BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Paedophilia was an issue raised by a caller on Newstalk ZB on the evening of 1

December 1995. The focus was on controls in other countries, but the complainant was

mentioned by name, as he had been reported in a newspaper article on the issue and had

been interviewed earlier in the day on National Radio. The talkback host (Pam

Corkery) described the complainant as "a loon and a weirdo".

Mr Moonen complained to Radio New Zealand that the comments were unfair,

inaccurate, unbalanced and encouraged discrimination against him.

Concluding that the standards requiring accuracy and impartiality did not apply to

talkback radio, RNZ said that balance was achieved by giving anyone a reasonable

opportunity to phone in. In addition, it argued that the host's well-known robust style

did not encourage discrimination and, furthermore, the comment fell within the

exemption for the expression of a genuinely-held opinion. Dissatisfied with RNZ's

decision, Mr Moonen referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

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

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The description of Mr Moonen as a "loon" and a "weirdo" by talkback host Pam

Corkery on Newstalk ZB on 1 December 1995 occurred during a discussion about

paedophilia. The topic had arisen as a result of an interview Mr Moonen gave earlier in

the day on National Radio in which he discussed the Wellington City Council's decision

to refuse him access to its e-mail facilities and in which he had answered questions

about the organisation AMBLA (Australasian Man Boy Love Association) in which he

is involved.

Mr Moonen objected to being described as a loon or a weirdo, arguing that having an

unorthodox political view did not mean that he was mentally deficient. He complained

to RNZ that the comments breached the requirements for truth and accuracy, impartiality

and balance and, further, that they were discriminatory. He sought an apology and

compensation for the damage inflicted upon him as a result of the broadcast.

RNZ advised that it had assessed the complaint under the standards nominated by Mr

Moonen – standards R1, R9, R14 and R16 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Those standards require broadcasters:

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

affairs programmes.

R9  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature,

making reasonable efforts to present significant points of view either in

the same programme or in other programmes within the period of

current interest.

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

i) factual

ii) the expression of serious opinion, or

iii) in the legitimate use of humour or satire.

The other standard reads:

R16  News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

Explaining that talkback programmes were neither news nor current affairs

programmes, RNZ argued that standards R1 and R16 were not applicable to the

complaint. It pointed out that the duty of the host was to moderate the discussion, and

to raise new angles or topics, and that the talkback medium was necessarily a robust

one, in which each host had their own particular style.

Noting that the requirements of standard R9 were satisfied so long as reasonable

opportunities were given to provide balancing comment, RNZ maintained that there

were facilities for any listener to call in and make a contribution, provided that their

contribution was reasonably to the point and time constraints permitted. It noted that no

record was found of any caller – other than the call complained about – who wished to

make comment or express opinions on the subject of Mr Moonen.

To Mr Moonen's complaint that he was denigrated or discriminated against by the

broadcast, RNZ first examined whether the standard applied to a single person and

concluded that it was doubtful that it did. Secondly, it concluded that the broadcast

represented the expression of an honestly-held opinion and thus fell into the second

exemption under standard R14.

Finally, RNZ observed that the expressions "weirdo" and "loon" were typical of Pam

Corkery's style and could not be interpreted as denoting certifiable lunacy. It

emphasised the brevity of the references to the complainant, the emphasis on his

lobbying activities, and to the issue of paedophilia in other countries rather than to the

personal practices of the complainant. It concluded that listeners would not have

interpreted the exchange as other than the forthright expression of genuine opinion.

While the Authority accepts that talkback programmes are not "news" – and thus

standard R16 is inapplicable – they often deal with issues of current affairs. Thus the

Authority has, on this occasion, assessed the complaint under standard R1.

The Authority accepts that the talkback environment encourages the expression of

forthright views and opinions. It notes that on the day of the broadcast, Mr Moonen

had already put himself in the public arena and, because he is a high-profile activist

whose views are controversial, was likely to be the subject of comment and opinion.

In the Authority's view, the remarks would not have been interpreted literally as

meaning that Mr Moonen was mentally deficient. It considers the flamboyant Corkery

style is well enough known that listeners would have understood the host to mean

simply that she did not agree with his views. Consequently, it declines to uphold the

complaint that there was a breach of truth and accuracy.

To the complaint that the item was unbalanced, the Authority agrees with RNZ that

balance is achieved in talkback by providing open phone lines and by giving listeners

the opportunity to make their views known. It does not consider that balance was

required on this occasion however, since it does not believe that those who advocate

illegal practices, especially morally abhorrent ones which involve children, have

legitimate grounds to object to being criticised for their views.

Finally the Authority considers whether the broadcast breached standard R14. In an

earlier decision (No: 4/95 dated 13 February 1995) the Authority concluded that

paedophilia was not a sexual orientation which was protected under the Broadcasting

Act. On this occasion, it is required to consider whether the complainant was

discriminated against on the basis of his political beliefs. While it accepts that he

pursues the role of activist and is involved in an organisation which has an unorthodox

view, it does not consider that paedophilia is a "political belief" which qualifies for

protection under the standard. Moreover, it notes that even if it were a political belief,

that the exemption under R14 ii) would apply because the views expressed were the

honest opinion of the caller and the host.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
20 June 1996

Appendix

Gerald Moonen's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd – 3 December 1995

Mr Moonen of Wellington complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd about a talkback

programme on Newstalk ZB (host: Pam Corkery) broadcast on Friday evening 1

December 1995.

Noting that some false accusations against him in relation to the promotion of child-sex

on the Internet were discussed, Mr Moonen said that he was named as "a loony" and "a

weirdo". He wrote:

I am objecting very much to be classified as such by her. I am of sound mind and

a citizen to be respected like anyone else. That I have an unorthodox political

view does not warrant to be described as mentally deficient.

Referring to standards in the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, Mr Moonen

said the comments breached the standards requiring factual accuracy and impartiality,

that discrimination not be encouraged on the grounds of political belief and that all

significant sides of an issue be presented fairly.

Mr Moonen said the host's comments were inappropriate and that earlier abuse in a

newspaper did not justify the abusive comments made by the host. He sought an

apology and recompense for the damage inflicted on him.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – March 1995

Assessing the complaint under standards R1, R16, R9 and R14 of the Radio Code (as

opposed to those in the Television Code nominated by the complainant), RNZ advised

Mr Moonen that the complaint had not been upheld.

Standards R1 and R16, it wrote, applied to news and, consequently, did not apply to a

public-access, phone-in talkback programme. It wrote:

The talkback "host" has the job, not of reporting news or presenting a formally

structured current affairs programme, but of setting major topic or topics for

public discussion, "moderating" that discussion, and raising new angles or topics

himself or herself. Talk-back hosts are necessarily provocative, at least in some

degree, and the talk-back medium, which might be looked at as a combined

editorial and immediate-response "letters-to-the-editor" page, in newspaper terms,

is necessarily a robust one, in which each "host" has his or her own style.

With regard to the requirement for balance in standard R9, RNZ explained that it was

impossible in the impromptu structure of talkback to ensure balance editorially before

broadcast. However, because of the facilities for any listener to call in, the broadcast

met the requirement to give reasonable opportunities for the presentation of different

points of view. RNZ observed:

The [Complaints] Committee noted there was no record to be found of the

complainant or of anyone identifying him or herself as wishing to make comment

or express opinions calling the talkback at the time the matter was discussed or

after.

As for the requirement that denigration or discrimination of specific groups was not to

be encouraged, RNZ argued first that the comments referred to a single person, rather

than a group, and secondly fell within the exception for the expression of a honestly

held opinion.

By way of general comment, RNZ stated:

... the expression "weirdo" was typical of Pam Corkery's style, as also was

"loon" or "loonie". The Committee was satisfied that, in context and given the

recognised style of Corkery, the expression "loon/loonie" would not be taken as

denoting certifiable lunacy.

Moreover, the caller – not the host – had mentioned Mr Moonen's name initially and the

host's reference related to an interview given by Mr Moonen on National Radio that

morning. RNZ added:

Throughout, the rare mentions of the complainant imply political or "lobbying"

activities on his part, not those of a practising pederast.

Indeed, RNZ concluded, most of the 10 minute discussion about paedophilia dealt with

attitudes in countries other than New Zealand.

Mr Moonen's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 18 March 1996

Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision, Mr Moonen referred it to the Broadcasting Standards

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

Explaining that he seldom listened to talkback hosted by Pam Corkery as he found her

style appalling, Mr Moonen agreed that a talkback host had to be robust. Among the

qualities of robustness he believed necessary were the abilities to be accurate, fair,

balanced and non-discriminatory. He added:

That I am being called "a loon and a weirdo" is totally opposed to these necessary

qualities and noble objectives required by the programme standards. That Pam

Corkery called me a "loon and a weirdo" might be her honestly held opinion, but

this only reflects on her own character. Her publicly nationwide expressed

opinion is only a conjecture. I have never spoken with Pam Corkery and she has

no idea whatsoever who or what I am. Her judgments of me were therefore

totally inappropriate.

He also expressed his displeasure at the host's apparent cavalier attitude towards

broadcasting standards. Mr Moonen commented that RNZ seemed to suggest that he

could not take a joke and he replied:

For me it is far from a joke. To state that I, mentioned by name, was a loon and a

weirdo, and to broadcast this all over the country, was not very funny or

entertaining.

He wanted, he concluded, his complaint to be taken seriously.

RNZ's Response to the Authority – 3 May 1996

RNZ advised that it concluded Mr Moonen's referral raised no new points requiring

further comment. It did point out nevertheless:

...the situation does not involve a private citizen's affairs but a virtual public

statement of a would-be political activist aiming to retain or recruit support for his

views, which had been publicly aired the same day.

In addition, RNZ considered it would be appropriate for the Authority to remind Mr

Moonen of the limitations on the introduction of formal complaints material in court

proceedings (section 4 of the Broadcasting Amendment Act No 2 1990).

Mr Moonen's Final Comment – 15 May 1996

In response to RNZ's point that Mr Moonen's views had already been aired that day,

Mr Moonen explained the background to the situation. He pointed out that he had been

wrongly accused and refused access to the Wellington City Council's e-mail facilities.

The Council issued a press statement in which he was accused of being a paedophile

and of using the internet for sexually orientated language. Those allegations, Mr

Moonen stated, were completely false.

Next, Mr Moonen wrote, he was abused by the Evening Post in a front page article

which accused him of using the internet for child-sex information. He stated that none

of that was based on any facts but was part of the witch hunt against paedophiles. He

added that he was not a paedophile himself. Mr Moonen noted that some months later

he received a verbal apology and was admitted to the internet again. He stated that both

the Evening Post and the Council were being sued.

When he heard there was a discussion about his case on Kim Hill's programme, Mr

Moonen telephoned her and explained that the issue was about freedom of speech and

made arrangements to speak only on that topic. However, instead he was "grilled about

AMBLA and paedophilia". He complained to the programme's producer and noted that

Kim Hill later apologised about the abuse she had subjected him to.

According to Mr Moonen it was clear that Pam Corkery did not have any verified

information about why he was refused access to the bulletin board and was simply

airing her own prejudice.

He also took exception to RNZ's description of him as a "would-be political activist".

While he acknowledged it was true he was chairman of AMBLA, he noted it was a

legitimate organisation for mutual support and law reform. He agreed that he was an

activist but objected to being described as a "would-be" activist.

He asked for clarification of RNZ's point that there were limits on what material could

be admitted in court proceedings.