BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A remark linking bull sales with the tennis at Wimbledon which was capable of being

construed as a double entendre was made by the presenter of Morning Report about

8.45am on 7 July 1995.

Mr Dean Koch complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, first

informally and then formally, that the remark was gratuitous and offensive and

requested that the presenter be publicly reprimanded. When RNZ failed to respond to

his complaint within the statutory time period, Mr Koch referred the complaint to the

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

In its response, RNZ advised that it had no record of receiving either of Mr Koch's

complaints and suggested that the letters did not reach its office. It then proceeded to

respond to the complaint. In advising that it did not consider the exchange to be

outside the bounds of decency and good taste, RNZ explained that it encouraged its

presenters to act and sound as normal people and to include spontaneous unscripted

comment.

For the reasons below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint either that RNZ

had failed to respond within 60 working days of receipt of the complaint or that the

comment breached standard R2 of the Radio Code.

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 has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

A comment made by the presenter of Morning Report broadcast by Radio New

Zealand Ltd on 7 July 1995 about 8.45am was the link between a promo for a

forthcoming item on bull sales and the sports bulletin on the tennis in Wimbledon.

Mr Koch, describing the remark as an offensive and gratuitous double entendre,

requested that the presenter be publicly reprimanded. When RNZ failed to respond to

his first complaint, he lodged a second complaint. When still no response was elicited

he referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b) of

the Broadcasting Act 1989.

When the Authority referred the complaint to RNZ for comment, RNZ advised that it

had no record of ever receiving either of Mr Koch's letters. It then proceeded to deal

with the complaint, assessing the remark under standard R2 of the Radio Code of

Broadcasting Practice, which 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.

Pointing out first that Mr Koch's was the only complaint it had received about the

remark, RNZ conceded that while the comment might fall short of qualifying as the

day's high point in humour, it did not accept that it was outside the bounds of

common decency and in breach of standard R2. It explained that its policy was to

encourage National Radio presenters to act and sound as normal people and did not

regard informal exchanges between them as a failing, provided that standards were

maintained. It advised that had it received the complaint, it would not have upheld it.

In his response to the Authority, Mr Koch accused RNZ of ineptitude in not having

proper systems to process complaints and asserted that its failure could not excuse it

from complying with the Broadcasting Act. He repeated that he considered the

presenter's remarks were inappropriate on radio and that he should be censured. He

also added that the remarks themselves were peripheral to the major issue which was

RNZ's failure to respond to the complaint.

From the record it is apparent that Mr Koch's letters were incorrectly addressed. The

copies sent to the Authority gave RNZ's address as PO Box 2396 in one instance and

as PO Box 2369 in the other. In fact the box number is PO Box 2092, or PO Box 123.

In the Authority's view, it was quite feasible that RNZ did not receive either of those

letters. Consequently, the Authority was not prepared to censure RNZ for not

responding to either of the letters of complaint.

Turning to the complaint itself, the Authority did not consider the brief interchange to

be offensive or capable of being misconstrued. While the sports presenter giggled, it

could just as well have been in response to something which occurred in the news

room as to the remarks made. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that

standard R2 was breached.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
14 December 1995

Appendix

Mr Koch's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd - 8 July 1995

Dean Koch of Eastbourne complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast of

comments by the presenter on Morning Report on 7 July 1995 at about 8.45am

breached broadcasting standards. He addressed the letter to the General Manager at

PO Box 2396, Wellington.

He described the presenter's comments as gratuitous and offensive and requested that

he be publicly reprimanded for his offensive remarks. In fact, he added, it would be

quite nice if the presenter was taken off the air entirely, as he lacked class.

Since he had received no response from RNZ, on 20 July Mr Koch sent a second letter

(this time addressed to PO Box 2369) advising that he wished his first letter to be

considered as a formal complaint under the terms of the Broadcasting Act. A copy of

both letters was sent to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Mr Koch's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 24 October 1995

Having received no response to his letters of complaint, Mr Koch referred the

complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

He requested that the Authority take the action specified in the Act for RNZ's failure

to respond and that appropriate action be taken with respect to the complaint itself.

RNZ's Response to the Authority - 27 October 1995

RNZ advised that it had been unable to find any record of Mr Koch's letters in its

files or any record that the complaints process had been instigated. It suggested that a

combination of factors, including the fact that its Post Office box number had changed

and that the letters arrived at a time when RNZ was being restructured might have

resulted in the letters being misdirected within the organisation. However, it expressed

its view that it was inclined to believe that the letters did not reach the company. It

asked that its apologies be conveyed to Mr Koch.

In its response to the complaint, RNZ noted that the complaints process did not make

provision for complaints about personalities and that the complainant's opinion about

the presenter was not relevant to the formal complaint.

It then turned to the substance of the complaint, noting first that the comment was

broadcast at the end of the 7.30 news bulletin when, after a brief "Rurals" promotion

about a forthcoming bull sale, the presenter made a comment before the sports

coverage from Wimbledon. It acknowledged that the sports presenter was obviously

amused by the comment, although he recovered his composure and presented his item.

Acknowledging that the number of complaints received did not have a bearing on

whether or not a breach had occurred, RNZ nevertheless pointed out that Mr Koch's

complaint was the only one received. It then submitted that its policy was to

encourage its presenters to sound and act normally and that it did not regard informal,

unscripted exchanges as a failing, provided that they did not breach standards. While

it regretted that Mr Koch found the remark to be offensive, it did not accept that it

was in breach of broadcasting standards. It added:

The unscripted comment might well have fallen short of qualifying for

recognition as the day's high-point in humour, but that is beside the point.

It advised that had it received the complaint, it would not have upheld it. It suggested

that the Authority might wish to consider adopting a similar view.

Mr Koch's Final Comment - 9 November 1995

Mr Koch declared it was beyond the bounds of credulity that RNZ should lose two

letters of complaint, both correctly addressed to the General Manager of National

Radio. In his view, RNZ could not excuse itself for its failure to comply with the time

limits specified in the Broadcasting Act and he did not accept its apology.

He suggested that if the Authority accepted the excuse of non-receipt by the

broadcaster, it would provide every broadcaster in the country an excuse not to

respond to formal complaints.

Responding to RNZ's advice that the remarks were broadcast after the 7.30am news

bulletin, Mr Koch responded that he was certain he heard it while driving to a 9.00am

appointment. He wrote:

What I heard was not just a promotion: I listened to the story of the Bull sales

and it was the end of that item that Hosking said, "Speaking of balls, let's see

what is happening at Wimbledon." My objection is that not only was his

remark offensive, but also that this double entendre was entirely gratuitous. I

do not consider Hosking's remarks "appropriate" as there was no previous

allusion to the subject at all. (If the remark on the 7.30 news was deliberately

allowed to be repeated when I heard it, the offence is worse.)

In Mr Koch's view, such a remark should not have been allowed on a public radio

broadcast. However, he concluded, the remarks were peripheral to the major issue,

which was the failure of RNZ to respond to a formal complaint.

Finally, Mr Koch suggested that the Broadcasting Act be amended to require

broadcasters to acknowledge receipt of complaints within 48 hours.