BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

In a prank telephone call broadcast on Solid Gold FM on 12 June 1998 at about 8.25am, a woman was called by a man claiming to be her fiance’s boss and was told that he was going to be fired because he was sleeping with the boss’s secretary. The woman reacted with tearful remonstrations, but then admitted that she was having an affair with her fiance’s brother.

Anrik Drenth of Wellington complained to the station that the call was distressing and offensive because it was malicious, and listeners were not informed at the conclusion that it was a prank. He noted that the woman had been clearly distressed by the news.

In a brief response, the station advised that the call was a hoax and had been set up. It apologised if it caused offence.

Dissatisfied with the station’s response, Mr Drenth 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). On this occasion it determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

On the morning of 12 June 1998 at 8.23am a DJ with Solid Gold FM telephoned a woman, identifying himself as her fiance’s boss. The DJ told her that her fiance was going to be fired for sleeping with his secretary. Amid tearful remonstrations, the woman then admitted that she had been sleeping with her fiance’s brother.

Mr Drenth of Wellington complained to the station that the call was distressing and offensive because it was not funny, and was clearly distressing to the young woman. In his view, the call bordered on being malicious and should have been halted. He noted that listeners were not informed at its conclusion that it was a prank.

In a very brief response, the station advised that the call was a hoax, and had been set up.

When he referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, Mr Drenth noted that the station maintained that the entire call had been orchestrated and that no real people had been hurt. That being the case, he wrote, why was he not informed when he spoke to the station staff, and why did it take so long to receive a response? He sought evidence to prove that it was orchestrated, and added that he and his friends just wanted to ensure that no real people were hurt.

No standards were raised by either the complainant or the station. The Authority advises that it has considered the complaint under standards R2 and R5 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those 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.

R5 To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any programme.

The Authority has been reassured that the call was a total fabrication. Both parties to the call were in on the "joke", it has been advised, no individual was identified, and consequently no one was hurt by the call, even if it might have sounded somewhat surprising to listeners. In the context of the breakfast show, where such pranks are not unusual, the Authority finds no breach of broadcasting standards.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
22 October 1998

Appendix

Anrik Drenth’s Complaint to The Radioworks (Auckland) – 12 June 1998

Mr Drenth of Wellington complained to The Radioworks (Auckland) about a broadcast on Solid Gold FM on 12 June 1998 at 8.23am.

He advised that a call was made to a woman on air by one of the DJ’s who pretended to be her fiance’s boss. The call, he noted, quickly turned to anguish for the woman when it was revealed that her fiance had been unfaithful. Mr Drenth pointed out that the call was interrupted mid way through with a song, leaving the woman in complete distress.

He said he found the call offensive and distressing. In his view, the call should have been halted when it was apparent the woman became distressed. Instead, the DJ persisted and implied three times that her fiance had been unfaithful. In Mr Drenth’s view, the call bordered on being malicious and, he noted, listeners were not informed at the conclusion that it was a prank.

The Radioworks (Auckland)’s Response to the Complaint – 16 June 1998

The station advised that the call to which Mr Drenth referred was a hoax call and was a set up.It apologised if it caused any offence.

Mr Drenth’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 27 June 1998

Dissatisfied with the station’s response, Mr Drenth referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Drenth noted that the station’s reply advised that the call had been set up and that no real people were hurt. He said he was going to leave it there but was persuaded by friends to take it further as a few things did not add up.

First, he asked, why it took so long to get a response. Second, he asked, when he spoke to the station, why did it not tell him then it was a hoax. If it was a hoax, he suggested there would be evidence to prove it, including a pre-recorded tape.

He concluded by stating that he and his friends wished to ensure that no one was hurt.

Further Correspondence

The station advised by telephone that it had no further comment. Mr Drenth confirmed, in a fax dated 29 September, that he wished to proceed with the complaint.