BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

A true story concerning a woman driver killing a shag on the highway concluded with a

punch line which contained a risque double entendre. The item was broadcast by

91ZM Wellington on 25 August 1995 between 10.30–11.00am.

Mr Harvey complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was

a gross offence to good taste and decency, that it violated the innocence of any

children who might have heard it, and that it denigrated women, particularly women

drivers, by casting a slur on their morals.

Acknowledging that the punchline was capable of the interpretation complained about,

RNZ nevertheless considered that children would have been unaware of the colloquial

meaning of shag and therefore their innocence would not have been violated. It argued

that the station's target audience would not have been offended by the remark, as

evidenced by the fact that no other complaints were received, and rejected the

complaint that it cast a slur on women. Dissatisfied with RNZ's response, Mr

Harvey referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

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

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the item complained about

and have read the correspondence. As is its practice, the Authority has determined

the complaint without a formal hearing.

A story broadcast by Radio New Zealand Ltd on 91ZM Wellington on 25 August

1995 between 10.30–11.00am concerned a woman driver who killed a shag while

driving on the highway. The punch line of the story incorporated the slang meaning of

the word "shag".

Mr Harvey complained that the item was grossly offensive, violated the innocence of

children, and denigrated women in general and women drivers travelling alone in

particular, by casting slurs on their morals. The language, he contended, was that used

by schoolboys sniggering behind the bicycle shed and the item was nothing more or

less than an attempt to broadcast a dirty story with the express intention of pushing

down standards of good taste and decency. He specifically objected to the item being

broadcast on a station which appealed to young people, although he did not consider it

was suitable for broadcast to any audience and expressed concern about children or

women hearing the broadcast and being forced to deal with an offensive suggestion.

In its response, RNZ advised that it had assessed the complaint against standard R2 of

the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. The standard requires broadcasters:

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.

RNZ acknowledged that the story, about a woman driver who killed a shag on the

highway and which concluded with the words "...and that is why it is dangerous to

have a shag on the highway", was open to the interpretation which Mr Harvey found

offensive. For those acquainted with the vernacular, it conceded, there was a play on

words in that final statement. However, in its view, there was no suggestion that

women were denigrated by the remark. Nor did it consider that children, who would

be likely to be unaware of the slang meaning of "shag" would be deprived of their

innocence. Taking into account contextual matters such as 91ZM's target audience of

young adults, and the fact that no other complaints about the item were made, RNZ

declined to uphold the complaint.

The Authority's task under standard R2 is to assess the remarks against accepted

community standards. On balance, it concluded that use of the vernacular "shag", in

this context and on a station which attracts a young adult audience, was not a breach

of community standards. Accordingly it declined to uphold the complaint.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
19 December 199

Appendix

D F Harvey's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd - 3 September 1995

Mr D F Harvey of Lower Hutt complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that a story

about a woman driver who killed a shag on the highway was broadcast on 91ZM

Wellington on 25 August 1995 between 10.30 - 11.00am breached broadcasting

standards. The punch line of the story was a risque joke based on the slang meaning

of the word "shag".

Mr Harvey complained that the item was a gross offence to good taste and decency

and therefore it violated the innocence of any children who might have heard it. He

also believed it denigrated women in general and women drivers travelling alone in

particular by casting slurs on their morals.

He wrote:

The item was a gross offence to good taste and decency in that it repeatedly

used language commonly heard by schoolboys sniggering behind the bicycle

shed. The term "shag" is used in these and other circles to describe a casual sex

act between partners who are not committed to each other in marriage. In your

review of the item you will hear the term used in this context a number of

times, even though once would have been one too many. The item was nothing

more or less than an attempt to get away with broadcasting a dirty story with

the express intention of yet again pushing down the limits of the community's

standards of good taste and decency.

Mr Harvey expressed concern about the impact such an item would have had on a

woman travelling alone. He added that he was dismayed to have heard the item on a

station which appeals to a young audience, although he did not think it was suitable

for broadcast to any audience. In his view those involved in a medium as powerful as

radio must be aware of their responsibility to raise the standards of the community.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 3 November 1995

RNZ advised that it had considered the complaint under standard R2 of the Radio

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It noted that the story recounted an incident in which a bird was killed by a woman

driver. It rejected the allegation that the story denigrated women or cast slurs on their

morals, arguing that the fact that the driver was a woman was incidental to the story.

The point of the story was, it continued, that the woman appeared upset at having

killed the bird but that she had no alternative which would not have risked a serious

accident. The punch line was: "...and that is why it is dangerous to have a shag on the

highway."

RNZ acknowledged that there was a play on words in the final statement but was of

the view that children would have been unaware of the slang meaning of the word and

therefore their innocence would not have been violated.

RNZ considered that the young adult audience of 91ZM was a factor in assessing the

context of the story as was the fact that no other complaints were received about the

broadcast. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Harvey's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 21 November

1995

Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision not to uphold the complaint, Mr Harvey referred it

to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Referring to his original letter of complaint, Mr Harvey complained that RNZ had not

properly dealt with his concerns. He added:

In addition, in my opinion I think that the item and complaint have been

reviewed in a coy, tongue-in-cheek manner which could be said to ride rough-

shod over my concerns.

RNZ's Response to the Authority - 23 November 1995

RNZ denied that its decision was coy, tongue-in-cheek and riding rough-shod over Mr

Harvey's concerns, maintaining that the complaint was considered fully against the

standard dealing with decency and good taste.

RNZ argued that there were no explicit statutory standards to deal with some of Mr

Harvey's detailed concerns, but that the full item was considered against standard R2.

It pointed out that the item was not a news or current affairs item but was part of the

announcer's continuity.

It advised it had nothing more to add to its original response.

Mr Harvey's Final Comment - 26 November 1995

Mr Harvey repeated the concerns expressed in his complaint to RNZ and his referral

to the Authority.

He concluded by suggesting that the broadcast of the item contributed to another drop

in community standards and thus became the new base for the next assault on what

remained of the standards.