media/Broadc Web view · 2013-12-12ACMA Investigation Report 3101—2GF Valley...

Investigation Report No. 3101File No. ACMA2013/1288

Broadcaster 2GFM AM Radio Pty Ltd

Station 2GF Grafton

Type of Service Commercial Radio

Name of Program 2GF Valley Sports

Date of Broadcast 29 June 2013

Relevant Code Codes 1.3(a), 5.5 and 5.6 of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2013

Date finalised 31 October 2013Decision No breach of code 1.3(a) [decency]

Breach of code 5.5 [provision of a substantive response] Breach of code 5.6 [inform complainant of right to refer

complaint to the ACMA]

ACMA Investigation Report 3101—2GF Valley Sports— 2GF Grafton – 29 June 2013

Background On 23 August 2013, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA)

received a complaint about a segment of the program 2GF Valley Sports (the program) broadcast by 2GFM AM Radio Pty Ltd (the licensee) on 29 June 2013.

The program is broadcast from 7am to 9am on Saturdays, and provides local sports information for the Clarence Valley area, NSW. The licensee has described the program in the following terms:1

The standard content of the program is local sports information. Some of the information is sent to 2GF and this information is then read by the 2GF presenter. Other information is contributed by live telephone hook-up with representatives of different sporting groups, organisations and clubs in the Clarence Valley. Pre-recorded or live Interviews with sporting identities are also included in the program.

On 29 June 2013, the complainant, a secretary and media officer of a local rugby league club, telephoned the licensee’s program presenter (off air) to inform him that various rugby league matches had been cancelled due to poor weather conditions.

While there are contradicting accounts of what occurred during the off-air discussion between the presenter and the complainant, it appears that they both had some difficulty in communicating effectively with one another, leaving them both frustrated.

The presenter then delivered the complainant’s message regarding the cancelled matches on air before stating that ‘the [complainant] needs a little bit of a lesson in PR’ and that ‘it's a long time since I've spoken to somebody so incoherent and stupid on a telephone’. He then stated that ‘some people have just got no brains in their head at all’ before suggesting that rugby clubs should ‘get rid of idiots like that on your committee’. An interviewee then featured on the program to give the weekly lawn bowls report, at which point the presenter continued his criticism of the complainant. A transcript of the segment appears at Attachment A.

On 2 July 2013, the complainant lodged her complaint with the licensee, using the downloadable Listener Complaint Form. The complainant submitted that the presenter’s on-air comments about her were ‘appalling, ... hurtful [and] directed at me personally’ and described being ‘shocked by what [the presenter] said’. She also stated that the comments ‘lacked taste [and] decency’ and that the presenter ‘[made] a clear link to me personally’. The complainant’s full submissions can be found at Attachment B.

On 4 July 2013, the licensee responded (the response), stating only the following:

[...]

I refer to the recent letter of complaint that you lodged with 2GF/FM 104.7 in relation to a broadcast on Saturday 29th June 2013.

In accordance with the Commercial Radio Australia ‘Codes of Practice & Guidelines’, I acknowledge receipt of our correspondence.

A copy of your correspondence has been forwarded to the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

1 Licensee’s submissions to the ACMA dated 4 October 2013


Yours faithfully

[...]

The licensee subsequently submitted to the ACMA that ‘the content of the broadcast in no way contravenes the guidelines contained in this section of program standards.... there was no use of offensive language.’

It also submitted that ‘the complaint was conscientiously considered and the complainant was advised in writing on 4th July 2013’ before going into the nature of that response. The licensee’s full submissions can be found at Attachment C.

The investigation has considered the licensee’s compliance with codes 1.3(a), 5.5 and 5.6 of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice 2013 (the Codes):

Program Content and Language, including Sex and Sexual Behaviour

1.3 (a) Program content must not offend generally accepted standards of decency (for example, through the use of unjustified language), having regard to the demographic characteristics of the audience of the relevant program.

(b) For the purposes of determining:

(i) the audience of the relevant program; and(ii) the demographic characteristics of that audience,

regard must be had, in particular, to the results of any official ratings surveys of the licensee’s service in the prior 12 months, (or, in the case of any licensee service operating in regional areas, the most recent official ratings surveys for the licensee’s service).

Advice in Writing

5.5 Written complaints must be conscientiously considered by the licensee and the licensee must use its best endeavours to respond substantively in writing within 30 business days of the receipt of the complaint...

5.6 The response must inform the complainant that he or she has the right to refer the complaint to the ACMA if the complainant is not satisfied with the response of the licensee.

Assessment This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and the licensee,

correspondence between the complainant and the licensee and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the licensee. Other sources have been identified where relevant.

In assessing content for compliance with the Codes, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ listener to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower,


but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.2

The ACMA examines what the ‘ordinary, reasonable’ listener would have understood the relevant material to have conveyed, in the context of the relevant program segment. It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and inferences that may be drawn, and in the case of factual material, relevant omissions (if any).

Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then determines whether that material has breached the Codes.

Issue 1: DecencyFindingThe licensee did not breach code 1.3(a) of the Codes.

Reasons Clause 1.3(a) requires the ACMA to consider the meaning of the phrase ‘generally

accepted standards of decency’.

The ACMA considers that the term ‘generally accepted standards of decency’ refers to the current consensus of recognised present day standards of propriety. Such standards are not hard and fast either over time or across all sections of the com-munity.

The ACMA generally has regard to the following considerations in assessing ‘generally accepted standards of decency’:

o the subject matter or themes dealt with: for example, care needs to be taken with material that is sexually explicit or extremely sensitive;3

o the tenor or tone of the broadcast: for example, was it light-hearted or threatening; matter-of-fact or salacious;4

o the language used in the broadcast: for example, was it abusive, profane, vulgar or lewd;5 and

o the attitudes conveyed: for example, contemptuous disregard for human life or suffering.6

Code 1.3(a) of the Codes also requires the ACMA to have regard (though not sole regard) to the demographic characteristics of the audience of the relevant program.

The licensee operates its service in regional areas including Grafton and the Clarence Valley area in NSW. The licensee has submitted that ‘official rating surveys are not conducted in country markets such as that serviced by 2GF Grafton. Therefore, no audience listening figures are available.’

While the licensee was unable to provide survey results for the audience demographic of the program, it submitted that ‘the station and program demographic is adult males and females interested in local sports events and results’ and that ‘the demographic

2 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) NSWLR 158 at 164-1673 For example, ABA Investigation 1270, and ACMA Investigations 1628 and 2266.4 For example, ACMA Investigation 2751 and 2848.5 For example, ACMA Investigations 1628, 1717 and 2848.6 For example, ABA Investigation 1270 and ACMA Investigations 2598 and 2848.


audience of 2GF is male and female 39 years +’. The ACMA accepts that the licensee’s target audience generally comprises male and female adults.

In relation to the material broadcast, the ACMA considers that it was apparent that the presenter was reacting to an off-air exchange, which had left him irritated.

In this regard, the ACMA notes that during the segment, the presenter:

o Described the complainant as ‘incoherent and stupid’;

o Implied that she had ‘no brains in [her] head at all’;

o Called the complainant an ‘idiot’ and suggested that her rugby club should ‘get rid of’ her;

o Called her an ‘incoherent fool’;

o Implied that people like the complainant ‘destroy junior sporting organisations’;

o Performed a mock imitation of the complainant, making her appear stupid and incapable.

The ACMA acknowledges that the complainant was offended by the portrayal of her during the segment, which was regrettable and ill-considered on the part of the presenter.

However, for the purposes of code 1.3(a) of the Codes, and taking into account the likely audience of the program, the ACMA is satisfied that the content did not offend generally accepted standards of decency.

The ACMA notes:

o The segment did not feature any coarse or indecent language in the sense contemplated by the Codes;

o While the presenter was criticising the complainant, the tone of his words could not be described as threatening, vulgar or lewd;

o The broadcast did not contain material of the type which is inherently indecent, for example material that was sexually explicit or otherwise extremely sensitive, or gravely disrespectful of a person, vulgar in its use of language, or which conveyed contemptuous disregard for human life or suffering;

o Although the remarks made by the presenter could be described as discourteous and insulting, they did not become increasingly crude or abusive, and did not have a sufficiently strong cumulative impact to have offended generally accepted standards of decency.

The ACMA is satisfied that the content broadcast did not contain elements that were so offensive as to have offended generally accepted standards of decency and that accordingly, the licensee did not breach clause 1.3(a) of the Code.


Issue 2: Complaints handlingFindingThe licensee breached codes 5.5 and 5.6 of the Codes.

Reasons The ACMA is satisfied that the complainant’s complaint to the licensee was a valid

code complaint that warranted a substantive response. The complainant lodged her complaint using the official Commercial Radio Australia complaints form, adequately identified the material broadcast, disclosed her personal details, and indicated that she was alleging a breach of the Code.

As noted above, the licensee did respond to the complainant two days after her complaint had been lodged.

The ACMA considers, however, that the nature of this response did not discharge the licensee of its obligations under codes 5.5 and 5.6.

Code 5.5 requires that a licensee ‘conscientiously consider’ and respond ‘substantively’ to complaints. Such a response must include some attempt to directly address a complainant’s specific code concerns, and must show that a licensee has turned its mind to the broadcast in question and its compliance with the Codes.

As can be seen above, the response featured no such attempts. Mere acknowledgement of receipt of a complaint is insufficient in meeting this requirement. The ACMA accordingly considers the response to have been inadequate for the purposes of code 5.5.

In relation to code 5.6, the licensee submitted that it forwarded the complainant’s complaint to the ACMA, and informed the complainant that it had done so in the response. It is also submitted that ‘as the complainant indicated that she had already sent a copy of her correspondence including her complaint to the ACMA, other individuals and agencies, it was considered there was no necessity for [the licensee] to advise her to do this.’

The ACMA notes that the fact that the complainant had indicated to the licensee that she had already sent her complaint to the ACMA does not absolve the licensee of its obligations under code 5.6. The code is headed ‘Advice in writing’ and is plain and unambiguous in describing licensees’ obligations in relation to this issue, including that written responses must include a clear statement that complaints may be referred to the ACMA should the response be deemed inadequate.

The ACMA notes that it did not receive a copy of the complaint from the licensee, despite the licensee’s claims that it had forwarded the complaint to the ACMA. In any event, forwarding complaints to the ACMA is not an obligation on licensees under the Codes.

Accordingly, the licensee breached codes 5.5 and 5.6 of the Codes.


Attachment ATranscript of the segmentPresenter – Now, a little bit of early rugby league news: the [name of rugby club], the junior rugby league, games at [location], under 10s, under 13s cancelled today. And err, gee whiz, the person who called from the [name of rugby club] needs a little bit of a lesson in PR. Representing the club, you're not doing your club many favours. But gee, I've - in a long time - it's a long time since I've spoken to somebody so incoherent and stupid on a telephone as the person who... errr, left that message. But for the benefit of the youngsters playing the game, we finally got the message and that is - it's pretty simple - the [name of rugby club] games cancelled today because of the weather conditions. Pretty simple, it's not brain surgery. But gee whiz, some people have just got no brains in their head at all. And they wonder why they destroy junior errr, sporting organisations. They get rid of idiots like that on your committee [sic]. It's 11 minutes past seven. Righto. That's our little errr, beef for today. Let's talk about lawn bowls and the man who's always got all the good news for us, [interviewee]. Morning, [interviewee’s name].

Interviewee - Good morning. How are you?

Presenter - I'm very good. Thank you.

Interviewee - Oh well, you do get - I get like that sometimes.

Presenter - But you get these incoherent fools, and she's...

Interviewee – Yeah, I know!

Presenter - ...the person’s talking on a hands-free. I said pick up the damn phone and speak into – ‘oh, I don't know how to do that.’

Interviewee – Oh, God.

Presenter - You know, it's not - that's not brain surgery.

Interviewee - No, it's not.

Presenter – You know?

Interviewee – Oh, well. [Unintelligible].

Presenter – Yeah, you go for your life, mate. I’ll sit here – I’ll have a Beck’s powder and a cup of tea.

Interviewee – Yeah, good idea.

Presenter – Righto.

Interviewee – Ok. Good morning, lawn bowlers...


Attachment B

Complainant’s submissions

The complainant submitted the following (relevantly):

I am writing to formally complain about my dealings with [the presenter] and the appalling, hurtful comments directed at me personally on air at the a.m. on Saturday 29th June, 2013.

I rang Radio 2GF on behalf of [a rugby club] to make a Community announcement...

At the outset I introduced myself with my name and my official standing with the [rugby club]. I also requested to have [the presenter] provide an announcement that the football in [location] was no longer on. From the outset [the presenter] was quite rude and abrupt which shocked me as he is usually so helpful when I’ve spoke with him on prior occasions. [The presenter] was doing a favour for the Club by making the proposed announcement so I hadn’t any reason to be rude, abusive or terse with him, I gave him no reason to demean me or reduce me to tears which he successfully did both on the phone and then on air.

During this discussion with [the presenter]:

Firstly I hadn’t heard whom I was speaking with and requested a name, this lead to a tirade as to my intellectual ability to listen, speak, or understand English. I was actually wandering if I was speaking with someone from 2GF let alone [the presenter]. He claimed that he’d said his name at the outset however; neither [my husband] or I can recall that having been said.

Not being used to being spoken too in such a rude and obnoxious manner I became stressed and yes I became confused as to the context and content of the message that I was trying to have broadcast by 2GF. Everything I said [the presenter] seemed to belittle or rebuff me. I became stressed, nervous and upset. It seemed that anything I suggested was not acceptable as I was given a lesson on the modern English language of which [the presenter] obviously considers himself an expert. I am a volunteer trying to assist my community by supplying a sport for children. I believed that I had been courteous and respectful from the beginning. I thought the message that I was trying to impart was both clear and precise. However from what was said on the air about me by [the presenter], lacked taste, decency, accuracy or fairness [sic]. This will be clearly evident on the tape recordings taken on the date and time aforementioned. When [the presenter] was showing his dislike with my message, I said sorry what do you want??? He then abruptly stated “Just email it in this is ridiculous”. And I said please I just need to get this message out to all our parents really quickly. He allowed me to continue, in which, I said “Sorry do you just want me to be more specific?”, in which I received a ‘grunt’ in return.

Finally I had got the message he wanted out:” It read to the effect “[the rugby teams] playing at [location] today, games are cancelled”. [The presenter] replied with some adverse comment and advised me that he was having trouble putting pen to paper to record the message to be relayed in the media.

He still seemed annoyed to be taking the message down and then proceeded to instruct me as to the proper use for talking on the telephone he then gave me an in-depth ‘lesson’ on how to hold a handset up to my ear, listen through it and talk into it, you listen to the person talking, so I apologised for maybe not listening to him effectively as I was on speaker phone.

Questioned my association with [the rugby club] and my role in being able to provide such a message on this station (2GF). When I responded as a significant committee member he continued to question what my role was...President, Secretary, Treasurer etc. When in my opinion, it doesn’t matter who I am whether I’m a parent, a player, all I was doing was


trying to get the message out there to the [location] teams that junior rugby league in [location] was cancelled.

When I finally plucked up the courage to say something to [the presenter] about his manner, he shot me down even more by turning it onto me and saying that I was the rudest person he has spoken to. I then replied with, “Funny you should say that as I actually know you are by far the rudest person I have ever encountered in my life”. Then he rambled on and hung up on me.

Basically the entire time I was on my back foot, so to say feeling intimidated and nervous and it was all about putting a community message forward to our parents, their families and players to save them unnecessary travel. One would think [the presenter] would have better communication skills to someone being in a Community based station for so long.

[...]

My family and I turned the Radio on (we have a 10 year old and 7 year old) to listen to the community message. We were all shocked by what [the presenter] said after the announcement about me. Both of our sons realised it was about their mother and having to listen to [the presenter] ramble on made the whole family terribly upset. We were shocked that someone could do that on radio.

As you can imagine I was in total disbelief and absolutely devastated as the entire rant was directed about me. My boys were upset by the commotion as well. My emotions were uncontrollable as this was positively not only the most embarrassing event to take place in my life but so belittling and unwarranted. To think that I was doing a Community message and then to be publically defamed like this was just unbelievable. I honestly thought the conversation I had with [the presenter] finished on the phone when he told me that I was the rudest person he has spoken to and continued on with his slants before hanging up.

My association with the Club was questioned by [the presenter] by saying basically the committee should get rid of me as I am “Bad PR” (as he stated). This makes a clear link to me personally. Furthermore, [the presenter] attacked me personally stating that I was “a incoherent [sic] and stupid woman” and later said mentioned [sic] that I was from [the rugby club] Committee” which again allows the entire community to identify me directly...

[...]

I accept and acknowledge all people and treat people in turn how I want to be treated. I associate with people from all walks of life everyday and I have NEVER, EVER in my life encountered such blatant rudeness, disrespect and unprofessional behaviour. [The presenter] seemed to be able to ridicule me publically, question my intelligence, tarnish my reputation and livelihood and emotionally set my life on another roller coaster.

...I feel [the presenter] needs to rethink how he deals with people and certainly be more respectful of other people, their feelings and be made accountable for what he says and his actions. His comments were totally fictitious, un-called for and inhumane.

[...]


Attachment C

Licensee’s submissions

On 16 September 2013, the licensee submitted the following to the ACMA in relation to code 1.3(a) of the Codes:

It is submitted that the content of the broadcast in no way contravenes the guidelines contained in this section of program standards. The station and program demographic is adult males and females interested in local sports events and results.

The audio recording of the broadcast confirms that there was no use of offensive language.

[...]

2GF has a format of talkback, news, sport and information.

The demographic audience of 2GF is male and female 39 years +

Official rating surveys are not conducted in country markets such as that serviced by 2GF Grafton. Therefore, no audience listening figures are available.

[...]

At most country radio stations the person doing an air-shift also answers the telephone which is the case in this instance. When the complainant called it was at a point half-way through the four minute 7am news bulletin. Therefore I had less than two minutes to prepare for and read local weather information. The caller was not making sense and showed no sign of getting to the point of the call despite being advised that I needed her to give me the precise details of the message that she wanted broadcast. She was being vague, long-winded and totally inconsiderate of my situation despite numerous requests for the information that she wanted me to broadcast. In addition to this, she was using her telephone ‘hands-free’ while talking to me. At the same time as she was speaking with me, she was talking to other people who were with her.

A considerable amount of the allegations made by the complainant are inaccurate, and different to my recollection of the telephone conversation.

The licensee also submitted the following in relation to complaints-handling issues:

5.5 It is submitted that the complaint was conscientiously considered and the complainant was advised in writing on 4th July 2013, or two days after the complaint was lodged with 2GF. That letter acknowledged receipt of the complaint and also that the complaint had been forwarded to the ACMA for information purposes and further action if deemed necessary by the ACMA.

I did not respond to the complainant in any other way being aware of a considerable number of inaccuracies that had been made in the complaint. The complainant’s recollection of the telephone discussion that took place on the 29th June 2013 is vastly different to what I recall took place.

Based on my forty-five years experience of working as a broadcaster and journalist in the commercial broadcasting industry, I considered the broadcast was not in breach of the ‘Codes of Practice and Guidelines’.

If I erred in my considered opinion and assumption, I offer my sincere apologies to the ACMA.


5.6 As the complainant indicated that she had already sent a copy of her correspondence including her complaint to the ACMA, other individuals and agencies, it was considered there was no necessity for me to advise her to do this.


media/Broadc Web view · 2013-12-12ACMA Investigation Report 3101—2GF Valley...

Documents

Transcript of media/Broadc Web view · 2013-12-12ACMA Investigation Report 3101—2GF Valley...