BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

Radio Sport host, Martin Devlin, complained on air that he had been treated like a schoolboy by the manager of the New Zealand Cricket Team, John Graham.

Mr Mee complained to The Radio Network of New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that a subsequent caller, commenting on Mr Devlin’s treatment by Mr Graham, was dealt with in an "abusive and contemptuous" way by Mr Devlin. The exchange was broadcast on Radio Sport on 23 August 1999, at about 9.15am.

TRN responded to Mr Mee’s complaint that the caller was a regular who would have been aware that he was entering a "robust arena" in calling the station’s talkback show. It also suggested that the caller might have incited Mr Devlin’s "strong" response. It declined to uphold Mr Mee’s complaint.

Dissatisfied with TRN’s decision, Mr Mee referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, a majority of the Authority upholds an aspect of 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. In this instance, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Radio Sport host, Martin Devlin, complained on air that he had been treated like a schoolboy by the manager of the New Zealand Cricket Team, John Graham. Mr Devlin had interviewed Mr Graham soon after the New Zealand Cricket Team’s series win in England in August.

A caller to Radio Sport’s talkback show commented on Mr Devlin’s complaint. The caller said that Mr Devlin deserved to be treated like a schoolboy because of the tone of his interviewing. Mr Devlin responded to the caller as follows:

What a tosser you are Cyril. How dare you ring me up and say this you plonker. You sound like a crotchety old man who pees in your pants. Bugger off.

This exchange was broadcast on Radio Sport on 23 August, at about 9.15am.

Mr Mee complained that Mr Devlin dealt with the caller in an "abusive and contemptuous" way. He also objected to the language used by Mr Devlin, which he said was undeserved.

TRN responded to Mr Mee’s complaint that the caller was a regular who would have been aware that he was entering a "robust arena" when he called the talkback show. It also suggested that the caller might have incited Martin Devlin’s "strong" response. TRN commented that if the caller’s intention was to provoke, he should not have been surprised at Mr Devlin’s response. TRN concluded that the complaint was not a breach of Principle 1 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice, which provides that:

Principle 1

In programmes and their presentation, broadcasters are required to maintain standards which are consistent with the observance of good taste and decency.

It therefore declined to uphold the complaint.

In referring his complaint to the Authority, Mr Mee said he was dissatisfied with TRN’s response. In his view, Mr Devlin’s language and reply was "provocative in the extreme" and the comments he made were both uncalled for and unsuitable for broadcasting. Mr Mee considered that the remarks made by Mr Devlin were offensive to all people generally and in particular to men of senior years.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority has assessed this complaint under Principle 1 and Principle 7 of the Radio Code. Principle 1 was the standard TRN used to determine the complaint. In view of the complaint, the Authority considers that Principle 7 also requires consideration.

Principle 1

As required by Principle 1, the Authority takes into account the context in which the exchange was broadcast. First it notes that the programme during which the exchange was broadcast was a sports talkback show. The Authority accepts that listeners and participants in radio talkback shows would accept and expect such a show to be a robust arena for discussion. Secondly, the host, Mr Devlin, has an outspoken style. And, it accepts TRN’s contention that the caller was familiar to the announcer, as there appeared to be a level of familiarity between the two in the exchange.

The Authority is divided in its decision on the application of Principle 1 to the exchange. A majority of the Authority considers that the host’s loss of temper was evident and that the exchange amounted to personal abuse toward the caller. The majority notes that in the circumstances, the language used by Mr Devlin, and the abusive manner in which the comment was made crossed the threshold of acceptability. The majority therefore concludes, taking into account the contextual matters referred to above, that the exchange breached Principle 1.

A minority of the Authority disagrees. In its view, while it agrees that the exchange was provocative, it takes into account the host’s assertive style, and the often spirited and vigorous nature of talkback radio shows like Mr Devlin’s. The minority also takes cognisance of the caller’s status as a provocateur, who regularly calls the station, and believes he would be unsurprised at Mr Devlin’s response. It finds that there was no breach of current norms of good taste and decency in that context. Accordingly, the minority declines to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Principle 7

Principle 7 provides as follows:

Principle 7

In programmes and their presentation, broadcasters are required to be socially responsible.

Guideline 7a of Principle 7 provides:

7a  Broadcasters will not portray people in a manner which encourages denigration of or discrimination against any section of the community on account of gender, race, age, disability, occupational status, sexual orientation; or as the consequence of legitimate expression of religious, cultural or political belief. This requirement does not extend to prevent the broadcast of material which is:

i)    factual; or
ii)    a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion; or
iii)    by way of legitimate humour or satire.

In past decisions, the Authority has ruled that a high level of abuse is required for a broadcast to encourage denigration or discrimination. The Authority finds that the exchange complained about on this occasion did not portray people of senior years in a way that would encourage denigration or discrimination to this extent. It is therefore unanimous that no breach of Principle 7 occurred.

For the reasons set forth above, a majority of the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast of an exchange on Radio Sport at about 9.15am on 23 August 1999 breached Principle 1 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice, and the Authority unanimously declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Taking all the circumstances into account, the Authority considers that no penalty is warranted on this occasion.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
4 November 1999

Appendix

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

i)    James Mee’s Complaint to The Broadcasting Standards Authority – 1 September 1999

ii)    The Radio Network of New Zealand’s Response to the Complaint – 6 September 1999

iii)    Mr Mee’s Referral to the Authority – 10 September 1999

iv)    TRN’s Response to the Authority – 16 September 1999