BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

During an interview on Nine to Noon on Radio New Zealand’s National Programme on 4 September 1998, the word "fuck" was used on several occasions by both the host of the programme and the interviewee when they quoted a poem which had been translated and backtranslated into both French and German.

Mr Crouch of Marton complained to RNZ Ltd and received no reply to his complaint. He therefore referred it to the Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

When the matter was referred to Radio New Zealand Ltd for response, it advised that it had considered the complaint under standard R2 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice, which requires broadcasters to observe standards of good taste and decency. It emphasised that the context in which the language was used made it clear that the word "fuck" was not used in a gratuitous manner, as it was essential to the poem which was under discussion.

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, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

During a discussion about poetry on Nine to Noon on 4 September 1998, presenter Kim Hill and writer Bill Manhire referred to a machine translation of a well-known poem by Philip Larkin entitled "They Fuck you up, your Mum and Dad", which had been obtained from the Internet. They compared the original verse which had been machine translated into both French and German, and then back to English, and observed how some of the nuances were lost through the translation process.

Mr Crouch complained to Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that RNZ had failed to respond to his complaint that the presenter of Nine to Noon and her guest had both used the word "fuck" twice on the programme. In his opinion, the presenter had appeared to encourage her guest to use the word. The exchange, he argued, demonstrated that standards on RNZ were falling. He asked that the Chief Executive censure the presenter over the matter.

RNZ advised that it had no recollection of having received the letter and, having checked its mail processing systems, had not found any trace of Mr Crouch’s complaint. Nevertheless it dealt with the complaint as a breach of standard R2 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. That standard 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.

RNZ emphasised that the matter of context was a factor of great significance in the assessment of this complaint. It observed first that the target audience at that time of the day comprised younger adults and upwards, and that it was unlikely that children would be listening.

While it acknowledged that the poet’s intention might have been to shock his audience, RNZ did not agree that either the presenter or her guest were similarly motivated. It advised that in view of the fact that the word was not used gratuitously, but was an integral part of a well known contemporary poem, it would not consider upholding the complaint.

RNZ said that it regretted that Mr Crouch had been offended by the broadcast, but assured him that it was aware of its responsibilities and took them seriously. It also noted that all complaints led to a review of its policies and their application.

The Authority deals first with RNZ’s failure to respond. It accepts RNZ’s assurance that it had no record of having received this complaint, and notes its willingness to respond to the complaint as requested by the Authority. The Authority is aware, from its own experience, that it is possible for mail to be misdirected.

Turning to the substance of the complaint, the Authority notes that the standard includes a consideration of context, as matters of good taste are not examined in isolation. On this occasion, the relevant contextual matters are the time of day of the broadcast, the type of audience, and the fact that the source of the language objected to is a well known contemporary poem.

The mid-morning broadcast, in the Authority’s view, obviated the concern that children might be in the audience, as did the subject matter of the conversation, which principally focused on a discussion of New Zealand poet Ursula Bethell and her work. Further, the Authority observes, the programme itself is targeted towards an adult audience. In addition, it notes, the word was used in the context of the reading of a machine translation of a well-known contemporary work by poet Philip Larkin. What was of interest was that the poem had been translated from English into both French and German, and then re-translated back to English with consequent changes in the sense and meaning. The Authority concludes that, given these contextual factors, the reading did not constitute a breach of standards.

In reaching its conclusion, the Authority acknowledges that its research reveals that almost 40% of respondents who in 1997 participated in a nationwide survey about television themes cited offensive language as being of major to extreme concern to them. It does not see this decision as one which authorises offensive language and reminds broadcasters that the occasions upon which it may be tolerated will depend entirely upon the context in which the language is used.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
26 November 1998

Appendix

Mr Crouch’s Formal Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd – 8 September 1998

Mr Crouch of Marton advised that he had complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd about a broadcast on National Radio on 4 September 1998 during Nine to Noon in which the word "fuck" was used several times during Kim Hill’s interview of poet and writer Bill Manhire.

In a letter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority dated 3 October 1998, Mr Crouch advised that he had received no response to his letter to RNZ. He therefore referred the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act.

RNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 8 October 1998

RNZ advised that it had no recollection of having received Mr Crouch’s letter. Having made the necessary inquiries, it said it remained virtually certain that Mr Crouch’s letter was not received by RNZ.

In a second letter, dated 23 October, RNZ responded to the complaint.

It explained that the item complained of was one of a regular series of dialogues between Kim Hill and Bill Manhire. It noted that Mr Manhire was New Zealand’s Poet Laureate and lectured on Creative Writing at Victoria University. In addition, he was an author and book editor and one of New Zealand’s most respected contemporary poets.

During the discussion in question, RNZ noted that the greater part of the time was spent on the work of Ursula Bethell. It wrote:

The conversation then turned at the end of the item to the strange alterations which had taken place in the process of translation from language to language of a famous Philip Larkin poem, "They Fuck you up, Your Mum and Dad". Manhire had earlier sent to Kim an article in which the original verse had been compared with an English version obtained by translating back from a French translation, and another English verse obtained in the same way through a German translation.

RNZ reported that it was of the view that the emphasis which standard R2 places on context was a factor of great significance in the assessment of the complaint. It observed that the poet Larkin may have originally hoped to shock his audience by the use of such forthright terms in his writing, but it did not agree that the presenter or her guest were similarly motivated. It added:

[The presenter] certainly did not "encourage" [her guest] to repeat "fuck" – a word which can hardly be avoided since it is essential to the Larkin poem under discussion.

RNZ noted that Mr Crouch’s letter was not sent as a formal complaint, and cited no programme standards. However, it reported, the complaint did seem to fall within the scope of standard R2, and had been dealt with accordingly.

RNZ also noted that the audience at the time of the day of the item was composed of younger adults upwards, and that children were not in question.

It concluded:

In view of the fact that the word objected to was not used gratuitously, but was an integral part of a famous contemporary poem, quoted and specifically cited for the purposes of serious linguistic and literary demonstration by a recognised authority, the Company would not consider upholding the complaint. It regrets, however, that Mr Crouch should have been offended by the broadcast, but assures him that it is aware of its responsibilities and takes them seriously; and that all complaints originate a review of policies and their application.

Mr Crouch’s Final Comment – 28 October 1998

In his final comment, Mr Crouch described RNZ’s response as "whitewash". In his view, no matter how eminent a person Mr Manhire was, he should be restrained from using bad language on radio.

He argued that bad language was appearing more and more on RNZ and that it encouraged children to use such language. In his view, the standards on RNZ were steadily falling. He maintained that years ago, swearing would have been beeped out so that listeners would not have heard the offending words.

Mr Crouch maintained that if the Authority were doing its job of ensuring that broadcasting standards improved rather than deteriorated, it would censure the broadcaster for breaching standards.