BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A news item in which cell phone masts were referred to as "antennae" was broadcast

on National Radio bulletins at 2.00pm and 10.00pm on 8 August 1997.

Mr Henry complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the

Latin plural to describe radio masts was incorrect. He explained the derivation of the

word as used in science and industry and noted that a convention existed to use the

English plural "antennas" when describing an antenna as applied to radio aerials.

RNZ declined to accept the complaint as a formal complaint, arguing that there was no

breach of programme standards. Referring to the Oxford English dictionary, RNZ

noted there was no difference in meaning between the plural forms "antennae" and

"antennas" but there was a general preference for antennae. Furthermore, RNZ

argued, it was obliged to quote accurately the words attributed to the newsmaker.

When requested to do so by the Broadcasting Standards Authority, RNZ considered

the complaint as a formal one. It declined to uphold it.

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

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the item complained about

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

the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

News items in which the word "antennae" was used when referring to cell phone

masts were broadcast by Radio New Zealand Ltd on 8 August 1997 at 2.00pm and

10.00pm on National Radio.

Mr Henry complained formally to RNZ that it was incorrect to use the Latin plural of

the word "antenna" when referring to a cell phone mast. The correct plural form, he

continued, was antennas, because in the context of radio communication, the word

antenna was introduced in the late 1800s to refer to masts. By a convention agreed

upon about 30 years ago, he reported, the plural of antenna in that context was deemed

to be antennas.

RNZ responded that it was unable to accept Mr Henry's letter as a formal complaint as

it did not comply with the requirements in the Broadcasting Act 1989 that complaints

could only be made about breaches of statutory programme standards. It commented

nevertheless on Mr Henry's contention. First, RNZ reported that its Oxford

Dictionary definition recorded no difference between antennae and antennas, but that

it indicated a preference for the "ae" form, describing the "as" form as rare.

Secondly, RNZ pointed out that when citing words spoken by newsmakers, it had a

responsibility to ensure the quote was accurate. It added that it had no control over a

recorded statement, unless it be the decision not to use it. It suggested that if Mr

Henry was dissatisfied with its refusal to accept his complaint as a formal one, he

should refer it to the Authority.

When Mr Henry referred the matter to the Authority, he disputed RNZ's interpretation

of its statutory obligations. He considered that the incorrect use of a word was a

breach of standards. He repeated that it was his intent to explain the current usage of

the plural antennas which, he noted, was supported by dictionaries he had consulted.

The Authority acknowledges Mr Henry's view that antenna has two different plurals,

depending upon its meaning. However, it regards the matter as relatively minor, and

declines to determine the complaint in all the circumstances, in accordance with s.11

of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
4 December 1997

Appendix

R Ian Henry's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd - 11 August 1997

Mr Henry of Auckland complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that about two news

broadcasts on 8 August 1997. The items, which referred to cell phone masts,

described them as antennae. Mr Henry said that was inaccurate, and provided a brief

summary of history of the word when used to refer to radio masts. He noted that when

in the 1800s, radio communication became established, it was found that a long

elevated wire was required. The name AERIAL was given to that system. As the

masts used to raise the aerial looked remarkably like a ship's mast, the word antenna

(from the Latin meaning sailyard) was chosen as the most descriptive word. However,

it introduced confusion when the Latin plural antennae was used. Therefore, about 30

years ago it was ruled the English plural antennas should be used when describing an

antenna as applied to radio aerials.

To test his contention, Mr Henry suggested that RNZ should access the data base of

the Public Library and call for a list of books on antennae, and for a list on antennas.

He noted that the Auckland Public Library held no books on antennae, but had 19

books on antennas by leading scientists in the field.

Mr Henry acknowledged that there were still some people who flouted the convention.

He explained that his intent in writing was to educate others.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 14 August 1997

RNZ noted that Mr Henry had asked that his letter be treated as a formal complaint. It

advised that it had declined to accept it as such. RNZ noted that the Broadcasting Act

provided that complaints could only be made which alleged a breach of a statutory

programme standard and that no other ground could be recognised for a formal

complaint.

Nevertheless, RNZ made some brief comments. First it pointed to the Oxford

dictionary which it said recorded no difference in meaning between the plural forms

"antennae" and "antennas", but which indicated a general preference for the "ae"

form, describing the "as" ending as rare.

Next, RNZ noted that when it was citing the exact words attributed to the newsmaker,

it had to ensure the quote was accurate. It advised that it did not subedit reported

statements, unless it was clear that it was abbreviating them for clarity and brevity. It

added that it had no control over a recorded statement.

RNZ advised Mr Henry that if he was dissatisfied with its refusal to accept his

complaint, the decision could be reviewed by the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Mr Henry's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 19 August 1997

Dissatisfied with RNZ's response, Mr Henry referred his complaint to the

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

Mr Henry considered that the incorrect use of a word on air was a breach of standards.

He explained it was the intent of his letter to draw that to RNZ's attention, along with

an explanation in practical terms of the evolution of the word.

He responded that RNZ's comment that the plural "antennas" was rare did not stand

up. He pointed to the Macquarie Dictionary, used in this part of the world, which

made the distinction and noted that his fellow amateur radio operators throughout the

world used the English plural antennas.

RNZ's Response to the Authority - 13 October 1997

When asked to do so by the Authority, RNZ responded to the formal complaint. It

advised that it had sought the views of several senior engineers, all of whom

considered that RNZ's original reply was valid. RNZ stressed that its policy was not

to alter key words in statements or news releases where possible.

With respect to the complaint, RNZ reiterated that even if it had considered it was a

formal complaint, it would not have upheld it. However, in the event, it argued, there

was no programme standard under which a complaint could have been made.

Mr Henry's Final Comment - 13 November 1997

By telephone Mr Henry advised that he had no further comment to make.