

which he claimed that if God was great the Pope might die soon and that he had

bizarre religious interpretations because he was opposed to limiting population,

elicited an apology the following morning. The Director of Communications Mrs

Lindsay Freer, on behalf of the Catholic Diocese of Auckland, complained to RNZ

that his remarks were offensive, inaccurate and denigratory to the Pope. Further, the

Diocese complained that the apology the following day in which the presenter referred

to papal infallibility as a justification for accepting that the Pope's death was a

political rather than a sentimental process, was offensive and untrue and did not

correct the factual errors made in the earlier broadcast.

In its response, RNZ advised that it had considered the complaint under the standards

raised by the complainant. They require broadcasters:

R1 To be truthful and accurate on points of fact in news and current affairs

programmes.

R2 To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and

good taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in

which any language or behaviour occurs.

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

any programme.

R14 To avoid portraying people in a manner that encourages denigration of

or discrimination against any section of the community on account of

gender, race, age, disability, occupation status, sexual orientation or as

the consequence of legitimate expression of religious, cultural or

political beliefs. This requirement is not intended to prevent the

broadcast of material which is

a factual

b the expression of serious opinion, or

c in the legitimate use of humour or satire.

Broadcasters are also required, in news and current affairs broadcasts, to take account

of the following:

R15 Listeners should always be able to distinguish clearly between factual

reporting on the one hand, and comment, opinion and analysis on the other.

RNZ noted that the presenter's original comment was not a news report, but was

editorial comment in which he expressed his own opinion. It agreed that the reference

to the Pope was in bad taste and could have caused offence to a significant number of

listeners. However, it pointed out, an apology was given the following day for any

offence caused and a brief explanation was given as to the origin of the remarks.

In its referral to the Authority, the Catholic Diocese of Auckland described the

apology as inadequate, claiming that the broadcast of the apology was taken as a

further opportunity to denigrate the Pope. It argued that the introduction of the

question of papal infallibility by the presenter was misleading and irrelevant and

described as disgraceful the suggestion during the apology that an expectation that the

Pope might die soon was being optimistic. In the view of the Catholic Diocese of

Auckland the fact that the comment was sourced from a BBC broadcast was

irrelevant, since the presenter did not advise his listeners that it was an abbreviated

statement taken out of context. It criticised the presenter for using the source as

support for his earlier comments about the Pope and for his ill-informed views on

Catholic attitudes towards population control and women's rights. Finally, it noted,

the presenter had not withdrawn his remarks about the Pope and Catholicism and had

made no effort to explain that his views were not even factual. Under the

circumstances, the Catholic Diocese did not accept that the apology was adequate.

The Authority considered that RNZ had correctly recognised that an apology was in

order and that it was appropriate for it to be broadcast the following day at

approximately the same time. It understood the Catholic Diocese of Auckland's

sensitivity and its concern that the apology itself raised new issues but noted that by

way of explanation, the presenter had attributed the remark to a South American

priest who had been quoted on a BBC report. The full apology reads as follows:

Now yesterday I made a remark to you about, well I made a remark about

the Pope which offended some people. If you were offended I apologise. I

was alluding to a statement made by a South American Priest to a British

reporter, quoted on the BBC. And he said to her, there are two divisions in the

Catholic church, the optimists and the pessimists. The optimists, the Priest

said, believe the Pope will die soon. It does seem to me, this is me talking

now, it does seem to me, if you declare a man infallible you have to accept that

his dying becomes a political process, rather than a sentimental one. But for

any offence given, I apologise.

Recognising that the presenter from time to time exhibits a deliberately flippant and

controversial style which no doubt produces varying reaction among listeners but

which does not always justify close analysis, the Authority believed that to require a

further extensive statement of clarification and correction might well be counter

productive as far as the complainant was concerned. In addition it believed that the

presenter's second statement appeared to be a genuine attempt to explain reasons for

his original comments and his regret was expressed by twice-mentioned apologies.

Accordingly, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint about the action taken

by the broadcaster.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint

that the action taken by Radio New Zealand Ltd was not sufficient.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
31 May 1995

Appendix

Catholic Diocese of Auckland's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd - 5

September 1994

Mrs Freer, Director of Communications for the Diocese of Auckland sought

confirmation from Newstalk ZB that remarks were broadcast that morning by Paul

Holmes to the effect that "if God is great, the Pope will soon die." She described the

remarks as offensive and inconsistent with good taste and decency standards.

The following day a response from the Station Manager reported that an apology had

been broadcast that morning (6 September).

Notwithstanding the apology, Mrs Freer advised in a letter dated 29 September that

she wished to lodge a formal complaint on behalf of the Diocese of Auckland.

A further letter dated 4 October detailed the grounds for the complaint. The Diocese

argued that since the item was based in fact, it was not a pure opinion piece. It denied

that the Pope had ever said that there was no population problem and maintained that

he was not opposed either to the control or limiting of population. It stated that it

was not true to say that he wanted to hear nothing of planned parenthood or

population control. The suggestion that the Pope opposed women having more

power was described by the Diocese as both factually wrong and denigrating on

account of gender.

The Diocese described the reference to "this old Pope" as discriminatory and

denigrating on account of age and the reference to the "Pope, who if God is great might

die soon" as dealing with the Pope unjustly and unfairly. It also alleged that the Pope

was denigrated because of his religious beliefs when he was described as having

"bizarre religious interpretations" and that Catholics in general were offended by the

presenter's description of the faith of the Pope as bizarre.

Referring to the presenter's apology the following day where he explained his view

that "if you declare a man as infallible you have to accept that his dying becomes a

political process, rather than a sentimental one" the Diocese wrote that the world's

nine hundred million Catholics did not share that view.

The Diocese also referred to the comment in the apology where the presenter claimed

to have quoted from a comment to the effect that optimists in the Catholic Church

believed the Pope would die soon. It noted that the original comments made on 5

September made no reference to that quotation, and:

Instead, Mr Holmes expressed the sentiment that he would like to see the

greatness of God at work in the death of the Pope. Mr Holmes has used the

occasion for his apology to make further derogatory remarks about Pope John

Paul II, and he does not correct the factual errors contained in his original

comments.

A letter dated 10 October 1994 contained more specific detail in support of the

Diocese's claim that the item was factually inaccurate and lacking in balance and were

were additional to the complaint about denigration of the Pope on account of his age

and religious beliefs.

Background information about the World Population Conference in Cairo was given

and reference made to the Papal delegation's position statement on population control

and family planning. The Diocese also included an extract from Familiaris Consortio

by Pope John Paul II, 1981, which articulated his concerns about women's issues and

an extract from a Letter to Families published in 1994 where the Pope expressed his

view that women who remain at home in the early years of their children's lives

should receive financial recognition. The Diocese maintained that these extracts and

numerous other statements demonstrated that the Pope did not wish to prevent

women from having more power.

Transcripts of the item on 5 September and the apology the following day were

appended.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 5 January 1995

RNZ gave as its reasons for not upholding the complaint the following:

1. The original broadcast was not a news report but was editorial comment by the

presenter.

2. RNZ accepted that the reference to the Pope was in bad taste and could have

caused offence to a significant number of listeners. However, it noted that an apology

had been made the following day and an explanation given as to the origin of the

remarks.

3. RNZ noted that the origin of the remark - that the optimists in the church believed

the Pope would die soon - was a BBC programme which examined the role of religion

in South America and which quoted the view of a priest.

Pointing to the explanatory material provided by the Diocese, RNZ reported that it

had considered it carefully but did not believe a point-by-point response was

necessary when the item was a brief editorial comment and not an in-depth factual

programme.

RNZ believed that the reference to the Pope constituted a valid cause for complaint,

and that the explanation and apology broadcast the following day redressed the

standards breach. It declined to uphold the complaint that there was any inaccuracy

when the item was known to be editorial opinion.

The Catholic Diocese of Auckland's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority - 1 February 1995.

Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision not to uphold the complaint, the Diocese referred

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

Noting that RNZ's formal response acknowledged that the remarks about the Pope

were in bad taste and offensive, the Diocese turned its attention to the broadcast of the

apology the following day. It complained that the apology was a further attempt to

denigrate the Pope. Mrs Freer, on behalf of the Catholic diocese wrote:

The apology is oxymoronic. Mr Holmes had not earlier referred to quoting

another person whose comments, he apparently argues, support his calumny.

He introduced the question of papal infallibility which, for reasons I have

explained in my letter of 4 October, are misleading and irrelevant to the subject

matter.

The Diocese added that to suggest that an expectation that the Pope would die soon

was being optimistic was a disgraceful public statement no matter what its source.

The Diocese noted that the presenter had not sourced the remark accurately nor

advised listeners it might be out of context. It did not believe it was fair for him to use

the comment to support his earlier remarks about the Pope and "his ill-informed views

on Catholic attitudes towards population control and women's rights". It noted that

in his apology the presenter did not withdraw his remarks about the Pope and

Catholicism and therefore that it did not accept that the apology was adequate.

RNZ's Response to the Authority - 3 April 1995

Apologising first for its delay in responding, RNZ commented first that the reference

made by the presenter was brief and was clearly a statement of his editorial opinion.

It noted that it was based on a previous BBC reporter's interview with a Central

American priest, but stressed that it was not an in-depth treatment of the subject. It

explained that it considered that the material offered by the Diocese's Director of

Communications would have been more applicable to a lengthy in-depth study (such

as Insight or Checkpoint.)

It noted that an immediate apology had been broadcast by the presenter. It enclosed a

tape of the item and of the apology made the following day.

The Catholic Diocese of Auckland's Final Comment - 20 April 1995

Mrs Freer, on behalf of the Catholic Diocese of Auckland repeated that it did not

believe the apology given by Mr Holmes was adequate, and maintained that it actually

compounded the offence by making further derogatory remarks about the Pope and by

failing to correct the factual errors made in the original comments.