BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

During a mock interview, it was suggested that Auckland's Deputy Mayor David

Hay had made a self-sacrifice in appointing himself a "moral monitor" and risking a

spontaneous erection by going to the Hero Parade. These comments were broadcast

on Access Community Radio Auckland Inc's The G and T Show on 26 February 1998

between 7.00–8.00am.

Mr Hay complained to Access Radio that the remarks breached the good taste

standard and denigrated him for his views.

Access Community Radio Auckland Inc responded that in view of the obviously

satirical nature of the broadcast, the context of The G and T Show and the point of

view of the target audience, the remark did not contravene standards of good taste and

decency. It noted that Mr Hay was a public figure with well known views about the

gay community.

Dissatisfied with Access Radio's decision, Mr Hay 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 broadcast and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

During a mock interview with a member of the "Lesbian Thought Police" on The G

and T Show, broadcast on 26 February 1998 between 7.00–8.00am, the subject was

the Auckland City Council's decision not to fund the 1998 Hero Parade. The

interviewee suggested that Deputy Mayor David Hay, having taken on the role of

moral monitor, risked a spontaneous erection in order to expose the insidious

attraction of the Parade.

Mr Hay complained to Access Radio about the broadcast, which he said was

offensive and which denigrated him for his views. He maintained that he had never

attacked any gay or lesbian person or anyone connected with the Hero Parade, but

that he had no doubt that if he did, it would result in complaints to the Broadcasting

Standards Authority and to the Human Rights Commission. As an elected

representative of the people of Auckland, of whom 82% supported the Council's

decision not to fund the Hero Parade, Mr Hay argued that he had a right to represent

them without being attacked in this manner.

Mr Hay argued that by its nature, Access Radio should be suitable for broadcast to

the whole community. It also, he argued, had an obligation to maintain standards

consistent with the observance of good taste and decency, and to safeguard against

portraying people in a manner which encouraged discrimination against them because

of their views.

In a second letter, in response to a request to clarify the nature of the complaint, Mr

Hay emphasised that the programme did not, in his view, comply with the standards

of good taste and decency.

In a brief response, Access Radio pointed to the "obviously satirical" nature of the

item, the point of view of the target audience, to Mr Hay's public role and what it

described as his well-known views about the gay community, and concluded that it

did not breach the good taste standard. When it responded to the Authority, Access

Radio suggested that as a public figure, Mr Hay should not be surprised to be the

subject of satirical comment from time to time.

The Authority has assessed the complaint under the standards cited by Mr Hay in his

initial letter of complaint. They require 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.

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, occupational 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, or

ii)  the expression of serious opinion, or

iii)  in the legitimate use of humour or satire.

First the Authority expresses its concern at the perfunctory responses from Access

Radio. In its view, Mr Hay's original letter was entirely clear, and did not merit a

request for further information from Access Radio. It also notes that the station

completely omitted to consider the complaint under standard R14.

Dealing first with the complaint that standard R2 was breached, the Authority

acknowledges first the relevant contextual factors. These include the programme

itself, which deals with gay community issues, its target audience of gay and lesbian

people, the spirited public debate occasioned by the decision not to fund the Hero

Parade, Mr Hay's role in the Council's decision, and the fact that a great deal of

controversy surrounded the Parade itself. On balance, the Authority concludes that

the context mitigates any possible breach. While it finds the words mildly offensive,

it concludes that, in the context, the standard was not transgressed on this occasion.

Turning to the complaint under standard R14, which was not dealt with by Access

Radio, the Authority notes Mr Hay's argument that he was denigrated for articulating

his legitimately-held views opposing the Hero Parade. He said that he was opposed

to the Parade, not because of the gay community's involvement, but because of the

standard of behaviour exhibited at the Parade the previous year and that he took

exception to being attacked personally for his views.

The Authority points to the exemption under standard R14. It makes no finding as to

breach of the standard, but points out that even if it did find a breach, the exemption

under standard R14 (iii) applies in the legitimate use of humour or satire. The

Authority has ruled in earlier decisions that a breach of the good taste requirement in

standard R2 is one of the guidelines by which it judges whether the humour is

legitimate. As noted above, it did not uphold that aspect and, in relation to standard

G14, it accepts that the mock interview was done in a satirical vein.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
9 July 1998

Appendix

David Hay's Complaint to Access Community Radio Auckland Inc – 10 March

1998

Mr Hay, Deputy Mayor of Auckland, complained to Access Community Radio

Auckland Inc about a segment of "The G and T show" broadcast on 26 February

1998.

A mock interview with two people who were described by the presenter as "the

lesbian thought police", dealt with the Auckland City Council's decision not to fund

the 1998 Hero Parade. In expressing sympathy for the self-sacrifice made by Mr Hay

in taking on the role of "moral monitor", one of the interviewees added:

To risk a spontaneous erection in order to expose the insidious attraction of

this unlicensed Parade – that's an adherence to duty above and beyond its call.

Mr Hay wrote that he took exception to the content of the show, and in particular, to

the reference to him. He pointed out that he had never attacked any Hero Parade

organiser, or any gay or lesbian person, although members of the gay and lesbian

community had twice had him appear before the Human Rights Commission.

He added that he had no doubt that if he were to refer to members of the gay and

lesbian community in a derogatory manner, it would result in complaints to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority and to the Human Rights Commission.

Mr Hay suggested that the name of the radio station implied that it should be

broadcasting to the general community, and argued that the content should therefore

be suitable for general members of the community to listen to.

Mr Hay said he believed the station had a responsibility to maintain standards

consistent with good taste and decency, and to safeguard against the portrayal of

people in a manner that encourages denigration of them or discrimination against them

on account of their beliefs.

Finally, Mr Hay noted, a telephone survey reported on 60 Minutes about the

Council's stand on not funding the Hero Parade, had generated a record response of

15,000 calls, of which 82% supported the Council's decision. In conclusion, he

wrote, as an elected representative of the people of Auckland, he had a right to

represent them without being attacked in this way.

Further Correspondence

In a letter dated 16 March, Access Community Radio explained that its brief was to

provide facilities for groups not represented in mainstream media in their own

language and from their own point of view. It asked Mr Hay to identify which of the

standards referred to in the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice he believed had been

breached.

Mr Hay responded in a letter dated 24 March, stating that he was surprised that the

station did not know what the specifics of his complaint were. He wrote that he did

not consider the broadcast was consistent with the observance of good taste and

decency.

Access Radio's Response to the Formal Complaint – 22 April 1998

Access Radio advised that members of its Committee of Management considered the

complaint. It wrote:

Following discussion about the obviously satirical nature of that part of the

broadcast, the context of "The G and T Show", the point of view of the target

audience and your own status as a public figure, with well known views about

the gay community, the committee agreed that the remark complained about

did not contravene standards of good taste and decency in this particular case.

Mr Hay's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 29 April 1998

Dissatisfied with Access Radio's decision not to uphold his complaint, Mr Hay

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

Act 1989.

In a separate letter to Access Radio of the same date, he outlined the reasons for his

dissatisfaction.

First, he said, he made it clear in his 10 March letter that he had never attacked any

gay or lesbian person. He said he took exception to the comment in Access Radio's

letter that he was well known for his views about the gay community. He wrote:

I have only criticised the Hero Parade because of the behaviour in a public

place, and right from my very first criticism of the first parade, I made it clear

that I would have the same objection if it was the Girl Guides, or any other

group, behaving to the same standard in a public place.

What your letter of 22 April does say, is that because you think I have some

unsubstantiated well known views about the gay community, that you have

the right to attack me personally.

It does seem that you feel your station is entitled to discriminate against me

because of my legitimate expression of a religious, cultural or political belief.

Access Radio's Response to the Authority – 15 May 1998

Access Radio advised that it had little further to add.

The telephone "interview" was clearly of a satirical nature from the very beginning

when the host of the show announced he had a call from "the lesbian thought police",

Access wrote. It added:

Mr Hay is a public figure of some prominence in the Auckland region (Deputy

Mayor of Auckland for several years) and, therefore, should not be surprised

by being the subject of satirical comment from time to time. Access

Community Radio Auckland stands by its assessment that Mr Hay's views

about the gay community are "well known". We made no comment about

whether or not he had attacked anyone from the gay community or who

supported it.

Mr Hay's Final Comment – 26 May 1998

Mr Hay argued that it was irrelevant that he was a public figure, as was whether he

was sufficiently thick-skinned to put up with comments about him.

He repeated that he did not believe the comments in the show, particularly the remark

that a person risked a spontaneous erection, complied with the standards of good taste

and decency for the station's target audience. He emphasised that Access Radio was a

community radio station and, while he appreciated that not everyone would enjoy the

programme, he did not believe it should be offensive to anyone who wished to tune

into it.

Mr Hay said that he understood that it was a responsibility of the Authority to

ensure that there were safeguards against the portrayal of people in a manner which

encourages denigration of or discrimination against them on account of their beliefs.

He concluded:

I do not believe that a programme done as "satire" has a right to breach those

standards.