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 an episode of Story Time, involving a reading of ‘Sight for Sore Eyes’ followed by comments from the announcer, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The story was about a man in Eritrea suffering from trachoma, which was deteriorating his vision, who had his vision restored by a visiting eye doctor, Dr Fred Hollows. The announcer then recounted her, and a listener’s, experiences with the Fred Hollows Foundation. The complainant considered the broadcast used ableist language, implying blind people ‘require fixing’. The Authority found the language did not have this effect, was in keeping with the context of a fictional story about the treatment of preventable blindness, and did not carry any malice. Therefore the broadcast did not reach the threshold for breaching the discrimination and denigration standard.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration

The broadcast

[1]  An episode of Story Time, broadcast at 6.23am on 8 April 2023, featured a reading of the story ‘Sight for Sore Eyes’. The story was about a child in Eritrea who took her father, who was suffering from trachoma, to an eye doctor (Dr Fred Hollows) visiting a nearby village. The doctor did ‘a little operation’ on the father, which resulted in the father’s deteriorating vision being restored.

[2]  The story included the following excerpts:

• ‘[Maka’s mother said] “an eye doctor from a country way across the sea is coming. A very important man. Perhaps he'll be able to cure your blindness. God be praised.” Her husband gave a contemptuous look. “I'm not having anything to do with all that foreign witchcraft. Besides, there's nothing wrong with my eyes.”’
• ‘“Surely you [referring to the father] want to be able to see your grandchildren when they're born. Maka will go with you.” Her father began to hoe furiously, “I'm not an invalid, for goodness’ sake”.’
• ‘I've heard he's a good man [referring to the eye doctor]. I'm sure he'll fix your father's eyes – if anyone can, in fact. I hear he is training our doctors to perform the same miracles.’
• Following her surgery, a woman said: ‘“Bless you, sir. You've cured my sight. How can I ever, ever thank you?” She threw her arms around him…’
• Following the father’s recovery, ‘When his bandages came off two days later, Maka's father could scarcely contain his joy. He got up an hour earlier before starting work, just so he could watch the sun come up.’

[3]  Following the story, the announcer read out a comment from ‘David’ (who appeared to be a listener) about their experiences with Dr Fred Hollows. The announcer then recounted her own experiences with Dr Hollows when she was in Nepal observing some of his foundation’s work with Dr Sanduk Ruit, one of Dr Hollows’s students. The announcer noted:

They were giving the gift of sight to so many people there who were stricken with cataract blindness, a very simple, intraocular lens replacement. They came up with a very simple operation to give people their sight back, and they set up a lens laboratory facility, a factory, if you like, in Nepal so they could manufacture these lens at very low cost and give people their sight back. Just amazing.

The complaint

[4]  Julie Woods complained the broadcast breached broadcasting standards due to ableist language used in both the story, and the presenter’s subsequent comments. While no particular standard was referred to in the original complaint, or the referral to us, we consider the complainant’s concerns can be addressed under the discrimination and denigration standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand (RNZ also responded to the complaint under this standard).

[5]  Concerning the story, Woods considered it ‘used ableist wording such as pity and miracle; depicting the blind man with pity and the restoration of his sight as a miracle! This is an ableist viewpoint in itself.’

[6]  Concerning the announcer’s subsequent comments:

• The comments ‘stricken with’ blindness, and ‘giving the gift of sight’ were ‘deeply offensive to me as a blind person because it implies if I cannot see, I am inferior. I am not stricken with blindness, I live with it. Sight is not a gift, it is a function of the human body and if you don't have it, it doesn't mean you cannot function.’
• This is ‘ableist language which implies that blind people require fixing.’ ‘Framing blindness as tragic is ableist, and therefore discriminatory.’
• ‘These comments imply superiority which in itself is the discrimination of disabled people by the non-disabled i.e. ableism.’

[7]  On referral to the Authority, the complainant noted:

• The complaint was not criticising surgical procedures, but rather the presenter’s comments ‘that being blind was a bad thing. The Sight for sore eyes story also implied restoring sight is miraculous and that if sight is not restored, then that is also bad.’ The complainant considered this language ‘did indeed encourage the different treatment of the members of a particular section of the community, to their detriment’.
• RNZ’s response ‘has a total lack of awareness of the social model of disability upon which current thinking is based. The ableist view RNZ has taken makes the assumption that blind people want to see, and only then will they be equal to others. People with impairments do not always want “fixing.” For myself, I don’t want to be able to see. Most disabled people live good lives, despite the discrimination they face, primarily due to these ableist views, in this case perpetuated by our national broadcaster.’

The broadcaster’s response

[8]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint, noting:

• Those described as ‘stricken with blindless’ were ‘cataract patients whose blindness was very simply rectified by an intra-ocular lens replacement, the process for which Fred Hollows was world famous as a pioneer. There seems to be little doubt that, where blindness can be easily reversed, it ought to be.’
• For the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard, both the story and the presenter’s subsequent comments are ‘specifically excluded, being genuine expressions of serious comment and lacking the level of condemnation that would constitute a breach.’
• Listeners may have been ‘left with a favourable impression of the work of the Fred Hollows Foundation but that this does NOT imply any kind of negative impression’ of vision-impaired individuals or groups.

[9]  In response to the referral, RNZ emphasised the importance of the context of the broadcast:

• ‘Story Time is a programme for children, broadcast on RNZ National early on Saturday and Sunday mornings. “Sight for Sore Eyes” is a fictional tale, but it references a man whose sight is restored after an operation that was performed by the Fred Hollows Foundation.’
• ‘The story is “of its time” being almost 25 years since its first broadcast in 1999 and some may consider that it does not strictly conform to the very restrictive and modern conventions regarding ableist language. This story was commissioned during the era of Radio New Zealand’s former CEO… who was a patron of the Fred Hollows Foundation and a keen supporter of its charitable work.’ The programme is curated by RNZ’s drama department.

[10]  RNZ also emphasised the importance of the right to freedom of expression, including the announcer’s right to express themselves, and that some license:

…must be given for the unscripted word of a live presentation. The announcer in this case clearly sought to provide additional “colour” by sharing her own, personal experience of the work the Fred Hollows Foundation undertakes in developing countries. Her comments were informed by the emotional reactions of patients (and their families) to having their sight restored, including use of such phrases as “the gift of sight”, which also featured in the recorded story.

Notably absent from her comments (and from the narrative of the earlier story) is any express or implied criticism of the patients, any sense that they are somehow to be pitied or that they are incomplete or flawed or less valuable as human beings because of their inability to see. To say that someone has been given a gift does not imply that they were somehow poorer beforehand, but rather there is the possibility they were enriched as a result of receiving the gift. Finally, there is no evidence that the uncodified requirements of eliminating “ableist language” could be described as a “limit” as anticipated by s5 of the BORA.

[11]  It reiterated the discrimination and denigration is not intended to capture broadcasts of this nature, being a children’s drama item with no ‘evidence of condemnation, malice or nastiness’ and no encouragement of ‘different treatment’ of a particular section of society. It submitted ‘that the broadcast of uplifting stories for children about the restoration of sight to disadvantaged people in developing countries has completely the opposite effect of “reinforcing or embedding negative stereotypes” as is required to find a breach of this standard’.

[12]  Finally, we note RNZ also considered the complaint under the fairness standard, and responded to the referral under the offensive and disturbing content standard. We do not consider either standard applies to the complainant’s concerns. The fairness standard is directed at ensuring fair treatment of particular individuals or organisations taking part or referred to in a broadcast. The offensive and disturbing content standard generally concerns content that is offensive to the audience generally. As we consider the crux of the complainant’s concerns was the effect of the broadcast on blind and vision-impaired people, we do not consider the implication of either standard necessary to properly consider the complaint. We have therefore limited our decision to the discrimination and denigration standard, which most appropriately addresses the issues raised in the complaint.

The standard

[13]  The discrimination and denigration standard¹ protects against broadcasts which encourage the discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

[14]  ‘Discrimination’ is defined as encouraging the different treatment of the members of a particular section of the community, to their detriment. ‘Denigration’ is defined as devaluing the reputation of a particular section of the community.²

Our analysis

[15]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[16]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression – which includes the broadcaster’s right to offer a wide range of content, and the audience’s right to receive it – against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where the resulting limit on the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society.³

[17]  Applied to the discrimination and denigration standard, the importance of freedom of expression means:

• A high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice or nastiness, will usually be necessary to find a breach of the standard. However, broadcast content which has the effect of reinforcing or embedding negative stereotypes may also be considered.⁴
• The standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion; nor the broadcast of legitimate drama.⁵
• Comments will not breach the standard simply because they offend people.⁶

[18]  We understand the complainant’s key concern is that the broadcast used ableist language which had the effect of encouraging discrimination against blind people or people who live with vision impairment. Vision-impaired people are clearly a section of the community protected by the discrimination and denigration standard.⁷

[19]  We do not consider the broadcast had the effect of encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, blind or vision-impaired people, having regard to the following contextual factors (outlined in Guideline 4.3 to the standard):

• Story Time is a programme where children’s stories are read out.
• ‘Sight for Sore Eyes’ is a fictional story about a man in Eritrea whose sight was restored following an operation performed by Dr Fred Hollows.
• The Fred Hollows Foundation (named after Dr Hollows) works to put ‘an end to avoidable blindness, wanting people in developing countries to have access to ‘the same quality eye care the rest of the world takes for granted.’⁸
• The man in the story was losing his vision as a result of having trachoma.
• Trachoma is a contagious, but treatable, bacterial infection affecting the eyes and is recognised as the ‘leading preventable cause of blindness worldwide’.⁹
• The characters in the story were joyous at regaining their sight following the operation.
• The announcer told two anecdotes following the story relating to experiences with Dr Hollows / the Fred Hollows foundation, one by ‘David’, and one personal anecdote. Her personal anecdote referred to ‘giving the gift of sight’.

[20]  We acknowledge RNZ’s submission the story was ‘of its time’, being first broadcast in 1999. However, as a regulatory body tasked with reflecting evolving community standards and values, each complaint we determine must be considered not only within its context at the time it was created and first released, but also with the knowledge and understanding we hold in the present moment.¹⁰

[21]  In the above context, we do not consider there was any underlying malice in either the story itself or the announcer’s subsequent anecdote, with respect to the choice of language used. We acknowledge in some contexts, harm may be caused by the use of ‘ableist’ language which judges people with impairments as inferior, incapable or in need of saving.¹¹ However, in our view that can be distinguished from the language complained of in this instance, which related to the treatment of a disease and preventing the effects of a bacterial infection, to retain or restore existing function. We do not consider there was any implication in its use which reduced the mana of blind or vision-impaired people.

[22]  We also consider listeners would likely have been left with a favourable impression of the Fred Hollows Foundation’s work, rather than any negative impression of blind or vision-impaired people. To the extent there was any ‘pity’, it was to a person who was affected by a disease that is the ‘leading preventable cause of blindness worldwide’, disproportionately affecting poorer regions of Africa.¹²

[23]  For these reasons, we concluded the broadcast did not reach the threshold for breaching the discrimination and denigration standard.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i
Member
30 August 2023    

Appendix

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

1  Julie Woods’s formal complaint to RNZ – 13 April 2023

2  RNZ’s decision on complaint – 23 May 2023

3  Woods’s referral to the Authority – 26 May 2023

4  RNZ’s response to referral – 29 June 2023

5  Wood’s final comments – 13 August 2023

6   RNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 21 August 2023

¹  Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
²  Guideline 4.1
³  Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at 4
⁴  Guideline 4.2
⁵  Guideline 4.2
⁶  Commentary, Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at 12
⁷  Mosen and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-044 at [10]
⁸  The Fred Hollows Foundation “What we do” (accessed 1 August 2023) <hollows.org>
⁹  Mayo Clinic “Trachoma” (21 October 2020) <mayoclinic.org>
¹⁰  See Majority decision in Buxton and Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori, Decision No. 2022-050 at [18]
¹¹  Education Gazette “Challenging ableism” Ministry of Education | Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga (12 September 2019) <gazette.education.govt.nz>
¹²  Mayo Clinic “Trachoma” (21 October 2020) <mayoclinic.org>