BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Sponsorship of the Radio Liberty midnight to 6.00am talkback show (host: Arch

Tambakis) was withdrawn, the host announced on 15 November 1995, following

complaints received by the sponsor about the show. Complainant H telephoned the

station that morning and expressed to the operator his agreement with the sponsor's

action. Having been advised of the call, the host said on air that the station had the

technology to trace the call. After abusing the unnamed caller, the host said that he

would be visiting him within 24 hours, among other things, to "square the ledger" and

"belt the living crap" out of him.

As he was reluctant to disclose his name or address to the broadcaster, Complainant H

complained to Radio Liberty Network through the Broadcasting Standards Authority

that the comments which were broadcast breached a number of standards in the Radio

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Although not dealing with the complaint under the specific standards nominated, Radio

Liberty apologised to Complainant H and pointed out that the host no longer worked for

the station because of this kind of comment. Dissatisfied that the action taken did not

include an on-air apology, Complainant H referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority upholds the complaint that the action taken by

Radio Liberty, having upheld the complaint, was insufficient.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to parts of the broadcast complained about

and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the

Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The talkback host on Radio Liberty from midnight–6.00am (Arch Tambakis) expressed

his disappointment in the early hours of 15 November 1995, that the sponsor (having

received some complaints) had withdrawn its support for the show. Complainant H

rang the operator at Radio Liberty at the time and, without disclosing his name, implied

that he would pass on to the sponsor any criticism made of it by the host.

The host was told of Complainant H's call and after abusing him on air said that he

would visit him between 4.45–5.15pm during the following afternoon to administer

"justice". In view of his later comments, "justice" would apparently involve physical

retribution. The host also stated that the station was able to trace the call made by

Complainant H through the use of telephone technology.

To ensure that neither his name nor address was disclosed to the broadcaster,

Complainant H complained to Radio Liberty through the Authority that the broadcast

which referred to him and his call breached standards R2, R5, R6, R10, R11, R12,

R13 and R34 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

On Radio Liberty's behalf, Mr Dave Henderson apologised to Complainant H for the

way he had been treated on air. He added that the station did not have the technology to

trace the call as the host had maintained. Mr Henderson continued:

I'm not sure what the essence of your complaint is, as I do not understand all

the 'R's' that you refer to. Furthermore, it is obviously impossible for us to

confirm that you actually called the station at the time you did. Furthermore, it

is impossible for us to confirm that anyone called the station and made the

comment that you allege you made.

...

I'm sure you are aware by now that Mr Tambakis no longer works for Radio

Liberty. It was exactly the kind of comments he made on air in this incident you

refer to that caused us to terminate his employment.

Mr Henderson also wrote to the Authority and pointed out that the entire matter could be

a "fantasy" although, in view of what he knew about the host, he accepted that it was

genuine. Noting again that the host no longer worked for Radio Liberty and the

Complainant's earlier approach to the Police appeared to have been the appropriate step,

Mr Henderson considered that an apology on air to an anonymous person – whose

telephone call could be regarded as being provocative – was both pointless and

meaningless.

Complainant H referred the complaint to the Authority as he was dissatisfied with the

action proposed by Radio Liberty. He acknowledged the written apology but

considered that Mr Henderson had trivialised the host's threats of violence, and

maintained that an on-air apology was appropriate. He also suggested that the on-air

statement should include an explanation that the station did not have the technology to

trace the numbers of callers who made calls.

Radio Liberty has not responded to the Authority's requests for comment on the

referral. It has been advised of the Authority's intention to determine the complaint

whether or not it received a reply to its requests for a response.

The Authority shares the complainant's concern about the apparently casual way the

broadcaster has dealt with the complaint. A talkback host working for Radio Liberty

made some highly menacing – and totally unacceptable – comments about which

Complainant H, not surprisingly, felt quite fearful. Having taken the appropriate steps

at the time – including reporting the matter to the Police – he made a formal complaint to

the broadcaster. The broadcaster apologised, but has shown a cavalier attitude towards

– indeed a disdain for – the broadcasting standards with which, under the Broadcasting

Act 1989, it is bound to comply.

The host involved no longer works for the broadcaster "precisely for this type of

nonsense and on-air garbage", and the Authority is of the view that an on-air apology

would normally be appropriate.

However, there is a practical impediment to the imposition of such a penalty, because

Radio Liberty is not at present broadcasting. The most recent press account available

(National Business Review, 22.3.96) reported Mr Henderson's statement that Radio

Liberty was keen to get back on air, but did not indicate when that might occur.

In these circumstances, the Authority upholds the complaint that Radio Liberty's action

in regard to this complaint was insufficient. It regrets that it cannot impose an order in

the unusual circumstances which pertain.

For the above reasons, the Authority upholds the complaint that the

action taken by Radio Liberty, having upheld the complaint about the

talkback session broadcast between midnight–6.00am on 15 November

1996, was insufficient.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
18 April 1996

Appendix

Complainant H's Complaint to Radio Liberty Network - 12 December

1995

In a letter addressed to the Authority, Complainant H complained about the death threats

and threats of violence made against him by the host (Arch Tambakis) of Radio

Liberty's talkback show broadcast between midnight and 6:00am on 15 to 17

November 1995. Complainant H asked that his name be kept confidential as, he said,

he had been advised by Constable Rob McPhee of the Auckland Crime Squad that the

host remained keen to identify him. He also reported that he had telephoned Mr Firth,

Radio Liberty's Station Manager in Auckland, about the matter at 4.30pm on 17

November but he had not called back as promised.

As background, Complainant H said that the host had made derogatory remarks on the

morning of 15 November about a sponsor who had suspended his sponsorship because

of the language and content of some of the material on the show. Complainant H said

he had telephoned and advised the panel operator that he was listening even if the

sponsor was not. He then hung up. Shortly later, the host commented that he was

aware of the call and as all calls were monitored, he would be able to trace it. He made

some derogatory remarks which included:

... you are obviously an idiot, you are obviously deranged, you are obviously

very very mental, and my advice to you is that you keep doing what you are doing

because you have only got another 24 hours to do, because I think somewhere

between a quarter to 5 and a quarter past 5 you will get a visit tomorrow afternoon

... "

Those comments were repeated and similar remarks were made by the host in response

to other calls, including:

Let me assure them of something, I will square the ledger with them by the end of

the week, by hook or by crook, by hook or by crook, there will either be a public

apology, or I'll belt the living crap out of them to that extent that they won't even

recognise themselves, and they're not too far away from it I can assure you

Richard ... I know exactly who they are and I'll even give their addresses and

phone numbers ... and no bastard on this earth is going to stop me .. I've got all

the facts and figures here. They were delivered to me on a plate, unwittingly, you

know without them knowing.

Complainant H said that he was a little fearful after the threats and he was told after an

enquiry at Telecom that the station might have "Caller ID". He complained to the Police

as well, who advised him to "be careful".

While not sure whether his call could be traced, he made sure at the time that his

security lights were working. He alleged that the broadcasts complained about breached

standards R2, R5, R6, R10, R11, R12, R13 and R34 of the Radio Code of

Broadcasting Practice.

The Authority deleted the Complainant's name and address from the letter and

forwarded it to Mr Dave Henderson of the Radio Liberty Network in Christchurch.

Radio Liberty's Network's Response to the Formal Complaint - 14

December 1995

Mr Dave Henderson of Radio Liberty wrote, through the BSA, to Complainant H and

apologised for the way he had been treated on air by the host. Mr Henderson stated that

the telephone technology referred to was not available in New Zealand.

Explaining that he was not aware of the details of each standard allegedly contravened

nor the details of the comments complained about, Mr Henderson commented:

I'm sure you are aware by now that Mr Tambakis no longer works for Radio

Liberty. It was exactly the kind of comments he made on air in this incident you

refer to that caused us to terminate his employment.

Given the circumstances, there is little more that I can say. If you want to contact

me at any time to discuss this, I will be happy for you to do so.

Radio Liberty Network's Comments to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority - 14 December 1995

As the Authority had forwarded Complainant H's complaint to the broadcaster to ensure

as requested that his name and address were not disclosed, Radio Liberty's Mr

Henderson also wrote to the Authority. Describing the complaint as "unbelievable", he

said it had to be seen in the context of talkback radio. Nevertheless, in view of what he

knew about the host involved, he accepted that it was genuine. Maintaining

nevertheless that the complainant's comment was provocative and that it would be

meaningless to apologise on air to an anonymous person, Mr Henderson concluded:

Mr Tambakis does not work for us any longer. His employment was terminated

precisely for this type of nonsense and on-air garbage. I should point out to you

that we cannot be responsible in any way for Mr Tambakis' actions. I believe

your complainant has done the right thing in addressing it to the police. Surely it

is far more relevant for them to deal with this than yourselves.

Complainant H's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority -

29 January 1996

Dissatisfied with the action taken by Radio Liberty upon upholding the complaint,

Complainant H referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of

the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Complainant H acknowledged the apology contained in the letter from Mr Henderson of

Radio Liberty but in view of the host's threats and Mr Henderson's seeming lack of

appreciation of the standards which applied, he sought the Authority's assistance.

When the Authority's role was explained, Complainant H in a letter dated 30 January

1996 explained that he believed the broadcaster had trivialised his concerns. He stated:

I would like the station to broadcast an apology for Mr Tambakis' offensive

behaviour and acknowledge that I did feel fearful regarding his threats of

violence, and that the station does not have the technology to trace the names and

addresses of incoming calls.

Mr Henderson in his letter to the Authority dated 14 December 1995 does not

accept responsibility for Mr Tambakis' actions. I understand that his position in

the station obliges him to be responsible.

Radio Liberty's Response to the Authority

On 1 February 1996, the Authority sought Radio Liberty's response to the referral from

Mr Henderson. It did not receive a reply and on 7 March it advised that unless a reply

was received by 18 March it could well determine the matter on the papers in hand.

That letter has not drawn a response.