BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Three students at Hamilton Boys' High School won prizes in a landscape design

competition at the Ellerslie Flower Show. Their achievements, together with their

photograph, were reported in the Waikato Times. The news item was the subject of

comment during the following morning's session on The Edge when the boys were

described in such terms as geeks, nerds, pansies and poofs.

Mr and Mrs Bland, the parents of one of the pupils, complained to The Edge that the

comment ridiculed the boys and their achievements.

The broadcaster apologised to the parents and the announcer also apologised in

writing and later in person when it was arranged for him to visit the boys at school.

Dissatisfied that the action taken did not compensate for the distress caused, the

Blands referred their complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

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

For the reasons below the Authority decided that the action taken by the broadcaster

having upheld the complaint, once the offered on-air apology has been broadcast, was

sufficient.

Decision

The members of the Authority have read the correspondence (summarised in the

Appendix). Neither a tape nor a transcript is available but the tone and thrust of the

broadcast is apparent from the correspondence. As is its usual practice, the

Authority has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

Three Hamilton Boys' High students, Brendan Smith, Ross Bland and Derek Hayes,

won awards at the Ellerslie Flower Show. Their success, accompanied by a

photograph of the three, was reported in the Waikato Times on 17 November.

Their success was the subject of comment by announcer "Doc Martin" (Martin

Devlin) on The Edge between 6–10am on Friday 18 November. The tenor of his

comments and those of the callers to the station on the matter was summarised in the

letter of complaint to the broadcasters when Mr and Mrs Bland (Ross's parents)

wrote:

Comments were made referring to pansies, poofs, haven't these boys got social

lives and other equally derogatory statements. We understand listeners were

encouraged to call in and other gross statements were made on air.

According to another pupil, the three boys were also described as "Geek of the

Week", "Nerd of the Week" and "Dweeb of the Week".

Because of the changes in station management taking place at the time, the Blands'

complaint was not given the priority they believed it deserved although the

Programme Director (Ms Jana Rangooni) responded in full the following week upon

receipt of a formal written complaint. She later described as unfortunate the hiccup in

the station's response and advised that she had instituted a system to ensure that all

complaints were referred to her promptly.

In her response to the Blands, the Programme Director noted that she had also spoken

to the principal of Hamilton Boys' High (Mr Jim Bennett) and to the parents of one

of the other boys (Mr and Mrs Hayes). The station did not have a tape of the

broadcast objected to but, based on her conversations with the complainants and with

the announcer, she said:

I have spoken with Martin and his recollection of his comments were that while

he initially congratulated the boys on their effort in the competition, he admits

he did make reference to their posing on a trike for the photograph and suggested

that this looked a bit geeky.

He then received a number of calls from people saying they thought that boys

growing flowers was geeky, he made a point of not running these calls on air as

he thought they were too cruel.

During a competition he was running later, two callers when live on-air, said

they thought the boys were a bunch of pansies and queried whether they didn't

have anything better to do.

After considering the matter the Programme Director expressed the opinion that the

station "went overboard". Moreover:

The boys certainly didn't deserve to be ridiculed for their achievement and I

wish to offer an unreserved apology for our contribution to their distress. ...

Martin has been reprimanded for his comments and is aware he is also

responsible for all comments broadcast on his show even if he does not make

them himself.

I will be in contact with Jim Bennett to discuss a make-good offer to Boys High

if Martin or the station can be of use to the school in some way.

Once again we apologise for the comments made by our station.

In a letter dated the same day (22 November), the announcer wrote to Ross Bland to

apologise should he have been upset by the comments as he had not intended his

remarks to rebound on the students. He congratulated Ross and his friends for their

achievement.

Later, on 5 December, the announcer and the Programme Director went to Hamilton

Boys' High where the announcer, in the presence of the principal, apologised to two

of the boys. The third was absent from school that day.

When Mr and Mrs Bland referred their complaint to the Authority, they noted the

distress the comments had caused to Ross at school and in the community. They also

referred to the difficulty experienced in making their complaint to a person in

authority at the station and felt that the announcer, in his letter to Ross, had not

admitted the full extent and impact of his comments. They noted that the announcer

had gone to Boys' High to apologise but he had taken no interest in the awards which

the boys had taken to show him.

Maintaining that neither the station nor the announcer should be allowed to broadcast,

they emphasised the distress the broadcast had caused their son and said that his

achievement had been devalued.

In its response to the Authority, the broadcaster said the offer to Mrs Bland to take

the announcer to the school to apologise had been accepted. Moreover:

[I] said we would also make an on-air apology if she [Mrs Bland] required,

although I suggested as this may bring further attention to the incident and cause

her son more distress, I did not think it was a good idea.

The announcer, she wrote, had made a full apology to the boys at school but he was

not told that the awards were available to inspect. She had spoken later to the

principal who acknowledged that he had omitted to mention the display to the

announcer.

In their final comment, the Blands reported that Ross was adamant that the announcer

was told of the awards but he had ignored an invitation to look at them. They

reported that Ross remained upset that the announcer, while apologising, had still not

admitted his full responsibility. As for the on-air apology, they wrote:

We did not have any qualms about Martin [the announcer] apologising on air

other than the station might choose to do it at some obscure time and there still

being no admission from Martin of the true nature of his comments.

In reply, the broadcaster said that it remained happy to broadcast a suitable on-air

apology during the breakfast session. Such a broadcast had not occurred so far as it

believed that Mrs Bland had requested only a personal apology at school and that had

been carried out.

The first matter for the Authority was to decide under which standard or standards

the complaint had been laid and the broadcaster's response to it. In view of the

correspondence, the Authority was of the view that the complaint had involved the

alleged breach of standard R5 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice which

requires broadcasters:

R5  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any

programme.

The Authority concluded that the broadcaster, in its comments about going overboard,

had upheld the complaint.

The Authority would also point out that the complaint could have alleged a breach of

standard R2. It requires broadcasters:

R2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and good

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

language or behaviour occurs.

In the Authority's opinion, this standard was also breached by the broadcast.

As it decided that the broadcaster had upheld the complaint, the Authority's function

was to investigate the Blands' dissatisfaction with the action taken by the broadcaster.

Although the Blands raised the station's competence as a broadcaster, the Authority

noted that that is not a matter which falls within its jurisdiction. Essentially its

powers involve, first, upholding a complaint but imposing no order; secondly,

imposing an order which requires the broadcast of a statement; and thirdly, imposing

an order that requires the station not to broadcast any advertisements for a period of

up to 24 hours or, in extreme cases, to refrain from broadcasting at all for up to the

same period.

When considering the current complaint, the Authority examined what action had been

taken to date. It comprised:

* a reprimand to the announcer from the station management;

* a written apology to the Blands from the programme director;

* a written apology to Ross from the announcer;

* an offer of an on-air apology; and

* an apology in person to two of the boys from the announcer at the boys'

school in the presence of the programme director and the principal.

Taking into account the highly offensive nature of the broadcast, the Authority

decided that the action taken should be and, in fact, had been reasonably extensive.

There was one matter which had not been finally settled and, once it had been, the

Authority believed that the course of conduct would amount to suitable and sufficient

action on the broadcaster's part.

The unresolved matter is the question of an on-air apology. The Station Manager

reported that she had offered one but advised against it as it might revive the distress

felt by the students. The Blands rejected it because they were worried that it might

not contain an adequate admission and also about the time that it might be broadcast.

The broadcaster said that the offer was still open and that the broadcast would be

made during the same programme as the offending one.

In view of the broadcaster's offer and the Blands' response, the Authority considered

that the station should broadcast an on-air apology. Furthermore, it should be

broadcast during the same programme as the offending broadcast – ie between 6.00–

10.00am – and that the specific wording of the broadcast should be referred to and

approved by the Authority prior to the broadcast.

As explained above, the Authority considered that the action taken by the broadcaster

so far has been sufficient and that the broadcast of an apology in words approved by

the Authority would end the matter.

For the above reasons, the Authority decides that the action taken by the

broadcaster when upholding the complaint, subject to fulfilling its offer

regarding the on-air broadcast, was sufficient.

The Authority expects the on-air apology to be broadcast within ten days of the date

of this decision. Before the broadcast, the broadcaster is to provide the Authority

with a proposed statement for its assessment and approval. Once approved, the

Authority believes that the broadcast of an apology should bring this formal

complaint to an end.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
23 February 1995

Appendix

Edward and Dianne Bland's Complaint to The Edge (Rock 93FM) - 21

November 1994

Mr Edward and Mrs Dianne Bland of Huntly complained to The Edge about the

announcer's remarks broadcast between 6.00 - 10.00am on Friday 18 November.

The Blands recalled that their son Ross and two other 14/15 year-olds from Hamilton

Boys' High School had won prizes at the Ellerslie Flower Show in a landscape design

competition. A short report and photograph of the boys appeared in the Waikato

Times on Thursday 17 November. The Blands said the boys were treated well by the

flower show committee and by the mayor of Auckland. They continued:

We were therefore very shocked to hear that Doc Martin [the announcer] chose

these young people as subjects of ridicule on his show on Friday morning.

Comments were made referring to pansies, poofs, haven't these boys got social

lives and other equally derogatory statements. We understand listeners were

encouraged to call in and other gross statements were made on the air.

The broadcast remarks, the Blands added, had become general knowledge at school and

the boys were distressed by the unwarranted attention and the references to them as

"Geek of the Week". The complainants were of the view:

This station and announcer have no place on the airwaves to denigrate something

these young people worked so hard on, and on such a grossly personal level.

The Edge's Response to the Formal Complaint - 22 November 1994

After explaining that the station did not have a tape of the comments made, the

Programme Director (Jana Rangooni) wrote:

I have spoken with Martin [the announcer] and his recollection of his comments

were that while he initially congratulated the boys on their effort in the

competition, he admits he did make reference to their posing on a trike for the

photograph and suggested that this looked a bit geeky.

He then received a number of calls from people saying they thought that boys

growing flowers was geeky, he made a point of not running these calls on air as

he thought they were too cruel.

During a competition he was running later, two callers when live on-air said they

thought the boys were a bunch of pansies and queried whether they didn't have

anything better to do.

Ms Rangooni reported that the announcer had not intended to ridicule the boys'

achievement and advised:

After full consideration of the facts I can muster, I agree that despite the initial

intention, we went overboard in our focus on the item. The boys certainly

didn't deserve to be ridiculed for their achievement and I wish to offer an

unreserved apology for our contribution to their distress.

In addition, she concluded:

Martin has been reprimanded for his comments and is aware he is also

responsible for all comments broadcast on his show even if he does not make

them himself.

I will be in contact with Jim Bennett [the Principal at Hamilton Boys' High

School] if Martin or the station can be of use to the school in some way.

Once again we apologise for the comments made by our station.

In a separate handwritten letter to Ross Bland dated 22 November, the announcer

apologised for the comments. He said that the boys' effort were excellent and that

they deserved to be proud.

Further Correspondence

On receipt of Ms Rangooni's letter, the Blands wrote again to the manager of The

Edge (Steven Joyce) expressing dissatisfaction that the complaint had been "sidelined"

to another staff member. Noting the apology from Ms Rangooni, the Blands said that

the announcer should take full responsibility for his actions and "not try and gloss

over the facts". The Blands disputed the announcer's recollection of the events,

maintaining that he had initiated the comments about pansies, poofs, nerds and geeks.

An accompanying letter addressed to the announcer, signed by Ross Bland and the

other two pupils who had designed the landscape, said that they had been proud of

the achievement but Friday the 18 November, on which they had been called "Geeks,

Nerds, Dweebs and Dorks", had been a terrible day.

Mr Jim Bennett, Principal of Hamilton Boys' High School, telephoned The Edge on

Friday 18 November to express his concern about the announcer's comments. In an

undated fax to Mr Bennett apparently sent on 22 or 23 November, the Programme

Director reported the announcer's recollection of the comments and apologised for

any offence taken.

The Blands' Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 9 December

1994

Dissatisfied with the broadcaster's response, Mr and Mrs Bland referred their

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

Broadcasting Act 1989.

They recalled the boys' achievement at Ellerslie Flower Show and the ridicule

contained in the broadcast on the morning of 18 November. They also commented on

the difficulty they had encountered when trying to telephone someone in authority at

the station. They said that they had confirmed the contents of the broadcast from a

number of other sources - including the reporter of the Waikato Times who had

interviewed the boys.

The Blands acknowledged the letter of apology from the announcer but considered

that he blamed callers for the comments rather than admitting "the full extent of his

wrongdoing". They said that they had proposed that the announcer should visit the

school and meet with the principal. He did so on 5 December but, the Blands wrote,

their son who had met the announcer there felt that he had not accepted any

responsibility for having turned the boys' lives upside down for several weeks.

The Blands concluded:

Can you imagine how this whole affair has affected the boys of this age. Our

son who has always gone to school happily has been distressed at the thought

of having to return to school most days since this incident occurred and an

achievement he was enormously proud of has been devalued.

It now seems to us this station can interpret the regulations in this way and they

can in fact say anything they wish about an individual regardless of the effect it

has on them and the onus is on that individual to then prove those things were

said.

Please help - This station and announcer have no place on the airwaves to

denigrate something these young people worked so hard on and certainly not on

such a grossly personal level.

The Edge's Response to the Authority - 10 January 1995

The Programme Director (Ms Rangooni) reported that she had had numerous

telephone conversations about the remarks with Mrs Bland, Mr Bennett and the

parents of the other two boys. She stated:

After Mrs Bland's second written complaint and the letter from the boys I

offered to take Martin to the school to apologise in person and said we would

also make an on-air apology if she required, although I suggested as this may

bring further attention to the incident and cause her son more distress, I did not

think it was a good idea.

Mrs Bland said she would like Martin to apologise in person so I arranged a

meeting in the Principal's office.

Ms Rangooni had also attended the meeting at which the announcer had made a full

apology and had spoken with the boys about their display. The boys, Ms Rangooni

added, had advised Mr Bennett at the time that they were happy with the apology.

After the complaint had been referred to the Authority, Ms Rangooni said she had

again spoken to Mr Bennett who said a display had been set up at the school but that

he had omitted to invite the announcer to see it.

Ms Rangooni also expressed her concern about the way the Blands' complaint had

been dealt with by the station internally, explaining that the general manager had left

two days before the broadcast complained about and that some of the staff were

unaware of who was the new manager. A system had now been instituted to ensure

that all complaints were directed to her. She also said that the station did not have a

tape of the show and, she concluded:

I can assure you that once the complaint came to me it was treated with the

greatest concern and I believe we did everything we could to make amends for

any distress caused.

The Blands' Final Comment - 20 January 1994

In their reply to the Authority in response to the comments from The Edge, the

Blands questioned a number of points. First, they said that contrary to the station's

comments, the mother of one of the other boys had not heard from anyone at the

station. Secondly, their son had reported that although the announcer was told when

he visited the school of the nearby display of the awards, he had declined an invitation

to view them. Thirdly:

We did not have any qualms about Martin apologising on air other than the

station might choose to do it at some obscure time and there still being no

admission from Martin of the true nature of his comments.

In addition, while their son had wanted and had received an apology, he remained

unhappy that the announcer had not "admitted the full extent of his wrong-doing".

They had made their own complaint - in addition to one from the school - as their son

had been hassled both within and outside school.

The Blands also expressed concern about the equipment used by the broadcaster and

its lack of recording facilities.

They enclosed a copy of the newspaper photograph which triggered the comments, a

follow-up press story which referred to the complaint and a letter outlining the

contents of the broadcast given their son by a fellow pupil.

The Edge's Further Comment in Reply - 1 February 1995

In response to the complainants' final comment, the Programme Director wrote:

... I reiterate we are happy to run a suitable on-air apology, this would be done

in breakfast where the original comments were made. I had understood from

my last conversation with Mrs Bland that all she wanted was an apology in

person which is what I arranged with the school.

The Director also believed that she had spoken to the mothers of all the boys but if

she was mistaken, she apologised.

She said that the station had now installed an aircheck machine and honestly believed

that the station had tried to do everything it could to make amends for the distress the

broadcast had caused Ross Bland.