BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Dr Brian Edwards was the temporary host of The Ralston Group screened on TV3 on

11 May 1994. In the concluding section for "brickbats, bouquets or predictions", Dr

Edwards awarded a bouquet to the ducks who managed to avoid duckhunters, who he

described as "bloodthirsty, braindead bozos".

Mr Dyer, President of the Sporting Shooters Association of New Zealand Inc,

complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the host's comments about

duckhunters were highly offensive and in breach of broadcasting standards. The

Association demanded an apology.

In response, TV3 justified the comment as being Dr Edwards' own personal opinion,

acceptable in the robust, lively exchange which was characteristic of The Ralston

Group and declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with the broadcaster's

response, the Sporting Shooters Association referred its complaint to the Broadcasting

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority declined 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

determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

At the conclusion of The Ralston Group screened by TV3 on 11 May 1994, Dr Brian

Edwards, the show's temporary host, offered a bouquet to the ducks who managed to

outwit "those bloodthirsty, braindead bozos" who found pleasure in duckhunting.

The Sporting Shooters Association of New Zealand complained to TV3 that the

remark was not in good taste and was entirely unprofessional. On behalf of 80,000

duckhunters and 365,000 firearms owners, it demanded an apology. It accused TV3

of complicity in that it had consistently failed to promote the many positive aspects

of duckhunting as a sport in New Zealand.

The Association referred to a Metro article which supported its view that Dr

Edwards' criticism of duckhunters was vitriolic and hurtful and it referred to other

media reports which demonstrated Dr Edwards' acerbic style.

TV3 advised that it had considered the complaint under standard G13 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice which requires broadcasters:

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, occupational 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 and current

affairs programme, or

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

TV3 explained that The Ralston Group was an intentionally opinionated, lively and

frank interchange of views and that the comments made by its panel members were

personal opinions which they were entitled to express. It reported that the view

expressed by Dr Edwards was his own opinion and that it was a view he honestly

stood by. It defended his right to express his views, adding:

To restrain Ralston Group participants from doing so abrogates their right to

freely express their personal opinions.

With reference to the Association's comments about other media reports on Dr

Edwards' style, TV3 reported that it could not comment on them. However it offered

to consider newsworthy activities of the Association's members and asked that they

be directed to its news departments.

In its referral to the Authority, the Association focused on the tenor of Dr Edwards'

comments, describing them as being founded in bigotry and inciting hatred against

duckhunters. Again it demanded an apology from TV3 and suggested that TV3's

inability to control Dr Edwards' outbursts against firearms owners (repeated since

The Ralston Group episode) encouraged bigotry and nastiness.

The Authority first considered the complaint that the remarks were denigratory to

duckhunters as a group and were capable of inciting hatred against them. It referred to

its legislation (section 21 of the Broadcasting Act 1989) which charges the Authority

to encourage broadcasters to develop Codes of Practice which safeguard the rights of

certain sections of the community. It noted that people are protected against

discrimination on account of their "sex, race, age, disability, or occupational status or

as a consequence of legitimate expression of religious, cultural or political beliefs."

Since it did not consider that gun owners comprised any of these categories, it declined

to uphold the complaint that the remarks were in breach of standard G13.

The Authority then examined the original letter of complaint to ascertain if other

standards might apply. It believed that TV3 should not have confined its

deliberations to the standard G13 complaint alone, noting that the Association had

described the remarks as being "offensive" and "beyond good taste". Accordingly, the

Authority considered the complaint involved an allegation that standard G2 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice was breached. That standard requires

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 of behaviour occurs.

The Authority first examined the context of the remarks. It observed that The Ralston

Group was well known as a forum for provocative commentary on topical issues, and

that the opinions of the panellists were their personal views. It was customary at the

end of the programme for the panellists to award brickbats and bouquets as a means of

commenting on particular events of the week. On this occasion, the reference was to

the duckhunting season, and the comment made by Dr Edwards expressed his

personal view about the sport.

The Authority then focused on the words Dr Edwards used to describe duckhunters

when he called them "bloodthirsty, braindead bozos". It accepted that some would

have been offended by being so described, but considered that Dr Edwards was

entitled to express an obviously strongly-held opinion about duckhunters. In the

Authority's view, the alliterative words had been carefully crafted to create an effect,

but it was obvious the phrase contained hyperbole and was not intended to be taken

literally. Further, the comments were made about a large group comprising individuals

whose identities were not specific. Had they been directed at specific individuals, the

decision could well have been different.

In reaching this conclusion, the Authority examined a recent decision (No: 58/94) in

whic h a commentator on CTV had described the Christchurch City Councillors inter

alia as "turkeys", "bozos" and "yes men".. That complaint did not allege a breach of

good taste and decency but, the Authority, in its deliberations considered the tenor of

the criticism when it wrote:

The obviously untrue hyperbole (eg bozos and turkeys) might not be so

damaging as the insults which refer particularly to the character of the person

or people disparaged. As they were so obviously fanciful rhetoric, the

Authority accepted that the use of the adjectives "turkeys", "bozos" and "yes

men" did not on this occasion breach the requirement of standard G4 to deal

justly and fairly with any person referred to in a broadcast.

Consistent with this reasoning, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint that

the description of duckhunters as "bloodthirsty braindead bozos" was a breach of

standard G2. In addition it noted that Decision No 58/94 could be distinguished from

the present decision in that the Christchurch City Councillors were known,

identifiable public figures, whereas duckhunters are a large anonymous group, whose

only common characteristic is the participation in their sport of duckhunting.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
1 September 1994

Appendix

Sporting Shooters Association of New Zealand Inc's Complaint to TV3

Network Services Limited

In a letter dated 30 May 1993, Mr John Dyer, president of the Sporting Shooters

Association of New Zealand Inc, complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about Dr

Brian Edwards' closing comments as host of The Ralston Group on 11 May 1994 at

9.58pm.

The Association demanded a clear, unambiguous formal public apology for the

comments made by Dr Edwards because he referred to duckhunters as "brainless,

bloodthirsty bozos" when he awarded the customary bouquets and brickbats at the

end of the show.

It referred to the "vitriolic style" of Dr Edwards in other contexts such as Metro

magazine, the Listener and Give Us a Clue (a TV Game Show) to provide a

background of proof of his damaging intent.

The Association believed that Dr Edwards' comment on The Ralston Group went

beyond acceptable good taste and was entirely unprofessional. It added:

It is done with more than just editorial freedom of speech licence.

The Association suggested that TV3 had an agenda to neglect to promote the positive

aspects of duckhunting, citing the recent habitat restoration project at Whangamarino

wetland, Meremere, carried out by duckhunters in conjunction with the Department

of Conservation, opened by Sir Edmund Hillary, endorsed by the Governor General

and unattended by TV3.

TV3 Network Services Limited's Response to the Formal Complaint

TV3 advised Mr Dyer, president of the Sporting Shooters Association of NZ Inc, of

its response in a letter dated 1 July 1994.

It reported that the TV3 Complaints Committee considered the complaint under G13

of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, and declined to uphold the complaint

on the grounds that The Ralston Group was known for its robust and lively

interchange of views.

It explained that Dr Brian Edwards' comments were his own personal views. In reply

to the Association's suggestion of a TV3 "agenda" neglecting to promote

duckshooters' activities, the TV3 Complaints Committee reported the idea as

"absurd" and encouraged duckshooters to refer any of their newsworthy activities to

TV3 newsrooms.

Sporting Shooters Association of NZ Inc's Complaint to the Broadcasting

Standards Authority

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, in a letter dated 12 July 1994, the Association

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

It repeated the points made in his original letter of complaint and included the

suggestions that Dr Edwards' comments were:

... carefully calculated to be damaging to hunters ... founded in pure bigotry ...

calculated to incite hatred and prejudice in the community ... deliberately

personal, hurtful and intimidating to hunters and more recently other firearm

owners ... a deliberate attempt to actively slur and denigrate hunters at every

opportunity ... .

Arguing that TV3 had a responsibility to control the expression of such opinions, the

Association maintained that it was unacceptable to justify such freedom of speech in

the context of The Ralston Group. It added:

Freedom of speech does not extend to publicly broadcasting messages that

denigrate and incite hatred in the community for creeds or groups such as

hunters.

50,000 duck hunters and 365,000 firearms licence holders don't pay

broadcasting fees, watch TV3, buy Ralston's advertiser's products (Ramses

Bar and Grill, the Sheraton Hotel, Glengarry Wines and Politiks clothing)

simply to be insulted. We don't ask for an apology from TV3, we expect one.

TV3's Response to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the referral. Its

letter is dated 18 July 1994 and TV3's reply 26 July. TV3 reported that it had no

further comment to make regarding the complaint.