BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Australian author Kathy Lette was interviewed on National Radio’s Nine to Noon programme at about 11.30am on 30 November 1998, and discussed "her fast fire novels about sex and love and cellulite."

Mr Mauger complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the content of the interview, with its emphasis on sex, was offensive. He emphasised that the subject matter was inappropriate for children as well as for a general audience.

In its response, RNZ reported that the language used was in the context of the review of a literary work, and in its view was not gratuitously shocking, tasteless or in contravention of decency. In addition, it noted, the context was expressed by the interviewer in her introduction to the review. RNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with RNZ’s response, Mr Mauger referred the complaint 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 complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

During the interview by Kim Hill of Australian author Kathy Lette on National Radio on 30 November 1998 at about 11.30am, her new book Altar Ego was discussed. She also recounted anecdotes about her somewhat unconventional life and friends.

Mr Mauger complained to RNZ that during the one and a half minutes he listened to the interview, he heard the guest refer to "shagging, getting laid and loving the cunnilingus". He asked whether he should assume the rest of the interview was of similar content, or whether he was just fortunate to have missed it. Mr Mauger complained that those comments were not consistent with the observance of good taste and decency. He suggested that parents would not have been keen to have their children hear these comments at 11.30am. In his view, each of the comments was inappropriate for a general audience and should not have been used at that hour on National Radio. He suggested that standards on National Radio should be higher than those on commercial radio, not lower.

RNZ advised that it had considered the complaint 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.

RNZ referred first to its own charter under s.7 of the Radio New Zealand Act 1995, which requires RNZ to encourage and promote programmes in the arts. It argued that the language was used in the context of a literary review, and that it was language "which could reasonably be expected in terms of the dramatic work being broadcast."

RNZ noted the presenter’s introduction to the item, when she stated:

Australian author Kathy Lette has made a very successful career out of her fast fire novels about sex and love and cellulite. In her latest, Altar Ego, toy boy affairs and the search for eternal youth by women who haven’t grown up yet. Yet it’s all strangely traditional, I mean happily ever after, Mills and Boon. Lette calls herself an investigative satirist and she was brought up in Sylvania Waters.

In rejecting the complaint, RNZ referred again to the context – a review of a literary work – and maintained that the language was "not gratuitously shocking, tasteless or in contravention of decency."

It argued that it was valid to review literary works that "one or members of the audience may find objectionable." RNZ also noted that the subject matter was alluded to by the presenter in her introduction.

When Mr Mauger referred the complaint to the Authority, he took issue with RNZ’s argument that the language was used in the context of reviewing the book. As he recalled, the comments used were not regarding the book itself, but were part of a chat between the presenter and her guest regarding author Salman Rushdie.

In addition, he argued, although he had not heard the introduction before the review, he did not believe such an introduction sufficed to absolve RNZ of its responsibility to maintain standards. Mr Mauger sought the Authority’s decision on whether the material complained of was appropriate for public broadcasting.

In its response to the Authority, RNZ reiterated its argument that it was still valid to review literary works that some may find objectionable. It took issue with Mr Mauger’s suggestion that the warning alluded to was "vague".

In his final comment, Mr Mauger emphasised that he had no difficulty with RNZ reviewing books which could be considered objectionable. However, he argued, that did not necessitate the use of the language contained in the interview. He recalled that the language used was not in relation to the author’s own work, but was part of a conversation concerning her friendship with Salman Rushdie. For that reason, he argued, the nature of her novel was completely irrelevant.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority notes RNZ’s argument that the language occurred within the context of a literary review and that the introduction to the item would have provided listeners with a warning as to its content. Having listened to a tape of the interview, the Authority concurs with Mr Mauger’s recollection that the language complained about occurred in the context of a wide-ranging discussion, not a literary review. It touched on a variety of subjects, including how a colourful and outspoken Australian author was received by the establishment in London, where she was now living. It was in that context that she mentioned her friendship with author Salman Rushdie who she said had been best man at her wedding.

When relating Salman Rushdie’s love of language, the author described him as "a great punster" and that "he loves the punnilingus". The Authority notes that Mr Mauger misquoted this part of the interview, perhaps understandably given the play on words.

That, in the Authority’s view, is a complete defence to the allegation that standard R2 was breached in relation to this word. However, RNZ did not advert to this point and appeared to accept that the word complained about was used. It simply defended its usage on the basis that the introduction would have alerted listeners to the likely content of the interview.

The Authority turns to the other phrases complained about – "shagging" and "getting laid". In the interview’s context, the Authority finds no breach of the good taste standard in relation to these words within the context outlined above.

As for the argument that such language was not appropriate when children were likely to be listening, the Authority notes that this is a programme aimed at adult listeners and would have had little appeal to children. It doubts that even if young children were listening they would have understood the sexual puns and risque one-liners.

With respect to the argument that the introduction sufficed to warn listeners of the likely content of the interview, the Authority is inclined to agree with Mr Mauger that the introduction was somewhat vague. Nevertheless, as it finds no breach of broadcasting standards, the issue of the appropriateness of the warning is not in contention.

Finally the Authority observes that it was not assisted by RNZ’s reference to its own charter or to the Act under which it operates. The matters complained about fall squarely under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1989. Notwithstanding its charter and its own Act, the Authority draws RNZ’s attention to its obligation to comply with standards under the Broadcasting Act.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
19 March 1999

Appendix

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

Andrew Mauger’s Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd – 30 November 1998

RNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 10 December 1998

Mr Mauger’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 14 January 1999

RNZ’s Response to the Authority – 16 February 1999

Mr Mauger’s Final Comment – 2 March 1999