BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

In an interview with author and photographer, Colin Monteith, on National Radio's

Top of the Morning, broadcast between 8.00am–12 noon on Saturday 2 November

1996, presenter Brian Edwards referred to Antarctica as being "bloody cold".

Mrs V S Patrick complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the use of the term

"bloody" on National Radio had offended her, and was not in good taste.

In response, RNZ advised that the term was used without any deliberate intention to

insult either Mr Monteith or radio listeners. The term, it said, was used naturally and

without undue emphasis, in its recognised sense, to intensify the word cold. RNZ

declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with the response she received, Mrs Patrick 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 declines 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 (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the

Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

National Radio's Top of the Morning programme broadcast between 8.00am–12 noon

every Saturday includes interviews with people of interest in diverse fields, and

presents other items of general interest. The show is hosted by Brian Edwards. On

Saturday 2 November, Dr Edwards interviewed author and photographer, Colin

Monteith, about his new book and his experiences in Antarctica. At one stage in the

interview Dr Edwards referred to Antarctica as being "bloody cold".

Mrs Patrick of Auckland complained to RNZ that she was offended by the use of the

word "bloody", and in her opinion its use on National Radio was not in good taste.

RNZ, in responding, considered the complaint under standard R2 of the Radio Code of

Broadcasting Practice which 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 contended that the word "bloody" was used by Dr Edwards without any deliberate

intention to insult either Mr Monteith or listeners to the programme, and that it was used

naturally and without undue emphasis in what had become a recognised sense of a

common intensifier. RNZ advised that it understood the word was not now considered

unacceptable as a grossly low-class and impolite swear word. It commented that it was

unable to find a record of any other complaint, formal or informal, about the comment

made by Dr Edwards and it declined to uphold the complaint.

In referring her complaint to the Authority, Mrs Patrick advised that she did not accept

RNZ's view that the term used came within current usage. She wrote that in her view it

was not a currently accepted norm of speech. She believed that the word "bloody" was

still a "low-class" and impolite swear word.

When notified of the referral of the complaint to the Authority, RNZ responded that it

used the number of complaints about a particular item as a useful guide in assessing

matters of good taste and decency though added that this was not a definitive method.

RNZ also noted that the term "bloody" occupied 19th place on a study by the

Broadcasting Standards Authority on the relative offensiveness of 20 terms and

phrases.

In response to this letter, from RNZ to the Authority, Mrs Patrick advised that she

remained unconvinced by the arguments, and that listeners to National Radio did not

expect the word "bloody" to be used in serious interviews broadcast by that station.

The Authority concludes that RNZ has nominated the correct standard under which to

consider Mrs Patrick's complaint, and that in the context in which the word "bloody"

was used, it did not breach the requirement in standard R2 to observe accepted norms

of good taste and decency. The Authority accepts RNZ's argument that there was no

undue emphasis on the word and, on this occasion, it was used only to reinforce the

word "cold".

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 March 1997

Appendix

Mrs Patrick's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Limited - 29 November 1996

Mrs V S Patrick of Auckland complained to Radio New Zealand Limited that the use of

the word "bloody" by presenter Brian Edwards in an interview on Top of the Morning,

on Saturday 2 November 1996 between 8.00am - 12 noon, had offended her, and was

not in good taste. Dr Edwards had referred to Antarctica as "bloody cold".

Radio New Zealand's Response to the Formal Complaint - 29 November

1996

Radio New Zealand Ltd considered the complaint under standard R2 of the Radio Code

of Broadcasting Practice which 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.

It contended that the word "bloody" was used without deliberate intention to insult

either Mr Monteith or listeners to the programme, and that it was used naturally and

without undue emphasis to intensify the word "cold". RNZ did not accept that in the

context in which it was broadcast, the word departed from current established idiomatic

usage.

RNZ explained that it used the number of complaints about a broadcast as a guiding

factor in understanding what were the currently accepted norms of decency and taste.

In this case, RNZ had no record of any other complaints, formal or otherwise, about

the broadcast at issue.

Mrs Patrick's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 13

December 1996

In referring her complaint to the Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act

1989, Mrs Patrick enclosed a copy of a letter she had sent to RNZ responding to its

letter. It advised that while she accepted that there was no intention to cause offence in

the context in which the word bloody had been used, she did not accept that the term

came within current established idiomatic usage, or that its use constituted a currently

accepted norm. She said that she never heard "bloody" used naturally in any of the

daily human examples of communication, for example in schools or shops.

RNZ's Response to the Authority - 28 January 1997

In responding to the Authority, RNZ clarified that the numbers of complaints received

about a broadcast involving a question of public standards of good taste or decency,

was never definitive on the issue of whether standard R2 has been breached, but rather

a guide only.

RNZ also advised:

The Company ought possibly to have included the reference to the position of

the word "bloody" on the scale of relative offensiveness of words and phrases.

It was, of course, relying on the Authority's own survey study, which listed 20

such words in descending order of offensiveness, "bloody" occupying 19th

place.

Mrs Patrick's Final Comment - 11 February 1997

Mrs Patrick advised the Authority that she remained firmly convinced in her original

complaint. She made the comment:

Listeners to the National programme do not expect the word "bloody" (whatever

its ranking in the "relative offensiveness" scale) to be used in serious interviews

broadcast from that station.