BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Pam Corkery was one of the invited guests on TV3's 3 National News broadcast on 1

April 1996 between 6.00–7.00pm which discussed New Zealand First's immigration

policy.

Mr Thomas complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that Ms Corkery's reference to

people as having "slit eyes" or "slant eyes" was offensive and racist and breached

broadcasting standards.

As TV3 did not respond to the complaint within 60 working days, Mr Thomas

referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

In its response to the Authority, TV3 acknowledged that Ms Corkery had used the

term "sloped eyes". It maintained that her stance was anti-racist, anti-Winston Peters

and pro-immigration. It denied that the remarks would have encouraged discrimination

against Asian people and declined to uphold the complaint.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

During the current affairs section of 3 National News broadcast between 6.00–7.00pm

on 1 April 1996, invited guests discussed the issue of immigration with host Sean

Plunket. The issue was topical in light of the release of the New Zealand First's

policy on immigration and its leader's comments on Asian immigrants. One of the

guests was talkback host Pam Corkery who, when asked the views typical of callers

to her talkback programme regarding immigrants from Asia, replied, quoting a typical

caller:

I'm seeing over-achieving school kids who have got sloped eyes.

She then went on to suggest that Mr Peters was playing a dangerous game by singling

out Asian migrants because:

They're identifiable...you can't tell if they're 3rd generation New Zealand

because they've got sloped eyes.

Mr Thomas complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the remarks were racist

and breached the standards of good taste and decency. In his view, the comments

lowered the tone of the entire news programme.

As TV3 did not respond to the complaint after 60 working days, Mr Thomas referred

it to the Authority.

When asked by the Authority to respond to the complaint, TV3 advised that it had no

record of having received the original complaint. In its response, it reported that it had

assessed the complaint under standards G2 and G13 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice which were nominated by Mr Thomas. Those standards require

broadcasters:

G2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and

taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which

any language or behaviour occurs.

G13 To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently

inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of

the community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupation

status, sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or

political belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the

broadcast of material which is:

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or

current affairs programme, or

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or

dramatic work.

In TV3's view, Ms Corkery was not being racist in her remarks. It considered her

stance throughout the discussion was anti-racist, anti-Winston Peters and pro-

immigration. TV3 noted that Ms Corkery was commenting on what talkback callers

were saying, and was highlighting the fact that it was very difficult to tell where a

person came from by the way they looked. In that context, TV3 concluded, the

remarks did not exceed the bounds of good taste and decency.

With respect to the complaint that her comments were racist and likely to encourage

discrimination against Asian people, TV3 considered that it was very clear that Ms

Corkery abhorred the New Zealand First restrictive immigration stance. It maintained

that the phrase "sloped eyes" was used only to describe a physical characteristic of

Asian people and was not a racial slur. TV3 also noted that it had not received any

other complaints about the item from Asian groups or any other ethnic group.

The Authority agrees with TV3 that when Ms Corkery remarked that she suspected

that Mr Peters' rise in popularity that month was undoubtedly related to his anti-

immigration policy, and that it made her feel sad to be a New Zealander, she was

criticising that policy which attempted to single out Asian migrants. When she first

described Asians as having "sloped eyes" she was reporting a remark typical of callers

to her talkback programme, and on the second occasion, she was highlighting the fact

that it was difficult to tell if a person was a migrant and that it was wrong to assume

that just because a person had "sloped eyes" they were a migrant.

Because Ms Corkery's own views on immigration were made clear, the Authority

does not believe her reporting of the views of others was a breach of the good taste

standard. It accepts that it was legitimate to identify a distinguishing characteristic to

illustrate her point that it was impossible to know who the migrants were.

With respect to the argument that the remark was racist and encouraged discrimination

against Asian people, the Authority looks at the context in which the comment was

made and considers there was no breach of the standard. As noted above, the

Authority considers the description of "sloped eyes" as a distinguishing physical

characteristic not to be a breach of standards and accordingly it declines to uphold the

complaint.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
3 October 1996

Appendix

Brian Thomas's Formal Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 2 April 1996

Mr Thomas of Christchurch complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about its

broadcast of an item during 3 National News on 1 April 1996 in which commentator

Pam Corkery and political scientist Ray Miller were engaged in a discussion about

immigration.

Ms Corkery referred to people with "slit eyes" or "slant eyes". Mr Thomas

considered the remark a shockingly rude racist comment which should not have been

made on television, and certainly not by a person in her position.

In his view, Ms Corkery should make a public apology on the programme for the

insulting language she used.

Mr Thomas's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 26 June 1996

Advising that he had not received a response from TV3 after 60 working days, Mr

Thomas referred his complaint to the Authority under s.8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting

Act 1989.

He repeated that the use of the term "slit eyes" or "slant eyes" (he was not sure which

term was used) breached broadcasting standards. He wrote:

As the discussion was on Mr Peters' comments on immigration, I consider

Pam Corkery's words used in referring to certain people as shockingly racist

and certainly did not observe the broadcasting standard of good taste and

decency.

Expressing his regret at having to make a complaint about the usually excellent

standard of TV3's news presentation, Mr Thomas maintained that the standard was

greatly lowered by the shocking terms Pam Corkery used to refer to a certain race of

people.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 5 July 1996

In a brief letter, TV3 advised that it had no record of having received Mr Thomas's

complaint. It advised that it would respond to the complaint in due course.

In a second letter, dated 17 July, TV3 advised that it had considered the complaint

under standards G2 and G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The item complained about involved Sean Plunket interviewing Pam Corkery and Ray

Miller. When Ms Corkery was asked what talkback callers were saying about

immigration, she responded that a typical caller said:

IÕm seeing over-achieving school kids who have got sloped eyes.

She then went on to say that Mr Peters was playing a dangerous game singling out

Asian migrants:

TheyÕre identifiable...you canÕt tell if theyÕre 3rd generation New Zealand

because theyÕve got sloped eyes.

In TV3's view, Ms Corkery was not being racist in her remarks. In fact, it asserted,

she was anti-racist, anti-Winston Peters and pro-immigration.

She was commenting on what the talkback callers were saying and pointing out it was

difficult to tell a person's background from the way they looked. In that context, TV3

did not consider the remarks breached the standard of good taste and decency.

With respect to whether the remarks would encourage discrimination, TV3 believed

Ms Corkery made it clear that she opposed the New Zealand First immigration stance.

...the phrase "sloped eyes" was only used to describe the physical features of

Asian people and not as a racial slur.

TV3 noted that it had not received any other complaints about the item from Asian

groups or any other ethnic group.

Mr Thomas's Final Comment - 15 August 1996

Mr Thomas advised he had no further comment to make.