BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The morning broadcast on The Rock on 14 July 1999, included a "joke" about an Indian superette owner and his Pakistani worker.

Mr Yousef complained to The RadioWorks, the broadcaster, that the joke was offensive and demeaning. He considered that the joke was both in bad taste and cast a "racial and religious slur".

The broadcaster responded that the show was targeted at an audience of males aged between 18-39 years and that its style appealed to large numbers of that group. In the broadcaster’s view, those people were entitled to their own radio station which reflected their values, language and attitudes. The RadioWorks declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s decision, Mr Yousef 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 upholds the complaint. The Authority orders The RadioWorks to broadcast a statement summarising this decision and also orders it to pay costs of $500.00 to the Crown

Decision

The members of the Authority have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. No tape of the item was provided. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

In the morning of 14 July at about 9.00am on The Rock, a station managed by The RadioWorks, the announcer told a "joke". According to the complainant, whose version was not disputed by The RadioWorks, the joke was as follows: A superette owner with an apparently heavy Indian accent recounted a story to the announcer about his Pakistani worker. He said that a doctor had advised the worker that it would help his headache to "shit in a bucket, then piss on top of it and stick his head in it". The worker responded that this made him feel homesick.

The name of the Indian superette owner was "Abdullah" and the name of his worker was "Haji". Mr Yousef advised this choice of names gave the exchange an obvious Muslim slant. According to him, anyone who uses these names must be of "Muslim stock".

Mr Yousef complained to the broadcaster that the joke was absolutely offensive and very demeaning, not just because, in his view, it was in bad taste but also because it "cast a racial and religious slur". He contended that the joke was derogatory to all Muslims, Indians and Pakistanis.

In its response, The RadioWorks emphasised that The Rock was a station targeted at a male audience aged between 18-39 years and that its programming was directed at that group. It reported that The Rock appealed to a large number of people in its target audience. It agreed that the station’s approach did not have universal appeal, but argued that those to whom it did appeal were entitled to have their own radio station which reflected their values, language and attitudes.

The RadioWorks declined to uphold Mr Yousef’s complaint. It did not consider it had breached the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

When Mr Yousef referred the matter to the Authority, he expressed his disappointment and disgust at The RadioWorks’ response. He did not accept The RadioWorks explanation about the Rock’s self-described "politically incorrect" approach. He argued that the joke was far more than merely politically incorrect. He stated that the joke was blatantly inconsistent with the requirement that broadcasters observe good taste and decency in presentation standards.

In its report to the Authority, The RadioWorks repeated that the station targets 18-39 year old males and it strongly caters to this audience. It commented that this demographic has different values and standards to those of Mr Yousef.

Although invited to do so, Mr Yousef did not comment further.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority expects broadcasters to record the standards against which a complaint has been assessed. The broadcaster omitted to do so on this occasion. In view of the complaint, the Authority has assessed it under Principle 1 and Principle 7 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. These provide:

Principle 1

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

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.

When it considers complaints about a breach of good taste and decency, the Authority is required, as Principle 1 records, to take into account the context in which the language or behaviour complained about occurs.

The Authority considered, as relevant contextual factors, The RadioWorks’ description of The Rock’s target audience and its broadcasting style. However, as any broadcaster is unable to restrict its broadcast to just its target audience, the Authority notes that The Rock’s style does not provide it with a blanket licence to disregard any broadcasting standards.

In this instance, having considered the context in which the exchange Mr Yousef complained about took place, the Authority finds that the "joke" exceeded the bounds of good taste and decency. The Authority finds that the racist content of the joke, coupled with its references to defecation and urination, clearly breached Principle 1. Moreover, the Authority notes that its research confirms that many New Zealanders consider jokes about ethnic minorities to be inherently objectionable. Accordingly, the Authority upholds this aspect of the complaint.

The second aspect of Mr Yousef’s complaint was that Principle 7 was breached. In view of Guideline 7a, the question the Authority is required to consider is whether the broadcast denigrated people on account of either race or religion.

The Authority finds that the fictitious characters in the "joke" were portrayed in a way which would encourage denigration against Indian, Pakistani and Muslim people. The "joke" appealed to listeners’ cultural and racial prejudices and its effect was to reinforce such negative stereotyping. In addition, as noted above, the Authority’s research confirms that many New Zealanders consider such jokes unacceptable.

Guideline 7a expressly provides that the requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material which is legitimate humour or satire. As the Authority considers the exchange broadcast breaches Principle 1, it does not consider that the exchange would qualify as legitimate humour and therefore was not saved by this exception. It notes too that the broadcaster did not advance any argument to evidence any legitimate humorous or satirical purpose for the exchange. Accordingly, the Authority upholds this aspect of the complaint as a breach of Principle 7.

The Authority notes that this is not the first occasion that the Authority has been asked to condone action by The Rock based on an apparently formulaic network response – the reference to its "politically incorrect" approach and its apparent appeal to the station’s target audience. The Authority reiterates the concerns it expressed in Decision No: 1999-191, 192, about the unsatisfactory nature of this suggested defence. It also reminds the broadcaster again that it is required to have proper procedures for dealing with standards complaints under s.6 of the Broadcasting Act.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast of an exchange on The Rock at about 9.00am on 14 July 1999 breached Principles 1 and 7 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose penalties pursuant to s.13(1) and s.16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. It invited submissions from the parties as to penalty.

The Authority imposes the following order:

Order

Pursuant to s.13 of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority orders The RadioWorks to broadcast a statement, to be approved by the Authority, summarising this decision. That statement shall be broadcast within one month of the date of this decision at a time similar to the programme complained about and on a date to be approved by the Authority. The Authority also requests that a tape of the apology be provided.

In addition, the Authority orders The RadioWorks, pursuant to s.16(4) of the Act, to pay costs of $500.00 to the Crown within one month of the date of this Decision.

That Order shall be enforceable in the Wellington District Court.

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:

1.    Mr Yousef’s Complaint to The RadioWorks – 2 August 1999

2.    The RadioWorks’ Response to the Formal Complaint – 3 August 1999

3.    Mr Yousef’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 8 August 999

4.    The RadioWorks’ Response to the Authority – 17 August 1999

5.    The RadioWorks’ Submission on Penalty – 2 November 1999

6.    Mr Yousef’s Submission on Penalty – 4 November 1999