BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Gun ownership was addressed by the presenter (Dr Brian Edwards) on Top o' the

Morning soon after 8.00am on Saturday 11 May 1996 in the programme segment

entitled "Brian's Week". Describing guns as very dangerous, the presenter questioned

the practice of allowing people to own a device which, he said, was "intended to maim

and kill". Top o' the Morning is broadcast on the National Programme between

8.00am–12 noon every Saturday morning.

Mr Dunlop complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

comments denigrated gun owners and were unbalanced.

Maintaining that the views expressed were clearly an expression of opinion, RNZ

pointed out that the presenter encouraged listeners to respond by way of facsimile or

telephone message. The presenter, RNZ added, had broadcast later in the morning the

critical comments received. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with RNZ's response, Mr Dunlop referred the 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 (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the

Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Top o' The Morning is the title of the programme broadcast by RNZ on National

Radio between 8:00am–12 noon each Saturday morning. Presented by media

personality Dr Brian Edwards, it involves interviews and exchanges on issues which

range from current affairs to cooking, wine and recently released CDs. While not a

talkback programme, the presenter encourages listeners to comment by fax on matters

covered or telephone and leave a message with the receptionist. Throughout the

programme, the presenter reads some of the faxes and messages received.

Early on in the programme each week is a segment introduced as "Brian's Week". It

involves the presenter commenting on some minor concern (eg why don't toasters

brown toast evenly) or on a major public issue (eg gun control).

Gun control was the issue dealt with at about 8.10am on 11 May 1996 in view of the

deaths in Port Arthur and, the presenter concluded on the question of gun ownership:

To hell with it, I say. Even if the preposterous notion that owning a device

designed and intended to maim and kill was a basic human right and could be

defended, the price for that right is too high. Take them from all but those to

whom they are essential to earn a living, and the world would be a better place.

We don't need them.

And so saying, he got down from his hobby-horse and returned to the

programme.

Pointing out that Dr Edwards had previously denigrated gun owners in a television

show (The Ralston Group) by describing them as "braindead bloodthirsty bozos", Mr

Dunlop complained about the remarks broadcast on this occasion. He argued that the

comments denigrated gun owners – a large group in society – when it was alleged they

"obtained pleasure from killing things".

Explaining the format of the show and pointing out that Wilbur Smith whose views on

guns opposed those of the presenter, had been interviewed on an earlier programme,

RNZ maintained that listeners were aware that the presenter's views – especially

those advanced during "Brian's Week" – were his own opinion. It assessed the

complaint under standard R14 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice but declined

to uphold it in view of the exemption in paragraph R14b. Standard R14 requires

broadcasters:

R14 To avoid portraying people in a manner that encourages denigration of or

discrimination against any section of the community on account of gender,

race, age, disability, occupation status, sexual orientation or as the

consequence of legitimate expression of religious, cultural or political

beliefs. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of

material which is:

a factual, or

b the expression of serious opinion, or

c in the legitimate use of humour or satire.

Mr Dunlop insisted that the one-sided soliloquy breached the standards when he

referred the complaint to the Authority. In its report, RNZ emphasised that the

comments were clearly personal opinion and, moreover, during the morning the

presenter read out to listeners all the faxes and messages opposed to his stance which

were received.

Mr Dunlop also claimed that the comments were unbalanced and the broadcast

breached standard R9. It requires broadcasters:

R9  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature, making

reasonable efforts to present significant points of view either in the same

programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

Expressing doubt as to whether this standard was meant to apply rigidly to such a

broadcast, RNZ maintained that the opinion piece was balanced, first, by reading the

critical facsimile messages received that morning, and secondly, over time by the

interviews with people who were opposed to his views. It mentioned specifically the

interviews of Wilbur Smith and the Duke of Edinburgh.

The Authority received a complaint about Dr Edwards' comment on TV3's The

Ralston Group that duckshooters were "blood-thirsty braindead bozos". The

complainant alleged a breach of standard G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice which is similar to standard R14 of the Radio Code cited by Mr Dunlop.

In its decision on the earlier complaint (No: 72/94 dated 1.9.94), the Authority wrote:

The Authority first considered the complaint that the remarks were denigratory

to duckhunters as a group and were capable of inciting hatred against them. It

referred to its legislation (section 21 of the Broadcasting Act 1989) which

charges the Authority to encourage broadcasters to develop Codes of Practice

which safeguard the rights of certain sections of the community. It noted that

people are protected against discrimination on account of their "sex, race, age,

disability, or occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of

religious, cultural or political beliefs." Since it did not consider that gun owners

comprised any of these categories, it declined to uphold the complaint that the

remarks were in breach of standard G13.

For the same reason, the Authority considers that standard R14 does not apply to gun

owners and, accordingly, it declines to uphold that aspect of the complaint.

As for the allegation that the broadcast breached standard R9, the Authority accepts

that broadcasters are entitled to express an opinion when it is clear that the view is an

opinion. That was abundantly obvious on this occasion by the presenter's reference

to his "hobby horse".

As the presenter invited listeners to respond to his comment, and as he read the

critical messages received, the Authority is of the view that balance was achieved on

the morning of 11 May. Moreover, other guests interviewed at different times on the

programme have advanced views in opposition to those held by the presenter.

Accordingly, the Authority considers that balance has been achieved over time should

any doubts be held as to whether balance was achieved in the specific programme

complained about.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
31 October 1996

Appendix

Mr Dunlop's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd - 16 May 1996

Referring to a number of broadcasts on National Radio which he said were evidence of

an anti-gun attitude, Mr Dunlop of Pokeno drew Radio New Zealand Ltd's attention

to the presenter's comments (Brian Edwards) on Top o' the Morning broadcast on

National Radio at about 8.10am on Saturday 11 May 1996.

The presenter, Mr Dunlop wrote, broadcast his personal views which included a

remark about those who "obtained pleasure from killing things" and other denigratory

comments about gun owners. Mr Dunlop expressed his concern that, on gun

ownership, National Radio ignored the views of a large group in society.

In reply to RNZ's request for specific dates of the various broadcasts complained

about, in a letter dated 24 May Mr Dunlop complained specifically about the

presenter's comments on 11 May. He maintained that the presenter had elsewhere

denigrated a substantial group of New Zealanders by describing them as "subhuman"

and as "braindead bloodthirsty bozos".

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 1 August 1996

RNZ began by explaining that Top o' the Morning, while at times it dealt with

contemporary current affairs, was a four hour programme broadcast each Saturday

from 8:00am - 12 noon hosted by an acknowledged personality which included

comments on cookery, on music and interviews with a wide variety of people. RNZ

pointed out that the host frequently expressed his own opinion and that was a

distinctive feature of the programme.

While the presenter did not campaign against guns, in a regular segment known as

"Brian's Week", he had spoken about shooting tragedies. On 11 May, RNZ

acknowledged, he had expressed strong views about what he saw as the dangers of

private gun ownership. In conclusion, the presenter had said in relation to gun

ownership:

To hell with it, I say. Even if the preposterous notion that owning a device

designed and intended to maim and kill was a basic human right and could be

defended, the price for that right is too high. Take them from all but those to

whom they are essential to earn a living, and the world would be a better place.

We don't need them.

And so saying, he got down from his hobby-horse and returned to the

programme.

While Top o' the Morning was not a talkback show, RNZ noted that listeners were

encouraged to make their views known by facsimile and telephone messages.

Although most of the messages received supported the view propounded by the

presenter, it said that the presenter had read all the messages received from listeners

which disagreed with him.

RNZ referred to the interview with Wilbur Smith some time previously (which Mr

Dunlop had also mentioned) which had included views opposed to those of the

presenter. Although there was some distance in time between that interview and the

programme complained about, RNZ argued that it was within the period of current

interest. Gun ownership, it noted, recurred as an issue with each public fatal shooting

incident.

RNZ summarised its Complaints Committee's decision:

The Committee believed that National Radio audiences would know what to

expect from Brian Edwards, and be familiar with his firm opinions on

contentious subjects, and with his frequently cogent expression of them.

However, it is to be noted that these are never expressed as reports of fact, but

are always clearly identified beyond any doubt as Edwards' own personal

opinions.

Given all the circumstances, RNZ did not accept that the balance complaint was

substantiated. As the views were clearly honest opinion, RNZ said that they fell

within the exemption in standard R14(b).

Mr Dunlop's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 20 August

1996

Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision, Mr Dunlop referred his complaint to the

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

Mr Dunlop maintained that the one-sided soliloquy breached the standards.

RNZ's Response to the Authority - 6 September 1996

In its report to the Authority, RNZ said that it had approached the original complaint

constructively to ensure that it was possible to deal with it as a formal complaint

rather than as a general comment.

RNZ did not wish to comment further other than to emphasise its earlier comment

about the presenter's response to the facsimiles received. The programme's format, it

advised, was sufficiently flexible to enable the presenter to report before 12 noon the

content of facsimile messages and telephone calls received.

Mr Dunlop's Final Comment

Mr Dunlop did not respond to the Authority's request to comment on RNZ's

response.