BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Comments from a caller that suicidal youth were selfish were endorsed by a talkback

host (Geoff Sinclair), who also agreed that there were too many support groups for

them. The comments were broadcast on Radio Pacific at about 11.30pm on 3 June

1997.

Mr Warnes complained to Radio Pacific Ltd that these comments were offensively

judgmental, and had the potential to be destructive in that they might serve to increase

the guilt in an emotionally distressed suicidal person.

Accepting the criticism, Radio Pacific nevertheless declined to uphold the complaint.

It argued that the host was expressing his views which were known to value self

responsibility. To uphold the complaint, it added, was tantamount to censoring a

point of view which was strongly held within sections of the community.

Dissatisfied with Radio Pacific's response, Mr Warnes referred his 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 exchange complained about and

have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the

Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The issue of suicide was addressed by a caller during the talkback session on Radio

Pacific, hosted by Geoff Sinclair, at about 11.30pm on 3 June 1997. The host agreed

with and endorsed the comments that people who committed suicide were selfish.

There were, the host added, too many support groups for them.

Robin Warnes complained to Radio Pacific that the comments were offensive and

destructively judgmental. He referred to the many gruelling years of therapy he had

experienced to overcome his suicidal condition, and said that such comments, rather

than assist in the prevention of youth suicide, could well achieve the reverse.

Radio Pacific accepted that the letter of complaint accurately captured the host's

attitude. Mr Sinclair, it continued, was a broadcaster with many years experience,

who supported a philosophy of self-reliance, self-control, and individual

responsibility. Pointing out that comments on talkback – both from callers and hosts –

were often judgmental, Radio Pacific said it would amount to censorship should the

complaint be upheld. It did not refer to a standard against which the complaint had

been assessed.

When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Warnes maintained that the

comments were in poor taste and detrimental to disadvantaged listeners. They were,

he added, unnecessary and inappropriate. In a separate letter to Radio Pacific, he

noted the devastation which "old school discipline methods" had caused him.

In its report to the Authority, Radio Pacific said that people aged 40 plus were the

target audience, and that child listenership at that hour was minimal. It repeated its

contention that upholding the complaint would amount to censorship.

Mr Warnes maintained his complaint in his final comment to the Authority, adding

that he wanted it assessed against the standard which dealt with encouraging

discrimination against disadvantaged groups.

The Authority has noted in the past that it is the broadcaster's responsibility, when

dealing with a complaint, to advise the complainant as to the standards under which

the complaint has been assessed. Radio Pacific omitted to do so on this occasion. In

view of the matters raised by Mr Warnes, the Authority has assessed the complaint

under standards R2 and R14 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. They

require 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.

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.

The Authority acknowledges Mr Warnes' concern that the views expressed in the

exchange complained about were strong comments which some people in the

community would find offensive. It also acknowledges Radio Pacific's argument that

there are other people who would share the views advanced. Pursuant to standard R2,

the Authority is required to take context into account when considering a good taste

and decency complaint. Although it concurs with Mr Warnes when he observed that

people of all ages commit suicide, the Authority is principally concerned, as was Mr

Warnes, as to the effect of the broadcast on younger listeners.

In this instance, given that the comments occurred in the robust talkback environment

in a late night session aimed at listeners aged 40 plus, the Authority does not uphold

the complaint under standard R2. In view of these same matters, the Authority does

not accept that the comments amounted to a breach of standard R14.

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

Mr Warnes sent both Radio Pacific and the Authority a copy of his booklet entitled

"A Sound Education: An Account of Abuse in Childhood", subtitled "Confronting

Suicide in New Zealand". Radio Pacific advised Mr Warnes that the host (Mr

Sinclair) had been shown both the letter of complaint and the booklet. The Authority

considers this action by Radio Pacific to be appropriate and commends it for taking

this step.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
21 August 1997

Appendix

Mr Warnes' Complaint to Radio Pacific Ltd - 7 June 1997

Robin Warnes of Lower Hutt complained to Radio Pacific Ltd about some comments

broadcast during the talkback session (host: Geoff Sinclair) at about 11.30pm on 3

June 1997.

Mr Warnes said he was complaining in view of the host's support for the statements

that suicidal youth were "selfish" and did not deserve any support or compassion.

Explaining that he was a survivor of abuse and a suicide attempt, Mr Warnes

maintained that the only real solution to suicidal behaviour was to confront the

underlying causes. That would be achieved with appropriate support, whereas the

host had stated that there were too many support groups.

Describing the host's comments as offensive and judgmental, Mr Warnes said that

they could instil more guilt into an emotionally distressed suicidal person. He referred

to his many gruelling years of therapy with other suicidal patients, and said that now

that he had conquered his suicidal condition, he was hoping to contribute to helping

and rehabilitating others.

In conclusion, Mr Warnes said the host's remarks were destructive and offensive and

his comments, rather than helping to assist in the prevention of youth suicide, could

well achieve the reverse.

Radio Pacific's Response to the Formal Complaint - 12 June 1997

On behalf of Radio Pacific, Brent Impey, Counsel, acknowledged that the host's

comments and attitudes were appropriately described. He pointed out that the host's

philosophy, apparent over many years as a broadcaster, advocated self reliance, self

control and individual responsibility. These values reflected those of many other

people, especially over the age of 60 years, who viewed the welfare state and

counselling with scepticism. Mr Impey stressed that the host's comments

emphasised a strong element of self responsibility.

Mr Impey added that comments on talkback radio - from callers and hosts - were

often judgmental and, further, successful hosts had to have opinions for callers to

speak about. Noting that he intended to pass a copy of the letter to the host, Mr

Impey declined to uphold the complaint, commenting:

If Radio Pacific was to uphold your complaint, it would be tantamount to

censoring a point of view which is held, in many cases strongly, by certain

sections of the community. Your concerns are understandable and it is obvious

from your letter that you have understandable support for the counselling and

psychiatric services that are available to provide assistance.

Mr Warnes' Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

Dissatisfied with Radio Pacific's reply, Mr Warnes referred his complaint to the

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

Mr Warnes described the host's endorsement of the caller's comments about

selfishness and the excessive number of support groups as being in poor taste and

detrimental to disadvantaged listeners. They were, he added, unnecessary and

inappropriate in view of the traumas suffered by people who might be suicidal. Such

comments, he added, were irresponsible and curtailed the successful rehabilitation and

treatment of suicidal people.

In the referral, he included a copy of a letter dated 16 June which was addressed to

Radio Pacific. In that letter Mr Warnes expressed his approval that the host had read

his correspondence on the air, and commented on the devastation caused to him by

"old school discipline methods". He had survived, he wrote, because of the therapy

and counselling he had received.

He said that he was pleased that the host had received his booklet and added that he

made no apologies for any discomfort caused. He added that he intended to refer his

complaint to the Authority because of the harm that the host's comments might

cause.

To the broadcaster's comments about censorship, Mr Warnes said that he would add

"within reason", as he doubted that Radio Pacific would welcome a paedophile on air

expressing his views.

As New Zealand had a high suicide rate, Mr Warnes considered that everyone,

including broadcasters, had a responsibility to address the issue sensibly and

appropriately.

Appended to the complaint was the booklet prepared by Mr Warnes entitled "A

Sound Education: An Account of Abuse in Childhood".

Radio Pacific's Response to the Authority - 27 June 1997

In arguing that the complaint should not be upheld, Mr Impey on behalf of Radio

Pacific made three points:

* The host's programme was aimed at adults aged 40 plus, not children;

* Child listenership between 11.00pm - midnight was minimal;

* To uphold the complaint would amount to censorship.

Mr Warnes' Final Comment - 9 July 1997

Emphasising that his complaint covered the host's attitude to suicidal illness, Mr

Warnes said that suicidal persons were in all age groups. The host's comments, he

wrote, would do nothing for an adult or adolescent undergoing counselling, and would

be of no help to parents in recognising that their child was suicidal, and not just

selfish. The comments, he concluded, could put people of any age at risk and were

therefore irresponsible.

In a second letter dated 10 July, Mr Warnes clarified the point that he believed the

broadcast breached the standard which prohibited the broadcast of remarks which

discriminated against persons suffering from a disability.