BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

In headlining the items to be covered on the next half hour, a Morning Report presenter

ad-libbed after the statement "The British are coming" with the comment "Some

people would say there are too many here already". The comment was made at about

8.30am on 4 February 1997.

Mr Lucy complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the remark was

offensive, inaccurate, unprofessional and encouraged discrimination against the British.

Arguing that the "throw-away" remark neither endangered good taste, nor was unjust

or unfair, RNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision, Mr Lucy referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

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

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to 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.

The headlines of the issues to be covered in the final half hour of Morning Report on 4

February included the statement, "The British are coming". As an aside, the presenter

added, "Some people would say there are too many here already."

Mr Lucy complained to RNZ that the remark was not only offensive, inaccurate and

unprofessional, but that it encouraged discrimination.

RNZ assessed the complaint against standards R2 and R5 of the Radio Code of

Broadcasting Practice which require broadcasters to:

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.

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

programme.

Noting that the remark was made by one presenter who was obviously British, as was

disclosed by his accent, RNZ maintained that the "throw-away" comment neither

endangered good taste, nor was it unjust or unfair.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Lucy did not accept that the

presenter's accent disclosed that he was British. Further, he said, as was apparent in

his letter of complaint, he alleged a breach of standard R14. It requires broadcasters:

R14  To avoid portraying people in a manner that 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

beliefs. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of

material which is

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of serious opinion, or

iii) in the legitimate use of humour or satire.

In its report to the Authority, RNZ explained that it had not assessed the complaint

under standard R14 because it did not believe that it was applicable. It stated that it

had arrived at that conclusion on the basis that the British nationality was not a

grouping to which the standard applied and, moreover, if the standard was applicable,

the comment was exempt in view of the reference to the legitimate use of humour.

In his final comment to the Authority, Mr Lucy argued that RNZ:

... should be above this sort of remark whoever makes it and regardless of the

circumstances, as it is open to misinterpretation.

He also considered that nationality should be included as one of the categories to

which standard R14 should apply.

The Authority is divided as to whether it was obvious from the presenter's accent

that he was British. However, it does not consider his nationality is relevant to its

determination of the complaint. Further, regardless of whether nationality is a

category to which standard R14 should apply, the Authority concludes that the

comment does not contravene the standard in view of the exemption for the legitimate

use of humour.

In the Authority's opinion the comment complained about was an off-the-cuff remark

which was not meant to be malicious in any way, but was made in an attempt to be

flippant. It was a remark which the Authority considers may have been somewhat

inane, but it was not a remark which seriously threatened the standards relating to

good taste and fairness and, consequently, the Authority concludes that standards R2

and R5 were not breached.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
21 April 1977

Appendix

Mr Lucy's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd - 16 February 1997

Mr Alan Lucy of Havelock North complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd about a

comment made on Morning Report broadcast at about 8.30am on 4 February 1997.

One presenter, Mr Lucy recalled, said "The British are coming, some people would

say there are too many already".

Describing the comment as silly, offensive, inaccurate and unprofessional, Mr Lucy

said that it also encouraged discrimination.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 19 February 1997

RNZ explained that the comment occurred in the context of "headlines" which briefly

referred to the items to come in the next 25 minutes. It noted that the comment was

made by a British journalist, and added that Morning Report's other presenter was

also British.

Assessing the complaint under standards R2 and R5, RNZ did not accept that the

"throw-away" comment could be seriously considered as endangering good taste. It

also decided that, in the context of the programme as a whole, it was neither unjust nor

unfair.

RNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Lucy's Referral to the Authority - 2 March 1997

Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision, Mr Lucy referred his complaint to the Broadcasting

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

Pointing out that the complaint was also laid under standard R14, Mr Lucy said he

had not noticed, as RNZ maintained, that the announcer who made the comment had a

British accent.

RNZ's Response to the Authority - 6 March 1997

RNZ explained that the complaint had not been assessed under standard R14 as it did

not accept that the "throw-away" comment amounted, as required by standard R14,

to a portrayal of people, or that there was an encouragement of discrimination.

Moreover, in view of the legitimate humour contained in the remark, RNZ said it fell

within an exception to the constraints of R14. RNZ wrote:

For those reasons, the [Complaints] Committee determined that the complaint

could not be seen as either having endangered R14 or, indeed, being subject to

that Standard. The reference in the Company's letter of decision (19.2.97) to an

absence of Statutory Standard in Mr Lucy's complaints is inaccurate by

condensation, and should have been accompanied by the explanation of why

R14 was deemed to be not applicable.

Turning to standards R2 and R5 which, it considered, embraced Mr Lucy's concerns,

RNZ maintained that these standards had not been contravened. RNZ concluded:

The Company did not intend that so much weight should be placed upon the

matter of the "Britishness" of the two presenters handling the programme on

that particular morning. The fact is, however, that both Geoff Robinson and

Giles Beckford (who made the unscripted "throw-away" comment) are British,

and the Authority might agree that Beckford, in particular, speaks with an

unmistakable and distinctive accent. The point to be made, of course, is that the

comment occurred to and was made by a journalist and presenter who is himself

British, and neither saw in it nor intended by it anything offensive.

The Company's underlying approach to the matter is that the comment was

made entirely without malice, and that nothing about the way it was made or the

context in which it was made could be taken to negate that approach.

Mr Lucy's Final Comment - 14 March 1997

Because the remark was one which should not have been made on National Radio

since it was open to misinterpretation, Mr Lucy expressed annoyance that he was

being made to appear thin-skinned and precious. If the nationality referred to had

been different, Mr Lucy pointed out that a stronger reaction could have been

provoked.