BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The beheading of the statue of John Ballance in the grounds of Parliament established

the theme of the talkback programme (hosted by Bill Ralston) on Radio Pacific on 3

July 1995 between 6.00–9.00 am.

Mrs Stringer complained to Radio Pacific Ltd that the host prevented her from voicing

her opinion by putting her on hold while he spoke, did not deal with her fairly and

encouraged callers to denigrate Maori.

In its response, Radio Pacific reminded Mrs Stringer that as a caller to talkback she

had to be prepared to accept criticism and to have her views challenged in order for a

proper debate to ensue. With reference to the use of the mute button, Radio Pacific

pointed out that all talkback hosts used the button to control the length of calls and to

prevent voices talking over the top of each other. It denied that any standards were

breached and maintained that the hallmark of talkback was the spirited interchange of

views. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with that decision, Mrs

Stringer referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

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

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

Decision

The Authority has listened to an edited recording of the three hour long programme

complained about and has read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As

is its usual practice, the Authority has determined the complaint without a formal

hearing.

The beheading of the statue of John Ballance in the grounds of Parliament was the

catalyst for the talkback discussion on Radio Pacific on 3 July 1995 between 6.00am–

9.00am. The programme's host (Bill Ralston) observed that John Ballance had made

an important contribution to New Zealand's history, and was critical of those who

had beheaded the statue. Several callers throughout the morning gave their views about

Maori activism, as manifest in activities like the beheading of the statue, and comment

was heard from the Minister of Justice, Derek Fox of Mana Maori Radio, and from

Manu Paul, who sought the government's intervention with respect to the health

problems of Maori smokers. Mrs Stringer complained to Radio Pacific that when she

called to make a contribution to the discussion she was humiliated, insulted, and that

the host prevented her from responding to his false accusations by using the mute

button to silence her.

Radio Pacific responded that as Mrs Stringer was a regular talkback caller, she ought to

have known that her provocative remarks to the host would have drawn a response.

In its view, she was looking for an argument, and the host was justified in his

response. While it was prepared to air her views as a caller, it reminded her that she

also must be prepared to accept criticism and to have her views challenged in the

interests of true debate. Radio Pacific advised that it had considered the complaint

under standards R4, R5, R7, R10 and R14 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice,

which require broadcasters:

R4  To acknowledge the right of individuals to express their own opinions.

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

any programme.

R7  To respect the principles of partnership between Maori and Pakeha in

New Zealand society in actively seeking a balanced contribution and

views on matters relating to that partnership.

R10 To avoid the use of any deceptive programme practice which takes

advantage of the confidence listeners have in the integrity of

broadcasting.

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

b the expression of serious opinion, or

c in the legitimate use of humour or satire.

It concluded that no broadcasting standards were breached.

The Authority listened to a tape of the whole three hours – edited to exclude news

bulletins, advertisements and calls about subjects other than Maori issues – and noted

that the host elicited some forthright opinions from a number of callers about Maori

activism and gave some forthright views of his own. When Mrs Stringer called, at

about 8.40am, she began her call with the words:

Good morning Bill. This Maori-bashing should help your ratings, you reckon?

The host's response was an angry denial, and in the heated interchange which ensued,

he accused her of being ignorant, while Mrs Stringer in turn, accused him of being "a

whole bloody circus". During the conversation, the host twice put Mrs Stringer on

hold while he made his point, then allowed her to speak again.

The Authority understood that Mrs Stringer was a regular caller to Radio Pacific and

observed that she was articulate and appeared knowledgeable about Maori issues. It

considered that while her introductory remarks were provocative, the host took her

remarks very personally and reacted angrily. While the Authority believed the

response of the host did not demonstrate the professionalism required of a talkback

host, it considered that Mrs Stringer's debating skills were equal to the host's. It was

of the view that because Mrs Stringer's opening remarks had been provocative, she

had thereby established the tenor of the exchange and accordingly had to accept some

responsibility for the fact that it became so heated. The Authority observed that the

effectiveness of the message can be undermined when callers revert to personal

attacks.

Turning to the standards raised, the Authority decided that the crux of Mrs Stringer's

complaint was that she had been treated unfairly because the host had talked over the

top of her and had used the mute button to silence her. Consequently it decided to

subsume standards R4 and R10 under standard R5. In the context of the whole

programme, it accepted that the host had taken a deliberately adversarial stance to try

to elicit a variety of responses to the issues raised. Late in the programme, when Mrs

Stringer's call was received, he had reacted angrily to her suggestion that he was

ratings-driven. The Authority accepted that Mrs Stringer intended to explain what

she meant by that allegation, but was unable to because of the host's reaction to her

remark. Nevertheless, it believed that she had to accept the consequences of making

the allegation, even though she denied it was the full tenor of what she intended to say,

and that it was inevitable that it set the tone for the whole call. As to whether it was

unfair of the host to silence her with the mute button, the Authority noted that the

pair had talked over the top of each other in order to make their points, and the use of

the mute button allowed them to speak one at a time. Mrs Stringer was given the

opportunity to respond when the host had made his point.

While the Authority could understand why Mrs Stringer was aggrieved, it had to

recognise that the robust interchange which characterises talkback allows some latitude

in interpreting the standards. On balance, it decided that standard R5 was not

breached for, although Mrs Stringer was interrupted, she was able to return to her

argument and seemed to be a very capable and articulate speaker with considerable

knowledge of the issues.

Mrs Stringer's concern that the host had encouraged red-necked callers to denigrate

Maori raised standards R7 and R14. Had the session from 6.00 - 9.00am consisted of

a one-sided rant against Maori, the Authority would have agreed that the standards

had been contravened. However, although the host expressed strong opinions against

the Maori radicals who, he assumed, were responsible for damaging the Ballance

statue, some calls, especially those from Manu Paul, Derek Fox, the complainant and

the Minister of Justice, ensured that the host was challenged. Accordingly, the

Authority concluded, sufficient balance was contained in the broadcast.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
12 October 1995

Appendix

Mrs Stringer's Complaint to Radio Pacific Limited - 11 July 1995

Susan Stringer of Auckland complained to Radio Pacific Ltd about remarks broadcast

on the talkback programme on 3 July 1995 between 6.00 - 9.00am (hosted by Bill

Ralston) which she claimed were in contravention of standards R4, R5, R7, R10 and

R14 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Mrs Stringer alleged that the host of the programme made false claims, humiliated her,

undermined her credibility and diluted her worth as a Maori contributor. She accused

him of using his technical advantage to handicap her ability to give an opinion and to

prevent her from responding adequately to his false accusations.

She denied that she had said that the host had adopted the style he did "for the

ratings" and enclosed a tape of the programme which supported her contention. She

requested that Radio Pacific listen to a tape of the whole show, thereby gaining an

understanding of the tone it took and the manner in which the host contributed.

Radio Pacific's Response to the Formal Complaint - 13 July 1995

Radio Pacific rejected the complaint that the talkback conversation breached any

programme standards.

It noted that Mrs Stringer was a regular caller to Radio Pacific and, in fact, that other

listeners had written to the station saying they would prefer it if she would phone less

frequently. However, Radio Pacific recorded that it had always defended her right to

make her contribution because she was not afraid to speak out on the things that she

believed in. On this occasion, it noted, she had accused the host of Maori-bashing,

suggesting that he was doing it to increase his ratings. Radio Pacific reminded Mrs

Stringer that as a regular caller to talkback she would have been aware that sort of

approach would provoke a reaction from most talkback hosts.

Radio Pacific noted that the host was very experienced and, although he was a very

good listener, it did not mean that he would not give as good as he got.

Radio Pacific then suggested that Mrs Stringer went looking for a response and

probably an argument on this occasion by accusing the host of Maori-bashing and

suggesting that it should help his ratings. While it acknowledged that Mrs Stringer

was entitled to her opinion, it denied that its host was a Maori-basher. It added:

This is not the first complaint you have made against Radio Pacific. We are

happy to continue to air your views because that's what talkback is all about.

But it follows that you, as a caller, must also be prepared to receive criticism

and to be at the receiving end of opposing views, because you can't have true

debate unless you are prepared to allow all sides of an issue to be aired.

The Managing Director of Radio Pacific (Mr Derek Lowe) reported that he had heard

the conversation when it was aired and therefore it would not be necessary to review

the entire session.

Mrs Stringer's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 20 July

1995

Mrs Stringer first commented on her request to Radio Pacific not to use extracts from

her calls as promotional material. She noted that she had approached Mr Brent Impey

(Radio Pacific's programme manager) and had made it clear that she was unhappy at

the practice. She commented that she found it ironic that Radio Pacific now claimed

that she was "on air" too much when in less than 12 months six of her calls had been

used for promotional purposes and another extract was being played in spite of her

request that it not be used. She also noted that the latest promotion was aired after

she had advised that she was seeking advice from the Broadcasting Standards

Authority.

Referring to the response to her complaint, Mrs Stringer commented that it appeared

that the only people allowed freedom of speech on Radio Pacific were the talkback

hosts. She claimed that it was irrelevant whether or not she was looking for an

argument, noting that she stayed within the bounds of what was decent on talkback

and did not break any standards.

Mrs Stringer repeated her allegation that the host did not acknowledge her right to

express an opinion. She claimed that he did not deal with her call fairly and justly and

used deceptive practices which take advantage of the confidence viewers have in the

integrity of broadcasting. She wrote:

I allege that Bill Ralston ran his entire show that morning like a "carnival

barker", stirring up and encouraging red-necked callers to denigrate

Maori. He did so with little consideration of the principles of partnership

between Maori and pakeha.

His passion and anger which he claimed was fuelling his thrust came from a

"hunch" that Maori were indeed responsible for vandalising the John Ballance

statue in parliament grounds. To this day no Maori has been arrested.

She advised that she was asking the Broadcasting Standards Authority to review its

decision and would provide correspondence to it to show that she was always

consistent and had been prepared to give Radio Pacific the benefit of the doubt. She

wrote:

The correspondence will also show how you always "put me down" in your

clumsy attempts at "arse covering".

Mrs Stringer advised that she had asked the Office of the Race Relations Conciliator to

examine the tape as she alleged that the host breached section 61 of the Race Relations

Act.

Turning to specific matters raised in Radio Pacific's response, Mrs Stringer first made

the comment that if the frequency of her calls was a concern, why did Radio Pacific

encourage her to call and use extracts from her calls to promote the station?

She added that she had been aware of the label "regular caller" and had consciously

attempted to minimise the negative effects of being a frequent caller. She pointed out

that she only phoned at most twice a week, unlike other callers who ring twice a day

and concluded that the only difference between herself and other callers was that she

was a regular Maori caller.

With respect to the content of her calls, Mrs Stringer wrote that she had endeavoured

to be accountable for everything she said and for Radio Pacific to suggest she had been

one-sided confirmed her suspicion that the host on 3 July had a hidden agenda and she

was the king hit. She added that she was sure that she was set up by the breakfast

crew in a crude attempt to even some score.

Commenting on Radio Pacific's contention that the host was a capable talkback host,

Mrs Stringer asked why then he had raised his voice, lied and been grossly insulting to

her.

Finally, Mrs Stringer argued that Radio Pacific had gone downhill in the past 12

months. She added:

For a while it felt like the little people out here had an avenue to express our

opinions and vent our frustrations. What a rude and sad awakening it was to

discover that in baring our souls and telling our stories we are no more than

cannon fodder for your insatiable ratings monster.

Mrs Stringer appended a transcript of the conversation she had on air.

In her letter accompanying the referral she commented that her main concern was that

the host was able to use a technical device to disable her from giving an opinion and

from responding to several allegations he made. She explained that she was unhappy

with Radio Pacific's response as little attention was given to the issues which were

raised.

Radio Pacific's Response to the Authority - 2 August 1995

Commenting on Mrs Stringer's principal concern being the use of the "mute" button,

Radio Pacific explained that its use was to prevent two voices talking over the top of

each other and, in addition, to enable the host to move the programme forward. It

pointed out that at any one time there would be four or five callers waiting on hold and

it is only reasonable that calls only last 3 or 4 minutes. It added:

To gracefully withdraw from a conversation, particularly one that might be

quite heated, the host will try to find a point during the conversation that

doesn't give the impression that we have been rude or unnecessarily abrupt as

a radio station and after a word or two the host will move to the next caller.

The "mute" button is used to silence the caller at that moment.

Radio Pacific noted that Mrs Stringer had been given more air time than usual and that

the host brought her back on air after muting her, giving her a chance to respond. In its

view, that showed clearly that the host was trying to give her every opportunity to

have her say, even though she adopted a provocative approach from the outset.

Radio Pacific did not uphold her complaint with regard to the use of the "mute"

button. In its view, Mrs Stringer was given every opportunity to debate the issues

she raised when she called.

Finally, the Managing Director wrote that he would not like the Authority to think he

was not treating the complaint seriously when he responded that it was not feasible to

listen to the entire morning show for that day. He noted that he had heard the

programme when it was broadcast live. Further, he pointed out that Mrs Stringer

herself had said that her principal concern had not been what was said, but was to do

with the use of the mute button.

Mrs Stringer's Final Comment - 15 August 1995

Accepting the host's right to freedom of speech, Mrs Stringer maintained that he

crossed the line when he made inaccurate allegations. She accepted that he expressed

his opinion when he made personal remarks about her, but when he accused her of

denigrating Pakeha callers and Pakeha history, she argued, he stepped outside of what

was fair, just and legal.

Turning to her letter of 20 July, Mrs Stringer suggested that Radio Pacific had

misunderstood her and had paid little attention to the issues she raised.

She repeated that she believed that the host had created a "beat up on Maori"

environment and her call came after two and a half hours of anti-Maori calls. She

considered that she was experienced and informed enough on issues pertaining to

Maori that she would have been able to justify her opening remark, had she been

permitted.

Further, Mrs Stringer maintained that the hold button was not used for the purpose

Radio Pacific claimed, that in fact it was to disable her from continuing her argument.

She suggested that she had not intended to make the host think she was seeking an

encounter, but that she was unhappy about the tone of the show and believed some

balance was required. She wrote:

He (the host) chastised me for Manu Paul's actions, the acts of vandalism

against the John Ballance statue, and accused me of all sorts of things. When I

was put back to air I was not allowed the time to respond to each individual

allegation. Mindful of the time factor and of Bill Ralston's wrath I

concentrated on just getting out of the encounter with as much dignity as I

could possibly retain.

Mrs Stringer went on to explain that as a regular caller to talkback she was aware of

the protocols and that she had never had the mute button used before to prevent her

from speaking. In her view, her call was pitched no differently than any other time

she had called.

She rejected Radio Pacific's claim that she had plenty of time to respond, pointing out

that when she was placed on hold and bombarded with indefensible allegations it was

difficult. Then, when she did get to air, she claimed that she was cut off again.

She maintained that at the completion of the call she was left feeling humiliated and

that listeners would believe that she supported the acts of vandalism against John

Ballance and was sympathetic to radical Maori. She concluded:

The media sometimes make it very difficult for we Maori to hold our heads up.

Each and every Maori feels the same as a Maori when our own step out of line

or bring shame on us as a people. We must challenge the media through the

front door if we are to effect change in attitudes. The constant negative

stereotyping is undermining our youth's feelings of self worth.

If our information is solid and our motives honourable then Maori must

question and challenge media agendas. It is a difficult enough task without the

media moving the goal posts on us. As was the case on Bill Ralston's show on

3/7/95.