BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A bomb scare in downtown Wellington, involving a grenade, resulted in a street being

closed and a man arrested. At some time between 4.30–5.00pm on 27 November 1997,

Channel Z alleged the incident could have been the work of Manu Caddie, Convenor of

"Buy Nothing Day", a promotion set for the following day.

Mr Caddie complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(c) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached his privacy. He also complained

that it was unfair, and denigrated his character by connecting him and his organisation to

a violent crime.

In its response to Mr Caddie on the standards matters, Channel Z explained that the

remarks were made in fun and did not set out to offend him. To the Authority, Channel

Z responded that the remarks did not breach Mr Caddie's privacy. It argued that his

name was already in the public arena in connection with the Campaign for Responsible

Consumerism, and the broadcast had jokingly suggested that Mr Caddie had planted the

grenade. Channel Z declined to uphold the complaints. Dissatisfied with the station's

response to the standards complaint, Mr Caddie referred it to the Broadcasting

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast was

unfair. It declines to uphold the privacy complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have read the correspondence (summarised in the

Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaints without a

formal hearing.

An attempted bank robbery in downtown Wellington, in which a grenade was involved,

resulted in a street being closed while police investigated the incident. In jest, according

to the station, an announcer on Channel Z identified Mr Caddie, Convenor of "Buy

Nothing Day", as the suspect. This comment was broadcast between 4.30–€“€“5.00pm on

27 November 1997.

Mr Caddie complained to the Authority that the broadcast, by connecting him to the

bomb scare, was a breach of his privacy. He also complained that the broadcast was

unfair to him and discriminated against him and his group. He pointed out that the

announcer specifically linked him and the group to the placement of the grenade,

suggesting that their planned "Buy Nothing Day" was somehow related to the bomb

scare. In addition, the announcer asked listeners to contact the radio station if they

knew of Mr Caddie's whereabouts. Mr Caddie objected to the broadcast of incorrect

information about him and the group, especially as the police already had a suspect in

custody and the correct facts were available. He considered it unfair that he and the

group were connected to a violent crime, and that Channel Z's listening audience was

misinformed about the purpose of "Buy Nothing Day."

Channel Z, in its response to Mr Caddie, suggested that the matter should have been

resolved directly between the parties instead of being referred to the Authority. It

advised that it was satisfied there had been no breach of his privacy. It also examined

the complaint under standard R14 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice, which

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, occupational 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

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of serious opinion, or

iii) in the legitimate use of humour or satire.

Channel Z considered that it was clear that the suggestion was made in jest, and

therefore exemption iii) applied. It did not consider any other standards were relevant.

To Mr Caddie, Channel Z maintained that it did not set out to offend him, and suggested

that, if anything, the publicity generated by the broadcast was probably good for his

responsible consumerism campaign.

When it reported to the Authority, Channel Z acknowledged that Mr Caddie was named

in connection with the bomb scare in Manners Mall. It described the broadcast as a

"light-hearted bit of fun", and suggested that it gave Mr Caddie and his group the

publicity they "craved". It also suggested that, having organised the Buy Nothing Day

and sent out press releases, Mr Caddie could expect to get his name on the radio.

In his final comment to the Authority, Mr Caddie questioned both the tone and content

of Channel Z's responses, which he said he found insulting. He rejected Channel Z's

assertion that the broadcast had been helpful to his cause, and pointed out that many

who had heard the broadcast had not realised that it was a joke. Mr Caddie also said

that he resented Channel Z's suggestion that complainants should give up their legal

rights to lodge a complaint in favour of a friendly chat in order to save money.

The Authority deals first with the privacy complaint. The Broadcasting Act 1989

provides that broadcasters are responsible for maintaining standards which are

consistent with the privacy of the individual (s.4(1)(c)). The Authority considers that

on this occasion there is an overlap between privacy and fairness, and subsumes the

privacy aspect of the complaint under standard R5, which relates to fairness. That

standard requires broadcasters:

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

programme.

The Authority notes that Channel Z considers there was no breach of fairness because

Mr Caddie was involved in a public campaign, and could expect that campaign might be

the subject of humour and satire. However, it observes that the humour allegedly

intended by the announcer's remark does not seem to have been directly linked to Mr

Caddie's campaign. That being the case, there was a reasonable possibility that the

remark would be misinterpreted, with an unfair consequence for Mr Caddie. In simple

language, if the remark was a joke, it backfired. Mr Caddie was its victim. It was a

situation he did not bring on himself, and the Authority finds Channel Z's statement

that the publicity generated by the broadcast was "probably good for his responsible

consumerism campaign" inexplicable.

The Authority also notes that Channel Z claims that the remarks were made in a

humorous context and that it was simply "light-hearted fun". Because the broadcast

was not one for which the station was required to keep a tape, the Authority is unable

to ascertain the tenor of the remarks to assess their impact. However, in the absence of

a tape, and any other evidence to the contrary, the Authority accepts Mr Caddie's

interpretation of the comments. It considers that naming Mr Caddie and implying that

he was responsible for the incident involving the grenade was a potentially serious

accusation. It finds that it was unfair to Mr Caddie, irrespective of the fact that his

name was in the public arena in another context at that time, and upholds the complaint

that the broadcast breached standard R5.

With respect to the standard R14 complaint, the Authority finds no breach. It does not

consider that a group of campaigners for responsible consumerism is a "section of the

community" bound together by religious, cultural or political beliefs, as required under

the standard.

Finally, the Authority turns to the complaint about the manner in which Channel Z

dealt with the complaint. It views with concern the station's apparent

misunderstanding of its obligations under the Broadcasting Act. Mr Caddie had a

legitimate complaint, and it was his right to pursue it using the formal process under the

Act. The complaint was appropriately made to the Authority under s.8(1)(c).

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaint that a

broadcast on Channel Z on 27 November 1997 between 4.30–5.00pm breached

standard R5 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may make an order under s.13(1) or an order

for costs under s.16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. It is not persuaded that the

circumstances of this case require an order.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
23 April 1998

Appendix

Manu Caddie's Complaint to Broadcasting Standards Authority – 1 December

1997

Mr Caddie of Wellington complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that a

broadcast on Channel Z on 27 November 1997 between 4.00–5.30pm breached his

privacy.

The broadcast referred to a bomb scare in downtown Wellington which resulted in

streets being closed and a man arrested. A grenade was found. The announcer on

Channel Z linked Mr Caddie's involvement with "Buy Nothing Day" with the bomb

placement and appealed to anyone knowing his whereabouts to get him to contact the

radio station. In fact, police already had a person in custody in connection with the

grenade and an attempted bank robbery in Cuba Mall.

In Mr Caddie's view, the station had no grounds for making the accusations and could

have easily obtained the correct information instead of invading his privacy, denigrating

his character and unfairly connecting him and his organisation to a violent crime.

Mr Caddie attached a copy of a fax he had sent to Channel Z in which he requested a

retraction of the accusations. He also pointed out that the station had specifically asked

him not to pursue the matter and insisted that it was simply a joke.

Channel Z's Response to the Formal Complaint – 8 December 1997

Channel Z began first by explaining why it would have preferred to have resolved the

matter informally with Mr Caddie, instead of pursuing it through official channels.

It responded that it was satisfied there was no breach of Mr Caddie's privacy.

Referring to the complaint that he was denigrated, Channel Z maintained that clearly the

broadcast fell under the standard R14(iii) exemption because it was humorous. It

advised that it could not find another standard which was applicable.

Channel Z added that it did not set out to offend Mr Caddie in what was obviously a

light-hearted piece of radio. It did not consider the standards had been breached.

In a separate response to the Authority of the same date, Channel Z repeated that the

remarks made by the announcer did not breach Mr Caddie's privacy. Mr Caddie was

named in connection with a press release he had provided about the Campaign for

Responsible Consumerism and it was suggested (obviously in humour, according to

Channel Z) that the group had planted the grenade.

In Channel Z's view, it was a light-hearted piece of fun which it believed gave him and

his group the publicity they "craved." It suggested that Mr Caddie ought to understand

that you "could not jump into the water and not expect to get wet." It concluded:

Any individual organising a Buy Nothing Day and sending press releases may

well get their name on the radio.

Mr Caddie's Final Comment – 12 December 1997

Mr Caddie disagreed with Channel Z's contention that it took its position as a

broadcaster seriously, and questioned the content and the tone of the correspondence,

which he said he found insulting.

He noted that the station did not apologise for the broadcast, and even suggested that

the coverage was "good for the cause". In fact, he pointed out, some people were wary

of the group after hearing the accusations because they did not recognise it as humour.

Mr Caddie stated that he resented the implication that complainants should bypass the

Authority and give up their legal rights "in favour of a friendly chat in the interest of

saving money."

Further Correspondence

In response to advice from the Authority that it was inclined to uphold the standards

aspect complaint and a request for submissions on the question of penalty, Channel Z

through its Counsel responded in a letter dated 9 April 1998.

The position taken by Channel Z was that Mr Caddie was involved in a public

campaign and that he was seeking publicity for that campaign. It suggested that he

could expect that the campaign might be the subject of humour and satire. It wrote:

The suggestion that Mr Caddie was involved in a robbery is on the face of it so

outrageous as to clearly show that there was no intent to be anything else but

humorous.

Channel Z argued that fairness would have applied had the broadcaster made derogatory

comments about Mr Caddie and gave some examples which it considered could be said

to have treated Mr Caddie unfairly. It contended that this broadcast did not treat him

unfairly.