BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Jokes about the Princess of Wales were told soon after her death by the breakfast

show host and Pam Corkery MP on Channel Z in Wellington on 11 September 1997.

Mr Durham and Mr Groen complained to Channel Z that the jokes were offensive and

breached the standard requiring good taste and decency. Mr Durham considered it

totally inappropriate for jokes to be made about a person's death while people were

in mourning, and both complainants maintained that the fact that the jokes were told

by a Member of Parliament made them even more distasteful.

Channel Z accepted that for some, the jokes would be deeply offensive. However, it

argued, given its target audience and the style of its breakfast programme, it did not

consider that any broadcasting standards were breached. It apologised for having

caused offence, and declined to uphold the complaints.

Dissatisfied with Channel Z's response, the complainants both referred their

complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the programme and have read

the correspondence (which is summarised in the Appendices). On this occasion, the

Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

Pam Corkery MP is a regular guest on Channel Z's breakfast show. On 11 September

1997 she and the programme's host shared some jokes which were circulating at the

time and related to the recent death of the Princess of Wales.

Mr Durham and Mr Groen both complained to Channel Z that its broadcast of the

exchange breached the broadcasting standard requiring good taste and decency. In their

view, it was inappropriate to joke about the Princess's death when people were still

grieving over her loss and, they argued, the breach was compounded by the fact that a

Member of Parliament was involved in the exchange.

When Channel Z assessed the complaints, it applied standard R2 of the Radio Code of

Broadcasting Practice. That standard requires broadcasters:

R2   To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and

taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which

any language or behaviour occurs.

Channel Z suggested that telling the jokes simply reflected the reality that using black

humour was one way in which people were dealing with the Princess's death.

Furthermore, it submitted, its target audience was unlikely to be offended since they

were of an age group which did not regard the Princess in the same light as those aged

over forty or fifty. Why, it asked, would it deliberately set out to offend its audience.

In addition, Channel Z observed that the joke-telling exchange had been widely

reported in other media, including television, and that the jokes had been reported in

full in a newspaper. Thus, it argued, the incident had been blown out of proportion.

Nevertheless, it apologised for causing offence.

When the complainants referred their complaints to the Authority, they both rejected

Channel Z's contention that because its target audience did not find the jokes

offensive, there was no breach of standards. They maintained that it was

inappropriate to tell them on a public broadcast medium, and in particular, to be told

by an MP who is an opposition spokesperson on broadcasting matters.

The Authority deals first with Channel Z's argument that because the particular

demographic group at whom the station is targeted would not regard the jokes as

offensive, it was therefore not a breach of standards to tell them.

The Authority acknowledges that there are a large number of different types of radio

stations and that they tend to direct their programming to particular tastes in music

and entertainment. Channel Z, which targets a younger audience, has a programme

mix which caters to that group. The Authority has endorsed the notion, first

articulated in Decision No: 145/93, dated 15 November 1993, that the boundaries of

what is acceptable on radio may well be wider on stations which are directed to a

younger audience. However, it emphasises that the requirements of the Broadcasting

Act and the standards set down in the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice

nevertheless still apply to all stations.

When it deals with complaints about a breach of good taste and decency, the

Authority applies a community standards test of propriety, and at the same time

takes into account contextual elements which may ameliorate any possible breach.

The Authority acknowledges that the notion of good taste is necessarily a subjective

one, and that its responsibility is to identify what is generally acceptable in terms of

language and behaviour. It agrees with the complainants that the interchange was

tasteless, and understands that for some people, the jokes would have been considered

offensive. The Authority's task is to decide whether, in the circumstances of the

broadcast and in the context of the mores of the target audience, a breach occurred.

Turning to the brief exchange between the host and his guest, the Authority notes first

that their interchange explicitly acknowledges that the jokes are somewhat raw, and

possibly offensive to some. However, it accepts that they record but one of the

reactions of the community to the Princess's death. The Authority is aware that the

jokes – and others like them – were circulating at the time, and were distributed on

faxes and e-mails and recounted in many different forums. While the Authority does

not believe that this in itself justifies their broadcast, it concludes that because the

exchange was relatively brief, that the host and his guest both acknowledged that the

jokes were of questionable propriety and that the station has a relatively small target

audience of younger listeners, the standard was not breached.

The Authority would also emphasise that while cognisant of the right of individuals to

freedom of expression as enshrined in the Bill of Rights Act, it believes that in this

case, the telling of the jokes fell only marginally short of the threshold whereby such

freedom is overridden by the requirement in the Broadcasting Act for broadcasters to

observe good taste and decency.

The Authority makes no finding on the fact that one of those who told the jokes is an

MP. It considers that how a person behaves in public life is not in itself a matter of

broadcasting standards.

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

complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
18 December 1997

Appendix I

Martin Durham's Complaint to Channel Z – 17 September 1997

Mr Durham of Upper Hutt complained to Channel Z about the jokes made by Pam

Corkery MP about Princess Diana on its breakfast programme. In his view the

broadcast breached the good taste standard. He considered it totally inappropriate to

be making jokes about a person's death while people were still mourning.

Channel Z's Response to the Formal Complaint – 17 September 1997

Channel Z responded by fax to the complaint. It apologised for causing offence

adding that it was not the intention to offend deliberately.

Channel Z noted that the standard referred to had a contextual element. It

acknowledged that for some the jokes would be deeply offensive. The programme

director wrote:

However, given the stated target audiences of Channel Z, the communication

environment, and the tone of the breakfast programme, I cannot agree that code

R2 or indeed any of the Codes of Broadcasting Practice for Radio as set out by

the Broadcasting Standards Authority have been breached.

It concluded that it did not intend to offend and regretted any upset the jokes may

have caused.

Mr Durham's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 18 September

1997

Dissatisfied with Channel Z's response, Mr Durham referred it to the Broadcasting

Standards Authority for investigation and review under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting

Act 1989.

Mr Durham did not agree with Channel Z's contention that because of the type of

station it was, and who its listening audience was it was therefore entitled to broadcast

whatever it liked.

Channel Z's Response to the Authority – 22 September 1997

Channel Z advised the Authority that it had declined to uphold the complaint that the

joke-telling sequence was a breach of the good taste standard. It noted that there were

contextual elements to standard R2, and argued that:

. . . the spirit of these regulations should not, and does not, suggest that if a

small handful of people find certain material offensive, it be avoided altogether.

Rather, the codes are set in place to ensure irresponsible and reckless

broadcasting, of a nature likely to cause offence to a large percentage of

society, does not occur.

Channel Z noted that Pam Corkery MP was an experienced broadcaster in her own

right and that she was the Alliance spokesperson for Broadcasting, Youth Affairs and

Social Welfare. Each week she featured in the breakfast show with host Martin

Devlin to discuss current issues.

Channel Z suggested that those who knew Ms Corkery knew that she had a "wicked"

sense of humour, often tending to black humour. In the course of their conversation,

the topic of the Diana jokes was raised and both the host and the guest then told a

couple of jokes, and talked about humour as being part of the grieving process. The

station pointed out that neither had made the jokes up, and that they had been on

faxes and emails around the world. It argued that the host and his guest did nothing

more than act as a mirror on society in telling the jokes.

Responding to Mr Durham's complaint that it was inappropriate to joke about a

person's death while people were mourning, the station responded that it was

unlikely that people in New Zealand were mourning over someone they had only seen

on the media. But, it added, if there was real grief, who was to say how it should be

channelled. It also asked whether humour was not part of the grieving process.

The station reported that it dealt with the death of the Princess with sincerity and

sensitivity, and that it had observed a minute's silence after the funeral. However, it

did not consider its target audience was offended by the telling of the jokes.

Finally, the station commented that sadly, the joke-telling had been blown out of

proportion by the other media and the jokes had been reported out of context. It

maintained that it was a responsible broadcaster, and that it adhered to the codes of

practice. It apologised for causing offence, but maintained that the complainant did

not represent society at large.

Mr Durham's Final Comment – 2 November 1997

Mr Durham objected to Channel Z's assertion that the jokes were found offensive by

only a small handful of people. He regarded the statement as misleading because he

considered the jokes were outside the standards of good taste and decency of most

New Zealanders, who held Diana in high regard, and not just a "small handful of

people." He contended that standard R2 was breached because the jokes were told

during a time when friends and relatives were mourning Diana's death.

In Mr Durham's view, the fact that Pam Corkery was the Alliance spokesperson on

broadcasting made the matter worse.

He challenged the station's contention that New Zealanders were not experiencing

grief, especially as it then went on to say that by telling the jokes, Ms Corkery was

channelling her grief.

Mr Durham said he was pleased to know that Channel Z was a responsible

broadcaster. However, he maintained, on this occasion it had overstepped the mark.

Appendix II

Maarten Groen's Complaint to Channel Z – 13 September 1997

Mr Groen of Lower Hutt complained through the Broadcasting Standards Authority

about Channel Z's broadcast of what he described as "grossly obnoxious comments"

made by Pam Corkery on its breakfast programme.

He attached details of the comments carried on the station through the breakfast

announcer (Martin Devlin) and Ms Corkery. In his view, the comments fell far short

of the standard of good taste and decency, adding that it was even more distasteful

that the comments were made by an MP.

He suggested that the Authority take action to ensure such an incident was not

repeated, and if possible, to fine the broadcaster.

The letter was forwarded to Channel Z for response.

Channel Z's Response to the Formal Complaint – 18 September 1997

Channel Z's response was the same as to Mr Durham and is summarised above.

Mr Groen's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 19 September

1997

Dissatisfied with Channel Z's decision not to uphold his complaint, Mr Groen

referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for investigation and review under

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

Mr Groen attached a copy of his letter to Channel Z, in which he outlined his

dissatisfaction with its decision. He did not agree with the station's contention that

given the target audience and its expectations, no broadcasting standards had been

breached.

In his view, the station was obliged to set high standards at all times, and consider all

possible audiences. He argued that the lowest common denominator should not be

used to satisfy or entertain a particular audience. In his letter to the station he advised

that he was going to ask the Authority to take the necessary action to stop it from

broadcasting such jokes. He considered the joke "truly disgusting".

To the Authority Mr Groen wrote that he remained concerned that Channel Z would

repeat similar jokes in bad taste. He did not agree with it suggesting that it was

permissible, given the target audience. He considered that response "bizarre".

Channel Z's Response to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 22 September

1997

Channel Z's response is summarised above in Appendix I.

Mr Groen's Final Comment – 29 October 1997

Mr Groen advised that he remained unimpressed by the response from Channel Z,

and totally rejected the justification that Ms Corkery had a wicked sense of humour.

He also rejected the suggestion that a person such as the Princess, who was in the

public eye could invite such treatment. He did not think that could justify joking

about someone's tragic death.

He asked whether Ms Corkery would have told such jokes if her sister had perished

under the same circumstances.

He asked that the Authority uphold his complaint that it was a breach of good taste to

joke in such a manner about the tragic death of another.