BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

A competition which invited listeners to relate how and at what age they had lost their virginity was broadcast on 91 ZM in Christchurch on 23 June 1999 at about 4.30pm.

Mr Eccleton complained to the station manager that by promoting the competition, the announcer was being irresponsible and cheap. He said he considered it to be "simply tacky" to promote the competition. When he did not have a response from the station within 20 working days, Mr Eccleton referred the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

At the Authority’s request, the station responded to the complaint. First it advised that it had not received the original letter of complaint, and secondly, that when the second letter was referred to it, it had not treated the matter as a formal complaint. The competition, it said, arose from a topic featured in a popular family magazine about a television sitcom star. As the magazine was read by all age groups, the station considered that the topic was relevant. It also made sure that all listeners who took part in the competition were over the age of 16, and that callers were screened off air first. It advised that it had reminded its staff to be careful with the content of their programmes, particularly when young people were likely to be listening.

Dissatisfied with the station’s response, Mr Eccleton referred the matter again to the Authority.

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. There is no tape of the item. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A competition organised by 91 ZM invited listeners to recount when and how they lost their virginity. One caller whose account was broadcast on 23 June 1999 at about 4.30pm said that he had lost his virginity on a rugby trip to Australia at the age of 15.

Mr Eccleton complained to the station that the announcer’s response was irresponsible and cheap. In particular he objected to the encouragement the announcer gave the caller recounting the rugby trip and wrote that "to call him a ‘stud’ is the kind of mindlessness that deserves to remain out of the public arena." Apart from that, he continued, it was simply tacky. He sought the station’s views on his concerns.

When he had not received a response from the station within the statutory time period, Mr Eccleton referred the matter to the Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

The station responded to the complaint when asked to do so by the Authority. It advised that it had not received Mr Eccleton’s letter. It also advised that his letter had not been treated as a formal complaint as it had not complied with the requirements for making a formal complaint.

The station then dealt with the substantive matters. The competition, it said, was designed around a current popular magazine’s feature article about a television sitcom star. As the magazine was widely read by all age groups, it said it considered the subject matter was relevant to its listeners. It advised that it ensured that listeners who took part in the competition were all aged over 16, and that it had screened the calls before they went on air.

Since receiving the complaint, the station reported that it had reminded its announcers to be careful with programme content, particularly when young people were likely to be listening.

Mr Eccleton referred the matter to the Authority as he was dissatisfied with the station’s response.

TRN, on behalf of 91 ZM, advised that it had no further comment.

The Authority has assessed the complaint under standards R2 and R3 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards 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.

R3  To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children during their generally accepted listening periods.

The complaint, in essence, is that the competition encouraged and condoned casual sex among young people and that the announcer’s enthusiastic response to the caller, who said he was aged 15 and on a rugby trip when he lost his virginity, was inappropriate.

The Authority notes that the time of the broadcast – 4.30pm – would have been a time when children and young people were likely to be listening to the station. Its task is to decide whether, in the context of a broadcast on a youth-oriented station, the discussion about when and where listeners lost their virginity – and the announcer’s response – exceeded norms of good taste and decency. The Authority notes that the broadcaster had screened calls before they were broadcast and had ensured that participants were all over the age of 16. While the competition topic was possibly contentious, and listeners could well have been under the age of 16, the Authority concludes that given the complainant’s undisputed account of the programme, the actual content of the exchange fell short of the degree of offensiveness required to breach the standards.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
21 October 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1.    Simon Eccleton’s Complaint to 91 ZM – 23 June 1999

2.    Mr Eccleton’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 19 July 1999

3.    91 ZM’s Response to the Complaint – 28 July 1999

4.    Mr Eccleton’s Formal Complaint to 91 ZM – 4 August 1999

5.    TRN’s Response to the Formal Complaint (on behalf of 91 ZM) – 11 August 1999

6.    Mr Eccleton’s Second Referral to the Authority – 17 August 1999

7.    TRN’s Response to the Authority – 25 August 1999