BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

An episode of a popular sitcom, in which a character was portrayed using his former girlfriend’s name when taking his marriage vows, was discussed on The Edge at 7.30am on 20 August 1998. Listeners were invited to discuss what they would do in a similar situation. One male caller said "I’d give her a slap around", to which the host DJ responded "That’s a bit rough mate, isn’t it?"

Ms Beston complained to the RadioWorks Waikato, the broadcaster, that the exchange was offensive, and contended that the DJ’s casual response had tacitly condoned violence against women. In her view, the call should have been terminated before the comments were broadcast. She sought an apology from the station.

In response, The RadioWorks advised that it considered the host’s response was a natural one which had not in any way endorsed the statement made by the caller. Further, it stated that the host had swiftly terminated the call. Accordingly, it declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with the decision, Ms Beston referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, a majority of the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast breached standard R2 of the Radio Code.

Decision

The members of the Authority have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). In this instance, the Authority determines the complaint without listening to a tape of the broadcast and without a Formal Hearing.

Anne Beston complained to The RadioWorks Waikato about an exchange between a breakfast DJ and a male caller which was broadcast on The Edge radio station on 20 August at 7.30am. During a discussion about an episode of a popular sitcom in which a character was portrayed as using his former girlfriend’s name when taking his marriage vows, listeners were invited to ring the station to discuss what they would do in a similar situation. One male listener had rung the station and said on-air – "I’d give her a slap around" – to which the host DJ responded "That’s a bit rough mate, isn’t it?" The complainant, maintaining that the DJ had asked the caller to repeat the comment before he responded, considered that the exchange was offensive and a casual endorsement of violence against women. She believed, she wrote, that the call should have been vetted, and also that a two-second time delay would have allowed the call to be terminated before the comments were broadcast. She sought an apology from the broadcaster.

In response The RadioWorks advised the complainant that it considered the host’s response was a "natural" one, which had not, in any way, endorsed the statement made by the caller. It also submitted that the host had swiftly terminated the call, and claimed that it was not required to run delay systems because it was a "music" station. It accordingly declined to uphold the complaint.

Ms Beston referred her complaint to the Authority and repeated her arguments. With reference to the broadcaster’s assertion that its male DJ’s comment "That’s a bit rough mate, isn’t it?" was a "natural" response, Ms Beston claimed that it was, in fact, an offensive boys-will-be-boys exchange which subtly condoned violence against women. She said she was still not sure why the caller was not vetted by staff.

In its report to the Authority, The RadioWorks said it was mindful of its responsibilities. It argued that because the DJs had "shut down the call immediately", it had complied with standards R2 and R8 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

These 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.

R8 To respect the principles of equity especially as they relate to the contribution and the views of all women in our society.

The broadcaster advised that it did vet callers briefly before they were allowed on air, but claimed that it was difficult to predict what callers might actually say. If a caller made unsatisfactory comments when on air, it maintained, he or she would be cut off immediately as had happened in this particular case. It repeated its arguments that delay systems were used only by talk or news stations, not music stations. With regard to providing a tape of the broadcast to the Authority, it stated:

We are not required to provide a recording of the air check and because of this we do not have one to present to you.

The Authority’s Findings

First, the Authority notes with concern the broadcaster’s reason for not providing a tape of the broadcast to the Authority to assist it in determining the complaint. In response to the broadcaster’s assertion that, as a station with a predominant music format, it is not required to retain recordings of material broadcast, the Authority refers to R35 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. Standard R35 reads:

R35 For a period of 35 days after broadcast, radio stations shall hold a recording of all talkback and open-line programmes and a copy or tape of news and current affairs items.

The Authority points out that in past decisions, it has interpreted an open-line programme to mean any programme where listeners are invited to call a station to participate in a broadcast. Given the circumstances of this broadcast, the Authority considers that standard R35 is applicable. However, the Authority advises that it does not intend to make a ruling in relation to this standard as there is some debate as to its legal basis. The Authority records that an amendment to s.30 of the Broadcasting Act is at present before Parliament which upon enactment will allow for the development of rules requiring broadcasters to retain recordings of specified programmes.

The Authority next examines the broadcast in relation to standard R2 and notes that in doing so, it is obliged to take the context of the broadcast into account. As the broadcaster did not supply the Authority with a tape of the broadcast, it is unable to ascertain the tone of the comments or the length of time the caller was on-air, both of which are significant contextual factors. The Authority observes, nevertheless, that the remarks made by both the caller and the host DJ, as described by the complainant, have not been disputed by the broadcaster.

In the absence of a tape, a majority of the Authority accepts the complainant’s description of the broadcast and is in no doubt that the remark made by the caller contained an explicit and unequivocal message that violence towards women was an acceptable method of conflict resolution. The majority considers the remark was offensive and only acceptable for broadcast if it had been accompanied by an appropriate level of rebuke or condemnation from the host DJ. It is of the view, however, that on this occasion, the host DJ had not responded appropriately or professionally. His retort, while not necessarily endorsing the comment, was, the majority believes, too mild a reaction to counter the implication that physical aggression towards women was acceptable. Indeed, in its view, the DJ’s inadequate response served only to exacerbate the effect of the original remark and to trivialise it. The majority of the Authority, therefore, concludes that standard R2 was breached on this occasion.

A minority of the Authority, in the absence of a tape, is not prepared to accept that the caller’s remark invited a literal interpretation or that it was intended to be taken seriously. It is of the view that the comment could quite possibly have been delivered in a light-hearted vein and as a form of "macho" colloquial expression. The minority considers that the broadcaster’s response was in keeping with a more relaxed and jocular conversational tone. Given the possibility that the tone of the exchange was light-hearted and jocular, the minority is not prepared to find a breach of standard R2.

In the Authority’s view, the essence of the complaint was that the broadcast was offensive because it appeared to condone violence and anti-social behaviour. It has therefore subsumed the standard R8 aspect of the complaint under the more applicable standard R2.

For the above reasons, a majority of the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast breached standard R2 of the Radio Code.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
26 November 1998

Appendix

Ms Beston’s Complaint to The RadioWorks Waikato – 23 August 1998

Anne Beston of Hamilton complained to The RadioWorks Waikato about a live exchange on the breakfast show of the Hamilton radio station, The Edge, which was broadcast at approximately 7.30am on 20 August 1998.

She wrote that the regular breakfast DJs had discussed an episode of the American sitcom Friends which had screened on TV2 the previous evening. The discussion, she reported, had focused on a character in the sitcom who had used a former girlfriend’s name when pledging his marriage vows, instead of addressing the woman he was about to wed. The announcer, Ms Beston continued, then invited listeners to telephone the station to discuss what they would do if ever they found themselves in a similar situation. A call was taken from a male listener, the complainant asserted, who had uttered words to the effect: "I’d give her a slap around"

The complainant maintained that one of the announcers, after asking the caller to repeat the words, had then replied, in what the complainant believed to be a weak attempt at humour, "That’s a bit rough mate isn’t it?"

As the caller appeared to be deadly serious, and the announcers’ attitude inappropriately casual, the complainant maintained that the verbal exchange was offensive. She asked why the call had not been vetted before going on-air and also why there had not been a two second time delay between the remarks made and their broadcast. She also stated:

I would also like to know why this casual endorsement of violence towards women was treated by your DJs as a joke. I would also suggest that [the announcer] and colleague go and talk to the children whose mother was recently knifed to death by their father in the foyer of the Palmerston North District Court or any of the hundreds of other children whose lives are blighted by male violence every year.

In conclusion, the complainant asked the broadcaster to apologise, on-air, for allowing the remarks to be broadcast.

The RadioWorks Waikato’s Response to the Complainant – 10 September 1998

The Programme Director for The Edge, on behalf of The RadioWorks, advised the complainant that, contrary to her assumption, the breakfast show the morning of the broadcast, had not been hosted by its regular DJs.

He considered that the stand-in host’s response was a natural one which had certainly not endorsed the statement made by the caller. He submitted that the host had also swiftly terminated the call.

The Programme Director advised the complainant, that to the best of his knowledge, the type of delay system which she referred to in her letter of complaint was only used by radio stations which broadcast talkback shows, not by stations which primarily broadcast music.

He concluded:

The Edge in no way condones violence to women. This would be suicide for a radio station that targets a female audience as would comments regarding gays, or any other minority group.

Ms Beston’s Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 26 September 1998

Dissatisfied with The Edge’s decision on her complaint, Ms Beston referred it to the Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Ms Beston wrote that the reply did not explain why the caller was not vetted by staff before being put on-air and suggested that the patronising and defensive tone it used, indicated that The Edge had no intention of taking her complaint seriously.

With reference to The Edge’s assertion that its male DJ’s comment "That’s a bit rough mate, isn’t it?" was a "natural" response, Ms Beston claimed that in fact it was an offensive boys-will-be-boys exchange, which subtly condoned violence against women.

The RadioWorks Waikato’s Response to the Referral – 7 October 1998

In its report to the Authority, The RadioWorks Waikato advised that The Edge did vet callers briefly before allowing them on-air but that it was difficult to predict what callers might actually say. The vetting of callers, it explained, usually involved finding out their name, advising them of the procedure involved in being put to air, and how long it would take. If a caller made unsatisfactory comments when on-air, the broadcaster continued, they would be shut down immediately. This, it maintained, was what happened in this particular case.

The broadcaster stated:

We are extremely mindful of our responsibilities as broadcasters. [We] believe that the two broadcasters acted in accordance with Rule 2 of the general programme standards. By shutting down the caller immediately they were taking into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and good taste in language and behaviour. This also applies to Rule 8.

With reference to its earlier comments about delay systems, the RadioWorks repeated that these were only required for talk or news stations not music stations. It added:

We are not required to provide a recording of the air check and because of this we do not have one to present to you.

In conclusion, the RadioWorks apologised for the offence caused, pointing out that the two announcers also felt the comments were appalling which was why the call was terminated immediately.

Ms Beston’s Final Comment – 14 October 1998

In her final comment to the Authority Ms Beston disputed that the two DJs shut down the caller immediately. In her view, and as she had earlier stated, the DJs had asked the caller to repeat what he had said. Ms Beston maintained that after he repeated his comment, the DJs tried to "joke with him briefly" and at that point terminated the call.

With regard to vetting callers before they go to air, the complainant questioned why a simple one-line question could not be asked to ascertain the tenor of what the caller intended to say. She commented:

Surely that’s the minimum they could have done or were they so desperate for callers that morning they simply banged him on-air as quickly as possible.

The complainant considered that the tenor of the correspondence from the broadcaster suggested that it did not think that the matter had anything to do with it.

She concluded:

I am not an unreasonable person and in fact have never made a complaint of this nature before. Ironically, had the station apologised in the first instance, admitted it was in error, one they regretted but citing difficulties of vetting what the caller would say on air etc, I would have left it there. But no, this problem is everyone else’s it seems, not the radio station.