BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 on 17 February 1999 commencing at 6.00 pm, focused on a family’s disagreement over the costs of returning a dead woman’s body to her family in the Philippines, after the deaths of the woman and her husband in a car accident. The woman was described in the item as a "mail-order bride". The term "mail-order brides" was used on several occasions during the broadcast to refer to other women members of the Philippines community in Invercargill.

Mr Hildreth complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the description "mail-order brides" demeaned the Filipino women shown in the item, and was offensive to women of that nationality, who had entered New Zealand as the wives of New Zealanders. Ms Tan complained to TV3 that the term was inappropriate in the case of the dead woman, and that it carried a stigma which created racial, cultural and sexual discrimination.

TV3 responded that its staff had talked to people in the local community, and were confident that the description was a fair and accurate one in relation to the deceased woman, and the "Philippine immigrants who donated money". Declining to uphold the complaint, it wrote that the term did apply, particularly to those involved in the story.

Dissatisfied with TV3’s response, Mr Hildreth and Ms Tan referred their complaints 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 complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the item complained about, and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendices. In this instance, the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

An item broadcast on 3 News on 17 February referred to the deaths of an Invercargill couple in a car accident, and reported on a disagreement over who should pay the costs of returning the dead woman’s body to her family in the Philippines. The dead woman was described as a "mail-order bride". The report said that the dispute had been resolved when members of the Philippines community in Invercargill had donated the necessary money to return the body. The term "mail-order brides" was used on several occasions during the report, which included footage of some Filipino women friends of the deceased woman.

Mr Hildreth complained to the broadcaster that the item was grossly offensive to Philippine immigrants who had entered New Zealand as the wives of New Zealanders. Stating that the term was very demeaning, Mr Hildreth wrote:

Was Richard Prebble’s Fijian wife a "mail-order" one?

Was my English-born wife whom I married in Italy and brought back to "Godzone" a "mail order" one"?

Was our present Queen Elizabeth’s Greek husband a "mail order" one?

Are Maori who marry people born overseas to be accused of marrying "mail order" partners?

Mr Hildreth concluded by writing that the programme was discriminatory, and represented the people portrayed as inherently inferior.

In her complaint to TV3, Ms Tan wrote that there was no need to use the term "mail-order bride" in relation to the dead woman "especially when this wasn’t the case". The term, she contended, had a stigma which created racial, cultural and sexual discrimination. There had been enough bad feelings generated by the incident reported without the broadcaster adding more fuel to the fire, she concluded.

TV3 considered the complaints in the context of standard G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. That standard requires broadcasters:

G13  To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of the community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupational status, sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or political belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material which is:

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current affairs programme, or

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.

TV3 agreed that the item used the phrase "mail-order bride/brides" three times. It had sought evidence from its news personnel to determine whether the term was an accurate description of those involved, and it wrote:

[We were]… assured that staff who worked on the story talked to at least four people in the local community who were in a position to know whether the description was a fair and accurate one – both in relation to the deceased woman and in relation to the Philippine immigrants who donated money. Those spoken to by News staff included two leading members of the Catholic Church in Invercargill, as well as a public figure and the husband of a "mail-order bride".

TV3 wrote that while the term was unlikely to apply to all Filipino immigrants in Invercargill, it did apply to some, and in particular to those involved in the story. Therefore, it was an accurate description, and its use fell within the exclusion provided by clause (i) of standard G13(i), as it was "factual" material. It declined to uphold the complaints.

In referring his complaint to the Authority, Mr Hildreth said that the women whose pictures were shown on the item were maligned by being described as mail-order brides. It was a serious contravention of standard G13, he wrote.

Referring to TV3’s contention that the description used was factual, Mr Hildreth challenged the broadcaster to identify each person portrayed and prove that she was a "mail-order bride". The "feeble defence" relied on by the broadcaster was only anecdotal evidence, he wrote.

When she referred her complaint to the Authority, Ms Tan through Marietta Herbert, the spokesperson for the Filipino community in Invercargill, said that the description used in the news item was humiliating, hurtful and discriminatory. "[We] are not ordered and paid thru mail therefore we are not mail order brides", she wrote. She asked why TV3 staff talked to people in the local community when they did not seek the same information from her and the other two people whom the broadcaster met and interviewed.

Ms Herbert said she was asked by the news staff:

…how many members of the Filipino community in Invercargill. I said about sixty or seventy. [Another member]… was asked – How many years you’ve been married? She answered 12 years.

There was no question asked about mail order bride/brides, neither from TV3 staff, TV1 or Mercury… If there was we could have corrected it then and there.

When invited to comment, TV3 said it had "no further comments" in relation to the complaints.

The Authority’s Findings

In this instance, standard G13 requires the Authority to consider whether the broadcast portrayed "people in a way which represents as inherently inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of the community". The basis of Ms Tan and Mr Hildreth’s complaints is that the descriptions "mail-order bride" and "mail-order brides" were pejorative of the women so described.

The task for the Authority then is to ascertain whether the expressions were used pejoratively and, if so, whether there was in their use the element of advocacy of discriminatory practice which is a prerequisite to the application of the standard.

At the outset, the Authority notes that the term "mail-order bride" has an historical basis in which marriages were arranged by brokers. To this extent therefore, the term refers to a type of arranged marriage in which the woman has some choice.

The Authority does not accept that the term necessarily contemplates the ‘sale’ or ‘purchase’ of brides, nor does it accept that the description implies that wives obtained in this way were inferior. For that reason, the Authority does not share the complainants’ view that the term is pejorative. It believes that the term is still used in its traditional sense, that is to describe a practice used by some in the community to find wives for men who sought them, and husbands for women who wished to marry.

The Authority considers that Mr Hildreth’s complaint reflects a belief that the term is used of cross-cultural and cross-racial marriages in general, and is necessarily derogatory. It is unable to accept that as an accurate description of the term’s meaning. Ms Tan’s complaint, it believes, reflects a literal interpretation of "mail order bride" which, as noted above, it does not consider is accurate, or was intended in the broadcast. It is unable to see in the use of the term here the degree of advocacy of discriminatory practices which is required for a breach of the standard. It therefore declines to uphold the complaint.

In so doing, however, the Authority acknowledges that cross-racial and cross-cultural marriages of this kind are a sensitive issue for the women concerned, who may well face more general problems with social assimilation. While acknowledging that the term may well be convenient journalistic shorthand, the Authority considers there may be a degree of insensitivity in its use indicating that broadcasters should use it with caution.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
15 July 1999

Appendix I

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

1. H C Hildreth’s Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd made through the  
    Broadcasting Standards Authority – 17 February 1999
2. H C Hildreth’s Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 22 February 1999
3. TV3’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 22 March 1999
4. H C Hildreth’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 24 March 1999
5. TV3’s Response to the Authority – 26 April 1999

Appendix II

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

1. Dorothy Tan’s Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 7 March 1999
2. TV3’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 12 April 1999
3. Dorothy Tan’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 22 April 1999
4. TV3’s Response to the Authority – 14 May 1999