BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A birthday call referred to a person as one of 12 children. The announcer then

observed that "they must be Catholic. Either that or irresponsible Protestants". The

remark was broadcast by 98 More FM in Dunedin shortly before 8.00am on 21 May

1997.

Mr Lucas complained to 98 More FM that the remark was offensive and insensitive,

and breached the standard which prohibits encouraging discrimination against sections

of the community.

Explaining that the light-hearted comment was not intended to discriminate, the

Station Manager nevertheless apologised to Mr Lucas for the comment.

Dissatisfied that the broadcaster would not make a public apology for the on-air

comment, Mr Lucas referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

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

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

Decision

A tape of the broadcast is not available. However, there is no dispute as to the

content of the broadcast, and the members of the Authority have read the

correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). In this instance, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

When a birthday call referred to one in a family of 12 children, the announcer

commented:

One of 12, they must be Catholics. Either that or irresponsible Protestants.

The comment was made on 98 More FM in Dunedin shortly before 8.00am on 21

May 1997.

Pointing out that he was a Catholic, Mr Lucas noted that there was a thin line between

humour and offensiveness. The above comment, he complained, was offensive,

insensitive and discriminatory.

The broadcaster, while denying that the comment was discriminatory, apologised to

Mr Lucas.

Mr Lucas referred the complaint to the Authority as he felt the comment merited a

public apology.

The broadcaster advised the Authority that the comment was light-hearted and was

intended neither to discriminate nor offend. It explained that it had apologised to Mr

Lucas but did not consider a public apology was necessary or appropriate.

The Authority considers 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, 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.

As the broadcaster had denied that the remark breached the standards, the Authority's

initial task is to consider whether it breached this standard. Only if it finds the

standard has been breached, does the Authority consider what should be the

broadcaster's appropriate action.

Having carefully assessed the complaint, the Authority considers that the comment

involved a misjudgment as to the use of humour during the birthday call. The remark

could be seen, as a consequence, as insensitive. However, in the Authority's opinion,

it could not be described as offensive, and it did not encourage denigration or

discrimination against a section in the community. As the complaint is not upheld, the

Authority is not required to address the issue of the appropriate action required of the

broadcaster.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
14 August 1997

Appendix

Mr Lucas's Complaint to 98 More FM of Dunedin - 29 May 1997

Nicholas Lucas of Dunedin complained to 98 More FM of Dunedin about a comment

made by one of the announcers (Simon Barnett) at about 7.55am on 21 May 1997

while reading birthday calls. One such call referred to a person as "one of 12 children"

to which the announcer added, "One of twelve children, they must be Catholic. Either

that or irresponsible Protestants". The other announcer (Phil Gifford), Mr Lucas

observed, was heard to chuckle.

Pointing out that there was a thin line between humour and offensiveness, and noting

that he was a Catholic, Mr Lucas said he had been offended by the insensitive and

discriminatory comment.

He alleged a breach of the standard which prohibits the encouragement of

discrimination, and said a public apology was necessary.

Other Correspondence

Mr Lucas had earlier (21 May 1997) complained to the Human Rights Commission

and was told that he should contact the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

More FM's Response to the Formal Complaint - 3 June 1997

The Station's General Manager (Rob McDonald) advised that the comments were not

intended to discriminate against any section of the community. He also said that he

was reinforcing, by letter, the apologies made to Mr Lucas during the discussion on 23

May.

Mr Lucas' Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 23 June 1997

Dissatisfied with the broadcaster's decision, Mr Lucas referred his complaint to the

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

Mr Lucas reported that he had discussed the matter by telephone with Mr McDonald

of More FM who, he said, implied that the problem lay with him as no one else had

found the comment offensive. Mr Lucas said he had told Mr McDonald that numbers

in themselves did not establish truth, and as the comment had been made on air, he

expected a public apology. Mr McDonald, he added, had not called him back as he

had promised to do.

More FM's Report to the Authority - 30 June 1997

Mr McDonald advised that he had spoken to Mr Lucas on 30 May to inform him

that, in view of the light-hearted manner in which the comment complained about had

been made, and with the approval of the person about whom it was made, the pre-

recorded call was not intended to discriminate.

He said he had apologised to Mr Lucas but considered that a public apology was

unnecessary as his was the only complaint. Pointing out that he did not have a copy

of the item on tape, Mr McDonald repeated that the comment was made tongue-in-

cheek and was not intended to offend.

Mr Lucas' Final Comment - 14 July 1997

Contesting the broadcaster's claim that the call was pre-recorded, Mr Lucas

maintained that the approval of the person referred to was irrelevant to his complaint.

Off-the-cuff remarks were frequent during the birthday calls, but the comment

complained about denigrated family values and was irresponsible.

Mr Lucas stated:

Actually I am less interested in having "my complaint upheld" than the

Authority taking a stand itself to prevent gratuitous put downs to religion or

any other groups in our country. The Authority should realise that many

people take their identity from their religion as much as ethnic or other cultural

background, this is not surprising if a relationship to God is concerned.

Would the Authority permit a comment that disparaged an ethnic identity like

"either Maori or an irresponsible Pakeha" or a gender identity, "either a man or

an irresponsible woman". I think not. The case is the same.

He also continued to be dissatisfied with what he said was the broadcaster's failure to

apologise sincerely, and how the broadcaster seemed to expect the whole matter to go

away.

Because of the station's standing, Mr Lucas continued to maintain that a public

apology was necessary to maintain equilibrium in the community and to show that

actions had consequences. He concluded by expressing concern at what he regarded as

the delaying strategy used by the broadcaster.