BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The forthcoming wedding of Sophie Rhys Jones and Prince Edward was discussed on Saturday morning 19 June 1999 by the presenter of Newstalk ZB (Pam Corkery) and a British Correspondent. To the correspondent’s comment that the colour of the wedding dress was coffee, the presenter remarked: "What a slut".

Ms Bristow complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the remark was offensive and inappropriate.

In response, TRN maintained that the vernacular and colloquial language was acceptable when used by a presenter who was well-known for her colourful language. It declined to uphold her complaint.

Dissatisfied with TRN’s decision, Ms Bristow referred her 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 the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. In this instance, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Ms Bristow complained to TRN about the Newstalk ZB ‘s presenter’s (Pam Corkery) comment while speaking to a British correspondent about the imminent marriage between Sophie Rhys Jones and Prince Edward. The correspondent stated that the wedding dress was coffee coloured to which the presenter responded: "What a slut". Ms Bristow considered this language offensive and inappropriate.

In its response to Ms Bristow, TRN wrote:

This should not have come as a surprise. Pam is noted for her colourful language, has been doing this programme for over a year and the audience accepts she will use heavy irony and colloquialisms to make her point.

It declined to uphold the complaint.

When she referred her complaint to the Authority, Ms Bristow said that she was "stunned" by the above comment. She continued:

Because Pam Corkery is known for her colourful language implies that anything she says is acceptable, if this is not the case, at what point does it become unacceptable? And who makes that judgement? A further implication that could be taken from this response is that if an announcer is not known for their colourful language then this might not be acceptable.

In its report to the Authority, TRN argued that the language was acceptable in the context of the vernacular style of the show directed at a mature audience. Further, it maintained that royalty was a legitimate target for the presenter’s satirical comment.

In her final comment, Ms Bristow explained that she was not a royalist. She maintained that the comments were offensive regardless of whom they were directed at. The comments, she added, were more appropriate for a programme broadcast during the night.

When a complaint is not specific about the precise standard raised, the Authority expects the broadcaster to nominate the standard and advise the complainant accordingly. TRN did not do so on this occasion and, accordingly, the Authority has nominated the standard under which it intends to assess the complaint. It considers that the letter of complaint raised 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.

This standard requires the context of the broadcast to be taken into account when the complaint is assessed. The Authority notes that the presenter’s style is well-known because of her lengthy experience as a talk-back host, and latterly as a Member of Parliament. It agrees with TRN that her use of the vernacular would not be unexpected. It also accepts TRN’s point that the programme is targeted at a mature audience. Nonetheless, because of the time of broadcast, Saturday morning, the Authority points out that the broadcaster must expect that children and young people may also be listening.

However, while the presenter used the vernacular on this occasion to make a satirical observation about Prince Edward’s bride’s manner of dress, the Authority does not accept that it came close to breaching the requirement in standard R2 to maintain community standards of good taste and decency.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
12 August 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority in determining the complaint:

1. Ms Sue Bristow’s Formal Complaint to The Radio Network Ltd – 20 June 1999

2. TRN’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 30 June 1999

3. Ms Bristow’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 6 July 1999

4. TRN’s Report to the Authority – 20 July 1999

5. Ms Bristow’s Final Comment – 30 July 1999