BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An advertisement in the "Evening Post" was headed: "I can't think of a single benefit

of going bald, can you?" An employee of Channel Z rang Mr McGinley, the Chief

Executive of Senator Hair Group which had placed the advertisement, and talked to

him about the benefits of going bald. The conversation was recorded, edited, and then

broadcast at about 4.30pm on 2 April 1997 on Channel Z.

Mr McGinley complained to Channel Z that as he was not aware that his

conversation was to be broadcast, the action was unethical and in bad taste. He

considered it also to have been damaging to his business and to the trade in general.

As he did not receive a response from Channel Z within twenty working days, Mr

McGinley referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

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

When it later responded to Mr McGinley, Channel Z apologised for the broadcast.

However, it declined to uphold his complaint as a breach of broadcasting standards.

In responding to the Authority at the same time, Channel Z emphasised that, taken in

the context of its programming and target audiences, it doubted that any damage would

have been done to Mr McGinley or his business.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint

Decision

An advertisement was placed in the "Evening Post" headed:

I Can't Think Of A Single Benefit of Going Bald, Can You?

Mr McGinley, the Chief Executive of Senator Hair Group which was the company

who had placed the advertisement, was phoned at work by an unidentified caller who

wished to put forward the benefits he saw in going bald. The resulting conversation,

without Mr McGinley's knowledge, was recorded, edited and then broadcast by

Channel Z at about 4.30pm on 2 April 1997.

Mr McGinley complained to the broadcaster that he considered the broadcast to have

been damaging to his company and the hair loss trade in general. He considered that

the broadcast intimated that his business was a joke.

In its substantive response to Mr McGinley, following Mr McGinley's referral of the

lack of response to his complaint to the Authority, Channel Z apologised to Mr

McGinley for the broadcast. It explained that the item had gone to air because of an

error of judgment. Further, it advised Mr McGinley that it would be happy to make

an on air apology but did not consider anything would be gained by that action.

However, it declined to uphold the complaint as a breach of broadcasting standards.

In writing to the Authority, Channel Z advised that it had considered the complaint

under standard R34 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice, but believed that the

standard did not cover statements which were not intended to be "on the record" for

the purposes of "news and current affairs". It did not consider any damage had been

done to Mr McGinley's business.

Standard R34 provides:

R34   No telephone conversation with a member of the public is to be broadcast

without that person's permission when statements by a member of the

public are intended to be "on the record" for the purposes of news and

current affairs or community comment; the person concerned should be

advised if a conversation is to be recorded for possible broadcast.

In further correspondence with the Authority, Channel Z advised that the item had to

be seen in the context of the humour, and the fact that its target audience were the 15

to 30 year-olds.

The Authority agrees with Channel Z that standard R34 is not appropriate to this

complaint. However, it considers that standard R5 is relevant to the concerns about

the broadcast expressed by Mr McGinley. This standard requires broadcasters:

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

programme.

The Authority's view is that while it believes that the action taken by the station in

apologising to Mr McGinley was appropriate, given the obvious offence Mr

McGinley had taken to Channel Z's action, it does not consider that standard R5 has

been breached. The item broadcast was intended as a harmless joke, aimed at a

youthful audience. While Mr McGinley was obviously upset about the broadcast, it

did not in the Authority's view deal unjustly or unfairly with him given the context.

In seeking to create humour the item had not focussed on Mr McGinley or his

company, and was neither malicious nor spiteful in intent.

While the Authority has some sympathy for Mr McGinley in that he was not advised

at the time the conversation was made that it was intended for broadcast, the

Authority does not consider there to have been a breach of standards R5 or R34 of the

Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Lyndsay Loates
Member
26 June 199

Appendix

Mr McGinley's Complaint to Channel Z - 7 April 1997

Mr McGinley, Chief Executive of Senator Hair Group of Lower Hutt, complained to

Channel Z in Wellington that the broadcast on 2 April 1997 of a conversation with

him was unethical and in bad taste. He advised that he had not been told of the

identity of the caller, or that the conversation would be broadcast on radio. The

conversation related to an advertisement placed by Senator Hair Group in "The

Evening Post" which was headed:

I Can't Think of a Single Benefit of Going Bald, Can You?

Mr McGinley considered that the broadcast was damaging to his company and the

hair loss trade in general. While he realised that the target audience for the broadcaster

was the 14-16 age group, he considered those persons to be the business future of the

company. He advised:

Your type of media exposure intimates that our business is a joke and this is

very damaging to us.

Mr McGinley's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 7 May 1997

Not having received a response to his letter of complaint, Mr McGinley referred his

complaint to the Authority under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act.

Channel Z's Response to Mr McGinley - 19 May 1997

In its late response, Channel Z apologised to Mr McGinley and his business,

explaining that the call had gone to air because of an error of judgment. It reported that

the name of the business and Mr McGinley's name were edited before the broadcast.

Channel Z further advised:

The gist of the call was not making fun of your line of business, but pointing out

the obvious fact that if one wanted to, one could find benefits to being bald.

James [the interviewer] simply grasped on this thought and ran away with it. In

listening to the call I cannot say that your business has been in any way made

fun of. Your newspaper ad, yes. Your business no.

Channel Z told Mr McGinley that it was happy to make an on air apology, but it did

not believe anything would be gained by that action.

Channel Z's Response to the Authority - 19 May 1997

Channel Z wrote to the Authority at the same time as it wrote to Mr McGinley and

explained that it had mistakenly believed that it had 60 working days in which to

respond to the complaint.

Channel Z advised that it had considered the complaint under standard R34 of the

Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice which provides:

R34 No telephone conversation with a member of the public is to be broadcast

without that person's permission when statements by a member of the

public are intended to be "on the record" for the purposes of news and

current affairs or community comment; the person concerned should be

advised if a conversation is to be recorded for possible broadcast.

Channel Z interpreted the standard as placing an onus on the broadcaster to advise the

person called that the call was to be broadcast only when the statements made by the

person were intended to be "on the record" for the purposes of "news and current

affairs". It was unable to uphold the complaint as it considered there had been no

breach of standard R34 on this occasion.

Channel Z reiterated that it did not consider that any damage had been done to Mr

McGinley or his business.

Channel Z's Further Response to the Authority - 20 May 1997

In response to a request from the Authority first to clarify whether it had, by offering

an apology, upheld Mr McGinley's complaint, and secondly, on the applicability of

standards R2, R5, and R10, Channel Z advised that it had apologised to Mr McGinley

as a gesture of goodwill and an acknowledgment of Mr McGinley's obvious upset.

As for the standards, Mr Diver of Channel Z advised:

I cannot accept that this broadcast in any way breached standard R10. Taken in

context (this was a send-up piece of humour broadcast on a radio station with a

15-30 target, by a broadcaster who is always preparing strange and unusual

"bits"). I believe it would be extremely wrong to bring up this section . This

clause, it seems to me, should only be used if a broadcaster broadcasts known

untruths which, because of the integrity of the broadcaster, are accepted as fact.

Standard R2 as it related to decency and good taste, "bearing in mind the context

in which any language or behaviour occurs" is also not applicable in this case.

Again, it would be most wrong to bring up this standard.

Standard R5 states that a broadcaster "must deal justly or fairly with any person

taking part in any programme". Well I guess the only way to do this is to follow

the standards as they relate to News and Current affairs (irrelevant in this case);

and Telephone Participation. As we have done that, there has been no breach of

the standard.

Mr McGinley's Final Comment - 22 May 1997

Mr McGinley questioned Channel Z's statement that standard R34 did not apply to

his complaint. He also felt that damage had been done to his business and personal

reputation by the broadcast. He considered the broadcast to have been deceptive,

lacking decency and in bad taste.

In not accepting Channel Z's apology he stated:

Mr Diver's half hearted attempt at an apology, not for irresponsible and

damaging broadcasting, but more as a "gesture of goodwill" because we are upset

is ludicrous and certainly not accepted.