BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

"The Antibiography of Robert Fucking Menzies" is the title of a book an Australian

author is currently working on. He referred to the title twice during an interview on

Nine to Noon broadcast by RNZ on 20 May 1998 at about 11.30am.

Mr Moreton and Mr Menzies complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the

broadcaster, stating that they objected to the broadcast. Mr Moreton complained that

the language was inappropriate on National Radio, and suggested that the presenter

should have apologised to listeners. Mr Menzies also complained about the use of his

name in the broadcast.

In its response, RNZ emphasised the context in which the remark was made, and the

fact that it had no prior warning that the offending word was contained in the title of

the book. It concluded that its use, in a non gratuitous manner, was not a breach of

the good taste standard.

Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision, both Mr Moreton and Mr Menzies 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 item complained about

and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendices). On this occasion,

the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

During an interview on Nine to Noon on National Radio on 20 May 1998 at about

11.30am, an Australian author referred twice to the title of his forthcoming book,

"The Antibiography of Robert Fucking Menzies".

Mr Moreton and Mr Menzies complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that such

language was inappropriate on National Radio. In Mr Moreton's view, the breach

was exacerbated when the word was repeated and no apology was made to listeners.

When it considered the complaints, RNZ assessed them under standard R2 of the

Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. That standard 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 emphasised that the broadcast, which was a live interview with an award-

winning Australian author, had to be considered in its context. That context, it argued,

included the target audience of National Radio, and the actual audience as identified by

its audience research, which indicated that it comprised people over the age of 18.

Further, RNZ maintained, the interview itself was a serious item undertaken to inform

the audience of the existence, work and reputation of a young Australian author. In its

view, his literary output and nomination for an award as one of Australia's finest

young writers justified the classification of the item as a serious interview in the area

of arts and literature. It also took into account the fact that the author used the word

dispassionately and naturally, as part of the book's actual title. It was not used in a

gratuitous manner, RNZ argued, nor was it used to offend or shock listeners. RNZ

explained that its host, surprised by the unexpected utterance, had concluded on

balance that it was best to let the matter pass without making an issue of it on air. In

RNZ's view, the host's decision was appropriate as she had not drawn attention to a

matter which was beyond her control.

In its report to the Authority, RNZ emphasised the relevance of the fact that the

interview was "live", and noted that Nine to Noon interviews were not subject to the

delay mechanism familiar to listeners to public access talkback programmes. It

reiterated that the word objected to was part of the title of a serious work of

contemporary literature. RNZ also suggested the use of the word was becoming

increasingly commonplace and, while that did not excuse its use, it considered it was

justified in the particular context.

The Authority accepts that the interview was clearly aimed at an adult audience, and

considers that a level of sophistication, likely to be beyond most children, was

required in order to choose to listen to the entire interview. The offending word, it

notes, was spoken, and repeated, near the end of the interview. In the Authority's

view, its dispassionate use was not designed to be provocative. While it can envisage

circumstances where it would be inappropriate to refer to the title of this book, and

although the word is not normally acceptable, on this occasion the Authority finds no

breach of the standard. In reaching this conclusion, the Authority emphasises the

unique circumstances in which the word was used, including the fact that it was

spoken during a serious literary interview aimed at an adult audience. In the

Authority's view, it was not used to provoke or to cause offence.

Turning to Mr Menzies' complaint about the use of his name, the Authority concurs

with RNZ when it said that this was not a broadcasting standards issue. It was

simply a coincidence that he had the same name as the fictional character in the book's

title, and nothing personal was intended.

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

complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
30 July 199

Appendix I

A R Moreton's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd – 20 May 1998

Mr Moreton of Auckland also complained about the broadcast. He objected to the

fact that first the interviewee was allowed to use the offensive word, and secondly to

the fact that he repeated it. He maintained that the interviewer should have ended the

interview the first time the word was used and apologised to listeners. Mr Moreton

added:

This sort of language used by that man in his own home is his business, but

there is no place for it on NZ radio, especially in a programme of such high

quality. I hope that it will not be repeated.

RNZ's Response to the Complaint – 2 June 1998

RNZ noted first that the standard requiring broadcasters to observe norms of decency

and good taste contained a contextual element, including the type of station, the nature

of the target audience and the manner in which a word or phrase was used. It also

considered relevant the number of complaints it received about a broadcast. In this

case, it noted, there had been two formal complaints.

RNZ advised that it considered it relevant that the interview was "live", and that the

background information available for the interviewer's preparation contained no

reference to the full title of the book in preparation. Therefore, it argued, when the

word was first used, the question of the interviewee being "allowed" to use it did not

arise.

RNZ also advised that the use of the word in the title of the book took her by

surprise, and its repetition occurred while she was still considering her best approach.

She had concluded that on balance it was best to let it pass without comment. RNZ

said that she was justified in her assessment of the on-air situation, of the manner in

which the word was spoken, and of the appropriate action to be taken. It continued:

Further, while gratuitous use of the word could not be defended, its occurrence

in contexts of genuinely depicted realism or, in this case, as part of the actual

title of a contemporary novel, soon to be available for public purchase, is a

different matter.

Turning to the matter of context, RNZ advised that it considered the target audience of

National Radio. It noted figures which showed that Nine to Noon listeners were

generally over the age of 18.

RNZ also noted the context of the interview, which it described as a serious item

undertaken to inform the audience of the work of a young Australian author. Noting

his nomination for an award as one of Australia's finest young writers, RNZ

considered the item was justified as a serious interview in the area of the arts and

literature.

It concluded:

The Committee therefore decided that the interview established a valid literary

context. It noted that New Zealand, American, British and Australian writing

has abandoned the convention of expressing the word in realism contexts by

initials joined by dots ("f...ing" - or "effing"). It now generally prints the

word in full.

In a separate covering letter to Mr Moreton, RNZ offered its regrets that the

broadcast had offended. It emphasised that the word was used neither gratuitously

nor deliberately to insult, but as part of the title of a serious work of contemporary

literature.

Mr Moreton's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 9 June 1998

Dissatisfied with RNZ's response, Mr Moreton referred the complaint to the

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

In Mr Moreton's view, it was irrelevant that the author was a "brilliant young

prospect", as the fact remained that he had offended by his lack of taste and his

cavalier disregard for the feelings of others. He wondered how the family and friends

of Robert Menzies would have felt about the book, and asked whether it would not

have been kinder (though still insulting) to call it "The Antibiography of Robert

Bumbling Old Menzies".

Mr Moreton also rejected RNZ's argument that as the interview was live, it had to be

allowed to continue. He suggested that if prior research on the author had not revealed

the title of the new book, then the interview should have been stopped the first time it

was mentioned.

Responding to the argument that the programme was aimed at an adult audience, Mr

Moreton asked how RNZ could be sure of its data on the ages of its audience.

However, he continued, the point was that the language was unsuitable to any age

group in a public broadcast, especially in the highly regarded National Programme. He

added:

The vocabulary used by Mr Cohen and his family in their home is their

business, but the language used in my home is my business and that should

include programmes heard on radio, for which we expect to hear items of

interest, delivered in acceptable language, no matter what the context, age of

listener or prominence of interviewee. To describe Mr Cohen's book title as

"meaningful" seems absurd to me. Not only that but also a sign of what the

book itself may contain.

Mr Moreton concluded by stating that standards of acceptability were not set by the

general public, but by its leaders, and by those in the world of the arts, literature and

music. He continued:

Mr Cohen's future book may be hailed as a masterpiece and held up as an

example of literary merit, but to many it will be judged by the objectionable

title, repeated on air, illustrating the author's insensitiveness and lack of

vocabulary.

RNZ's Response to the Authority – 17 June 1998

RNZ emphasised that neither the decision nor the broadcast was intended to "defend"

the author. The intention of the interview, it added, was to examine the work of a

contemporary Australian author.

RNZ commented further that a consideration of a formal complaint did not extend to

suggestions to the author for a "kinder" title to his book.

In RNZ's view, the fact that the interview was "live" was very relevant. It noted that

Nine to Noon was not the type of broadcast which was subject to a delay mechanism.

It wrote:

The word objected to was part of the serious title, seriously chosen, of a

serious work of contemporary literature. The word is not used to shock or

offend, or as a meaningless intensive. It conveys an accurate impression of the

irritation which the resurrected Menzies inspires.

Dealing with the matter of context, RNZ noted that the composition of the target

audience was relevant. It referred to its audience surveys which revealed information

about its audience.

RNZ argued that the content of the book was irrelevant, as was the question of the

language used by the author with his own family. However, RNZ suggested, it was

idle to imagine that the word "fucking" was not in wide use on both sides of the

Tasman, and like all slang was rapidly becoming debased currency. Nevertheless, it

added, genuine justification was required for the use of words before deciding they

were acceptable in that particular context.

It concluded that speculation on the quality of the novel was not relevant to the

complaint.

Mr Moreton's Final Comment – 29 June 1998

In Mr Moreton's view, RNZ's letter added little to the argument. He noted that RNZ

was not aware of the title of the book before the interview, and that it was a surprise

to the interviewer.

He did not agree that the use of the objectionable adjective in the title of the book was

of any literary merit. He wrote:

RNZ is wrong in saying that the word "fucking" is becoming more

commonplace and by implication less objectionable. That is simply not true.

In concluding, Mr Moreton wrote that he hoped that it would not happen again.

Appendix II

Robert Menzies' Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd – received by RNZ on 26

May 1998

Mr Menzies of Picton complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd about a broadcast on

Nine to Noon on National Radio on 20 May 1998 at about 11.30am.

A young Australian author, being interviewed about a recent book, was asked what he

was currently working on. In his reply, he said it was a book entitled "The

Antibiography of Robert Fucking Menzies." He continued by explaining that the

book was not about Robert Gordon Menzies (the former Australian Prime Minister)

but about Robert Fucking Menzies.

Mr Menzies complained that such language was unsuitable. He told RNZ that if such

snide remarks were going to continue, he would contact his lawyer.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 2 June 1998

RNZ's substantive response is summarised above in Appendix I.

Mr Menzies' Referral to the Authority – received 11 June 1998

Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision on the complaint, Mr Menzies referred it to the

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

He pointed out that his name was also Robert Menzies, and said that he did not

deserve to be held in contempt by a crank author who never knew him.

He said he was referring the complaint to the Authority in defence of his name.

RNZ's Response to the Authority – 12 June 1998

RNZ noted first that Mr Menzies appeared to have shifted the emphasis of his

complaint to the matter of the coincidence of his name with that of the Australian

statesman. It pointed out that his original complaint was to do with the language and

asked that the Authority confine its examination of the complaint to that matter.

Mr Menzies' Final Comment – received 22 June 1998

In his final comment, Mr Menzies maintained that the real issue of complaint was that

the plot and title simply "make a monkey of the dead". He added:

The author Cohen may not realise that you may not make a fictional character

out of a deceased person. It was a fluke (miracle) that I heard him at all.