BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme, Bhakhde Masley. During the programme, the host engaged in a heated argument with a caller, calling him a ‘dog’ and saying ‘someone should beat you with a shoe.’ The Authority acknowledged that the comments were in poor taste, but found they were unlikely to undermine widely shared community standards because, amongst other reasons, talkback is a robust environment and the host’s comments were not explicit or graphic. For the same reasons, the Authority also found the comments did not amount to unduly disturbing violent content and that they were unlikely to incite or encourage violence.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence   

The broadcast

[1]  On 7 April 2019, Radio Virsa broadcast Punjabi talkback programme, Bhakhde Masley.

[2]  As this programme was broadcast in Punjabi, we sought an independent translation and transcription of the relevant segment. According to the translation we have been provided, during this broadcast segment, the host Harnek Singh engaged in a heated argument with a caller about the Sikh religion and something the caller posted on Facebook.

[3]  According to the transcription of the section of the broadcast provided to us by the Translation Service at the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), during the exchange Mr Singh insults the caller several times, saying the following:

• ‘Why not someone should beat you with a shoe.’
• ‘Dogs like you didn’t learn any wisdom…’
• ‘[You] may be beaten with shoes by someone, go mind your own business, or else you may hear more from me.’

[4]  In making its determination on this complaint, the members of the Authority have read the independent translation of the relevant section of the broadcast complained about and the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

The complaint

[5]  Gurpreet Singh submitted the broadcast breached the good taste and decency and violence standards of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice for the following reasons:

• The caller was very polite to Mr Singh, however Mr Singh ‘used very bad language against him’, calling him the following:
  • dog
  • rascal
  • villain
  • dirty dog
  • the son of unmarried parents
  • not a son of real father.
• Mr Singh tried to incite violence against the caller saying he ‘should be beaten up’ with a shoe.

The broadcaster’s response

[6]  In response, Radio Virsa ‘dismissed’ the complaint, finding the complaint did not ‘refer to any substantial programme’ and noted the complainant did not give ‘any mark about the significant timing about the programme you [the complainant] stated in your complaint.’ Radio Virsa considered the complaint to be ‘a pointless criticism against Radio Virsa NZ.’

[7]  Upon receiving the transcription of the section of the broadcast, Radio Virsa stated they had ‘no comments with the translation’.

[8]  We consider Radio Virsa’s response to this complaint unsatisfactory. Once the complainant identified the relevant broadcast, Radio Virsa should have offered comment or analysis on whether they considered the standards raised by the complainant were breached. Broadcasters should also endeavour to assist in helping complainants identify the relevant broadcast where reasonable and provide the Authority with submissions on whether they consider the standards raised are breached.

The standards

[9]  The good taste and decency standard (Standard 1) is usually considered in relation to broadcasts containing sexual material, coarse language or violence. The Authority will also consider the standard in relation to any broadcast that portrays or discusses material in a way that is likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress.¹

[10]  The violence standard (Standard 4) states that broadcasters should exercise care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence. Guideline 4b states that any description of, or reference to, violence should be justified by the context. However, the violence standard will rarely apply to radio, given violent material has more impact visually.²

Overview of findings

[11]  In New Zealand we value the right to freedom of expression. Accordingly, when we consider a complaint that a broadcast has breached broadcasting standards, we first look at the right to freedom of expression. We weigh the value of the programme, and the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression, against the level of actual or potential harm that might be caused by the broadcast.

[12]  The right to freedom of expression in New Zealand allows broadcasters to raise ideas in a way that might be satirical, provocative or in poor taste, provided it does not cause a level of harm that outweighs that right. The right to freedom of expression therefore comes with responsibilities and broadcasting standards are designed to guide broadcasters in this exercise. 

[13]  We acknowledge that the particular expectations of Radio Virsa’s target audience, a sector of the New Zealand Sikh community, may differ to the expectations of a wider, and possibly non-religious, audience. The particular views or expectations of the target audience or community are important in our consideration of whether a broadcast has breached broadcasting standards.³

[14]  However, when we consider a complaint of this nature, we are conscious that we must apply New Zealand standards, and the expectations and values of the New Zealand community. Our general approach has been that we cannot limit broadcasters’ freedom of expression by taking into account particular sensitivities, and instead we must look to the New Zealand community as a whole when determining whether broadcasting standards have been breached.⁴

[15]  With respect to the complainant’s submission that the host called the caller a ‘rascal’, a ‘villain’, ‘the son of unmarried parents’ and ‘not the son of real father’, we note that none of these terms are present in the transcription of the section of the broadcast provided to us by DIA and approved by both parties. Accordingly, we cannot consider whether these terms breached broadcasting standards.

Good taste and decency

[16]           The complainant submitted that the host’s language towards the caller, specifically calling him a ‘dog’ and stating someone should beat him up, breached the good taste and decency standard.

[17]  Attitudes towards taste and decency differ widely and continue to evolve in a diverse society such as ours. Caution must therefore be exercised when considering matters of taste. The feelings of the particularly sensitive cannot be allowed to dictate what can be broadcast. However, there are limits and the broad limit is that a broadcast must not seriously violate community norms of taste and decency.⁵

[18]  The word ‘dog’ was not tested in our 2018 Language That May Offend in Broadcasting research.[6] We also note the term was not raised by any respondents to the survey when asked if there were other offensive words we should have tested.[7] Having regard to this research we consider, while the use of the word may offend some people when used in a provocative manner, it is unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress.

[19]  We also note that context is crucial when determining a complaint under the good taste and decency standard.[8] We found the following contextual factors important in our determination:

• The term ‘dogs’ was used by the broadcaster only twice (in one sentence) during the broadcast.
• The host and caller clearly had a pre-established relationship and were arguing about a Facebook post made by the caller in the context of a radio broadcast programme.
• There were no accompanying graphic or violent images or footage.
• Mr Singh’s comments (relating to beating ‘with a shoe’) were not explicit or graphic.

[20]  The standards recognise that talkback is an opinionated environment and broadcasters are granted some latitude to be provocative and edgy in the interests of robust debate.⁹

[21]  We recognise that Mr Singh’s comments were in poor taste and had the potential to offend or upset the caller and other listeners.  However, we do not consider Mr Singh’s comments on this occasion were likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.

[22]  Accordingly we do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

Violence

[23]  The purpose of the violence standard is to protect audiences from ‘unduly disturbing violent content.’¹⁰ As mentioned above, context is important when determining whether a broadcast amounted to unduly disturbing violent content.¹¹

[24]  Taking into account the contextual factors listed at paragraph [19] and our reasoning under the good taste and decency standard above, in our view, the comments made by the host were not so graphic as to be considered ‘unduly disturbing violent content’.

[25]  Broadcasters are also required to exercise caution with content likely to incite or encourage violence or brutality.¹² While Mr Singh’s comment that ‘someone should beat [the caller] with a shoe’ was provocative, considering the contextual factors listed above, particularly the lack of explicit detail in Mr Singh’s comment and the robust nature of talkback radio, we do not consider it reached the threshold justifying the restriction of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.

[34]  We therefore do not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judge Bill Hastings

Chair

17 September 2019       

Appendix

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

1                 Translation of Bhakhde Masley, broadcast 7 April 2019 – Translation Service, Department of Internal Affairs

2                 Gurpreet Singh’s original complaint – 15 April 2019

3                 Radio Virsa’s original response – 8 May 2019

4                 Mr Singh’s referral to the Authority – 4 June 2019

5                 Mr Singh’s clarification of referral – 8 June 2019

6                 Mr Singh’s confirmation of satisfaction with the translation – 31 July 2019

7                 Radio Virsa’s confirmation of satisfaction with the translation and no further comment – 5 August 2019

¹ Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
² Guideline 4a
³ Singh and Radio Virsa, Decision No. 2017-001 at [15]
⁴ As above, at [13]
⁵ Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
⁶ See: Language that May Offend in Broadcasting (Broadcasting Standards Authority, June 2018)
⁷ As above, page 13
⁸ Guideline 1a
⁹ Guideline 1c
¹⁰ Commentary: Violence, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 14
¹¹ Guideline 4b
¹² Guideline 4c