BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A segment on National Radio’s Nine to Noon which featured a review of a book entitled "Four to Score" was broadcast on 1 October 1998. The broadcast had included the host of the programme referring to a character in the book whose surname was "Kuntz".

Mr Lord complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the character’s surname was pronounced by the host in a manner which was deliberately offensive and demonstrated a reckless disregard for the sensibilities of her audience. In his view, the host should have used the softer Germanic pronunciation instead of what he described as the most distasteful pronunciation possible.

RNZ advised that as the word was used once only in the context of a literary review, it had not been used gratuitously. It observed that the book review had been broadcast in the late morning on a weekday during a school term, and therefore would not have been heard by children, as Mr Lord contended it might have been.

Dissatisfied with RNZ’s decision, Mr Lord referred the complaint 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 a tape of the item complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix. In this instance, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A review of a book entitled "Four to Score" was broadcast on National Radio’s Nine to Noon on 1 October 1998. The review segment featured an interview between the host of the programme and a female reviewer. During this interview, the host referred to a character in the book whose surname was "Kuntz".

Mr Lord complained to the broadcaster, Radio New Zealand Ltd, that the host, having read the book, would have known that the author’s use of this name was intended to shock. He maintained that she had used the name in full knowledge of its offensive nature and in doing so had demonstrated a reckless disregard for the sensibilities of her audience. The complainant asked that the complaint be considered under standards R2, R3 and R29 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Standards. The first two standards 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.

R3  To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children during their generally accepted listening periods.

The other standard reads:

R29  When a programme is likely to disturb normal listeners to a station, or significant segments of that audience, appropriate warnings shall be broadcast.

Mr Lord further observed that as the host had read the book and was not caught off-guard, she could easily have used softer Germanic pronunciation which was not as distasteful. He also maintained that the host, by spelling the word a short time later, did not make its use acceptable. In the complainant’s view, a sizeable proportion of the public would be offended by the pronunciation of the name which was used in the broadcast.

RNZ advised that it had assessed the complaint under the standards nominated, and that it had declined to uphold the complaint. It argued that the pronunciation of the name by the host had occurred within the context of a literary review and was not, in its view, used gratuitously. The broadcaster noted that the host had not repeated the name and, by way of explanation, had interrupted the reviewer to give its spelling. It suggested that the softer Germanic pronunciation could have been used in a different context, but argued that as it been used in an American novel, the host’s pronunciation was linguistically correct. RNZ wrote that as the review was broadcast in a late morning slot on a weekday during a school term, it would not have been heard by children.

Dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s decision and what he referred to as an evasive and shallow response, Mr Lord referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for review.

The complainant did not agree with RNZ’s contention that the contextual factors it referred to had prevented the broadcast from breaching standard R2. He asked how an obscene word could be made acceptable by being broadcast in a literary review in the middle of the day. He also challenged the broadcaster’s assertion that the standards were not breached because the word was not repeated, and because the presenter subsequently spelled the character’s name.

In its response to the Authority, RNZ reiterated its arguments regarding the host’s reference to the character’s surname on only one occasion, and her subsequent, and almost immediate spelling of it, as a means of clarification and explanation. It advised that it had further confirmed with the reviewer that the surname had been pronounced correctly as it was an Anglicised version of a name in an American novel. A softer Germanic version would have been indicated by Germanic or Continental punctuation marks, it argued.

With regard to standard R29, RNZ advised that because the name was used on only one occasion by the host, it considered a warning was not justified. If there had been a significant audience of younger listeners, as might have been the case if the broadcast had occurred during school holidays, it said that it could well have taken a different view.

In his final comment, Mr Lord referred to the reasons he had outlined in earlier correspondence for believing there had been a breach of standards R2 and R3. In addition, he claimed that the use of the offending word had not been necessary. He also expressed dissatisfaction overall with the arguments advanced by the broadcaster to extricate its presenter from public embarrassment and from having to make an apology. Mr Lord pointed out that RNZ had made no attempt to explain the presenter’s own interpretation of the offence when she said a short time later "I wish to extract myself from a spot of trouble". He contended that in making this statement, the presenter acknowledged that a breach had occurred.

Mr Lord disagreed with the broadcaster when it asserted, in relation to standard R29, that the broadcast of a warning was not justified because the name was spoken on only one occasion and because children were unlikely to be listening. He argued that standard R29 required that a warning be broadcast if a significant section of the listening audience was likely to be disturbed by a programme’s content. The listening audience referred to in this standard, he continued, did not necessarily mean one of younger listeners.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority considers, first, the standard R2 aspect of the complaint. In determining whether the broadcast has breached accepted norms of decency and taste in language, it is obliged to take into account the context in which that language has been used. In this case, the Authority notes that the word objected to by Mr Lord was spoken by the presenter of National Radio’s Nine to Noon during a late morning segment in which she and a guest reviewer were discussing a book entitled "Four to Score".

The Authority is of the view that the pronunciation used by the presenter for the name of a character called "Kuntz" was acceptable within the context of a book review designed for an adult audience. It observes that the character was first alluded to by the guest reviewer, and that the presenter subsequently pronounced his name and spelled it a short time later by way of explanation. The Authority considers that because the word was not spoken in an abusive manner, or within a sexual context, its potential to cause offence was significantly reduced. It declines to uphold the complaint under standard R2.

With regard to standard R3, the Authority again considers the context in which the language occurred. As the broadcast occurred late on a week day morning during a school term, and also in a programme designed for and listened to exclusively by adults, the Authority considers it most unlikely that children would have been exposed to it. Accordingly, it does not find a breach of standard R3.

The Authority next examines the complainant’s contention, in relation to standard R29, that because of the disturbing and offensive nature of the word used, an appropriate warning should have been broadcast. The Authority believes that as the word was not used in an abusive or obscene manner but, rather, in passing, as the name of a character in a book being discussed in an adult programme, it was unlikely to cause widespread offence. It observes also, that the remark was spontaneous rather than predetermined and as such, a warning could not have been prepared. It regards the subsequent explanation sufficed in lieu of a warning. Thus, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint under standard 29.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
11 March 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1. Mr Peter Lord’s Formal Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd – 13 October 1998

2. RNZ's Response to the Complaint – 2 November 1998

3. Mr Lord’s Referral of the Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority –
   18 November 1998

4. RNZ's Response to the Authority – 15 December 1998

5. Mr Lord’s Final Comment – 1 January 1999