BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A newspaper story dealing with a family in China which was decimated because an

infant son was mutilated by his siblings was dealt with in a light-hearted broadcast on

93 ROX at 8.25am on 28 November.

Mr Morrison complained to the broadcaster that the item dealt with a family tragedy

in a disgusting and appalling way and breached the standard requiring good taste.

When the broadcaster did not reply to the complaint within 60 working days, Mr

Morrison referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Explaining that the letter of complaint had been inadvertently filed during the

Christmas rush, Radio Otago said a daily feature on 93 ROX included a bogus or far-

fetched news item. That was the tone of the item complained about and regular

listeners were aware of the format. It declined to uphold the complaint.

For the reasons below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

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

Appendix). A tape of the item was not available but the broadcaster does not dispute

Mr Morrison's recollection of the item. As is its practice, the Authority has

determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

While travelling on a Dunedin bus one morning, Mr Morrison heard a radio news item

based on a story in that morning's "Otago Daily Times". Whereas the press item had

reported that a family in China had been decimated following the mutilation of an

infant son by his older siblings, Mr Morrison said the broadcaster had dealt with the

item in a light-hearted manner and had substituted "ping" or the "p word" for penis,

the word in the press report. Mr Morrison complained to Radio Otago that the item

on 93 ROX which dealt with a family tragedy in such an appalling way breached the

standards requiring good taste and decency.

The broadcaster did not reply to Mr Morrison and, after 60 working days had elapsed

from the date of the broadcast, Mr Morrison referred that complaint to the Authority

under s.8(1)(b) of Broadcasting Act 1989.

When approached by the Authority, Radio Otago explained that Mr Morrison's letter

of complaint had been inadvertently filed during the Christmas rush. As for the item

complained about, Radio Otago stated that 93 ROX had a "persona of irreverence"

and a daily feature involved bogus or far-fetched stories of an "I married an alien"

type. The specific item in the paper was considered to be of little credibility as it

came from the Chinese interior and, the broadcaster wrote, it was so macabre as to be

funny. The substitution used for penis was also meant to be funny and the usual

listeners were well aware of that style. The broadcaster apologised for any distress

caused.

In his final comment, Mr Morrison said he was angered rather than distressed that a

broadcaster could have dealt with a tragedy in such a light-hearted manner.

As the broadcaster did not respond to the complaint within 60 working days, and it

acknowledged that it had not done so, it could be taken that it had breached the

requirement in s.8(1)(b) of the Act and thus consideration could be given to imposing

a penalty under s.13(1). However, when the matter was drawn to its attention, the

broadcaster explained the oversight and responded to the complaint. In these

circumstances, the Authority decided the appropriate action was to proceed to assess

the formal complaint about the broadcast on 28 November.

The correspondence did not nominate a standard allegedly breached and, in view of the

issues raised, the Authority has considered the complaint under standard R2 of the

Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. It 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.

The Authority noted the broadcaster's comment that regular listeners to 93 ROX

were aware of the station's "persona of irreverence". However, for any number of

reasons, listeners to any station at any particular time might not be regular listeners.

The Authority also noted that "News in Brief" was a daily feature of the breakfast

show which presented either bogus news stories or stories which seemed so far

fetched as to be bordering on the ridiculous. While the Authority acknowledges that

broadcasters target entire stations or particular shows at a specific audience and

occasionally that involves pushing the standards to the edge, it does not accept that

targeting usurps a broadcaster's responsibility to comply with the standards. It

determined the complaint on that basis.

The Authority agreed with Mr Morrison that the story could well have been a factual

report and that it referred to a family tragedy. Indeed, it could be argued that the

story's origin added to its authenticity as items from China's hinterland seldom

feature. By the same token, it could be argued – as Radio Otago had done – that the

story's source added to its very strangeness and thus possibly its ridiculousness.

Whichever argument was correct, the Authority did not believe that the broadcaster

was entitled to establish itself as the decision maker.

In weighing these matters, the Authority was of the view that the item was in poor

taste but taking into account the broadcaster's style and the remoteness of the events,

whether fact or fiction, it believed that it fell, albeit minimally, within the bounds of

acceptability and, therefore, did not breach standard R2.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
29 May 1995

Appendix

Mr Morrison's Complaint to Radio Otago Ltd - 22 December 1994

Mr Philip Morrison of Timaru complained to Radio Otago Ltd about a broadcast on

93 ROX at about 8.25pm on Monday 28 November which he had heard while in on a

bus in Dunedin.

Noting that the "Otago Daily Times" had reported that morning a story about a

family in China which had been decimated following the mutilation of the infant son

by his older siblings, Mr Morrison said that the broadcaster:

... related this story in a very light-hearted manner, with the word "penis" in the

original account being substituted by an onomatopoeia (something like "ping")

or the "p-word". I inferred that this was an attempt to be amusing.

Mr Morrison stated that the newspaper item had reported a family tragedy and the

appalling manner in which it had been dealt with by the radio station breached the

standard requiring good taste and decency.

Mr Morrison's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 30 March

1995

As he did not receive a reply from the broadcaster, after 60 working days had elapsed

Mr Morrison referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Radio Otago Ltd's Response to the Broadcasting Standards Authority -

Received 12 April 1995

In response to the Authority's enquiry about the complaint, Radio Otago's general

manager advised that Mr Morrison's letter of complaint had been inadvertently and

inappropriately filed at the height of the Christmas rush with no action being taken.

He added:

I assure you that this was an isolated occurrence and does not reflect the usual

handling of correspondence of this type.

With regard to this complaint, he advised:

93 ROX is a station which is specifically targeted at youth and young adults and

has a Ôpersona' of irreverence to the normal and mundane.

A daily feature, he continued, involved bogus or far-fetched stories. Several examples

were attached. The usual audience, he added, were aware of this style.

As for the specific item complained about, the general manager said it bordered on the

ridiculous or was so macabre as to be funny, continuing:

The story supposedly came from the deep interior of China, (in our announcers

opinion an area not known for its experienced international news reporters) and

was therefore treated as a probable ÔMartian' ie no credibility.

The manager said that a substitute for the word "penis" was meant to be amusing. He

stated that as the item was only "announcer chat", a recording was not available, but

added that the facts presented by Mr Morrison were not disputed.

The broadcaster concluded:

I do apologise for not replying to the original letter and for any distress Mr

Morrison may have been caused by the item, and trust the above explanation

clears the matter.

Mr Morrison's Final Comment - 7 May 1995

While understanding the broadcaster's desire for a "persona of irreverence" and the

"News in Briefs" feature based on ridiculous, Mr Morrison said that nevertheless one

of the examples given - a 41 year-old calcified foetus - was well documented in the

medical literature.

With regard to the item complained about, Mr Morrison said it had been reported by a

reputable daily newspaper - not known for the "I married an alien" type of news - and

that that had been no reason to doubt the truth of the story. Indeed, the slaughter of

entire families occurred in New Zealand.

Arguing that the issue, nevertheless, was the manner of reporting rather than its

accuracy, Mr Morrison maintained that it was a tragedy - not as the broadcaster

claimed, "so macabre as to be funny". He acknowledged the apology but said he was

angered rather than upset that such a tragedy could have been treated so

lightheartedly.