3LO - ACMA Investigation Report 2554

Investigation Report No. 2554

The complaint

On 15 February 2011, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received a complaint concerning the program Saturday Morningbroadcast on 8 January 2011 by 3LO(the broadcaster).

The complainant was concerned thatthe host’s ‘comparison of animal behaviour to [the Irish people was] demeaning and reinforce[d] stereotypic assumptions’.

The complainant was not satisfied with the response of the ABC Audience and Consumer Affairsandreferred the matter to the ACMA for investigation.[1]

The complaint has been investigated under clause 2.7 [discrimination and stereotypes] of the ABC Code of Practice 2007(the Code).

The program

Saturday Morningis a breakfast program broadcast on local Melbourne ABC radio on Saturday mornings. At the time of the complaint, Dr W hosted a regular ‘pet talkback’[2] segment within the Saturday Morningprogram.

In Dr W’s segment broadcast on 8 January 2011, a caller asked Dr W’s advice about a cross-breed of dog:

Caller:Good morning Dr [W].

Dr W:You’ve got a Staffie?

Caller:Thinking of it, I’ve got a cross between a Staffie and a Pitbull Terrier.

Dr W:Good grief!

Caller:What do you suggest? I’m thinking of the future. As puppies they’re probably alright but what happens in the future?

Dr W:Well, they’ve got certain characteristics which are embedded in the breed, or the cross-breed in this case, genetically. So as long as you’re aware of those characteristics. In other words, you’ve got a fighting instinct that can be turned on. And it can be turned on by simple little things, like meeting up with a fluffy little dog playing in the park. So it’s your responsibility, which comes back to my initial statement – it’s your responsibility if you own such a dog with such an instinct.

Caller:And humans come into this as well you know, not just dogs.

Dr W:Yes of course, all of that.

Caller:All of that. And female versus male make any difference?

Dr W: No.

Caller:Good on ya. Well you’ve sort of filled me in and I think that probably it might be better to own a fluffy little dog.

Dr W:It might very well be. But just take it from me, I once owned an Irish Terrier. Now Irish Terriers are rather like the human Irish: they love a fight better than a feed. They’re the sort of dogs that stand outside the pub while their owners are having a few jars and they get into all sorts of fights. And they’re lovely dogs and I’ve always wanted an Irish Terrier, and I loved my Irish Terrier, but I made darn sure that thatIrish Terrier was under my control all the time.

Caller: Good on ya. Just as well I’m not Irish

[Laughter]

Dr W: I didn’t mean any disrespect to the Irish.

Caller: I understand! I’ve got a warped sense of humour, perhaps like the Irish.

Dr W: Good on you!

Caller:Thanks for your help.

Assessment

The assessment is based on:

a recording of the broadcast provided by the broadcaster;

the complaint received by the ABC on 10 January 2011;

the response of the ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairsto the complainant dated
2 February 2011; and

submissions of the ABC to the ACMA dated 8 April 2011 and 1 June 2011..

Issue1: Discrimination and stereotypes

Relevant Code clauses

2.1The guiding principle in the application of thefollowing general content codes is context. Whatis unacceptable in one context may be appropriateand acceptable in another. However, the use oflanguage, sound or images for no other purposebut to offend is not acceptable.

2.7Discrimination and Stereotypes. To avoid discrimination and stereotyping, content should not use language or images which:

disparage or discriminate against any person or group on grounds such as race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, disability or sexual preference; marital, parental, social or occupational status; religious, cultural or political belief or activity

are not representative and reinforce stereotypes, or convey stereotypic assumptions

convey prejudice

make demeaning or gratuitous references; for example to, people’s physical characteristics, cultural practices or religious beliefs.

The above requirements are not intended to prevent content which is factual or the expression of genuinely-held opinion, or content presented in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.

‘Ordinary, reasonable listener’ test

In assessing content against the Code, 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.[3]

The ACMA askswhat the ordinary, reasonable listener would have understood this broadcast to have conveyed.It considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and inferences that may be drawn.

Once this test has been applied to ascertain the meaning of the broadcast material, it is for the ACMA to determine whether the material has breached the Code.

Complainant’s submission

The complainant submitted to the ABC:

[...]

I wish to object most strongly to comments made on ABC Radio on Saturday morning 8/1/2011 [...].

As best as I can relate/recall the comments made by [Dr W] in comparing a breed of dog – Irish Terrier – to being like that of Irish people – “They’d rather have a fight than a feed”. Actual words used – compare DOGS to PEOPLE. Excuse me!!

I find it incomprehensible that such biased, bigoted, prejudiced – not to mention judgemental comments can go to air in this day and age.

[...]

[F]or someone (an expert on dog behaviour) to compare behaviour of dogs with people behaviour is very upsetting. Surely this has no place in our society not to mention radio.

In my view stereotyped racial slurs should not be tolerated as they are discriminatory. I feel very hurt personally.

[...]

I feel very hurt by these insinuations. My behaviour being likened to that of a dog is degrading. I and Irish people are human not animal.

[...]

ABC’s submissions

The ABC submitted to the ACMA,in a letter dated 8 April 2011, that:

[...]

Clause 2.1

The context here was a discussion with a caller during a pet talk-back with Dr [W], an acknowledged animal welfare advocate. The purpose of the segment was to provide engaging and informative advice to listeners about issues associated with pet ownership.

Dr [W] referred to his own Irish Terrier, and its fighting nature to make the point that a dog with a fighting instinct can have a rewarding relationship with its owner, so long as it is kept under control at all times. It was in this context that Dr [W] quipped that “Irish Terriers are rather like the human Irish: they love a fight better than a feed”. ABC Radio have advised that this comment was made entirely without malice, with the intention of illustrating Dr [W]’s point that Irish Terriers are feisty.

The context of the piece can only be properly assessed if the entire exchange is considered. This would necessarily include Dr [W]’s statement that he meant no disrespect to Irish people. This statement shows that Dr [W] recognised that his comments could cause offence, and that he took immediate steps to mitigate any offence. This clearly indicates that the comment was not made for no other purpose but to offend.

Clause 2.7

While Dr [W]’s comment had the potential to disparage Irish people, convey prejudice and/or reinforce stereotypes, the context in which the comments were made is highly relevant. The ABC’s initial response to the complainant addressed this matter specifically: [see the ABC’s response to the complainant above].

The ABC is satisfied that there has been no breach of the Code of Practice.

[...]

The ABC submitted to the ACMA,in a letter dated 1 June 2011, that:

Context

[…]

The significance of context and the reason clause 2.1 exists is that while the literal meaning of words or phrases may be the same, the effect of those words and the meaning they convey can be completely different in different circumstances. This is because audiences actively interpret what they hear taking into account factors such as tone of voice, the nature of the program, what they know about the speakers and many other factors. Clause 2.1 operates to ensure that the impact of a broadcast is properly taken into account so that broadcasts which have little or no real impact or negative effect are not assessed to be in breach of the Code. Clause 2.1 and 2.7 operate in tandem: the ABC contends that for a breach of 2.7 to be found in relation to this broadcast, it needs to be established that the comment, in the context in which it was made, could have actually caused a reasonable listener to think less or Irish people…

It is our contention that seen in the proper context, the comment is not in breach of any part of Section 2.7.

The comment was a very brief analogy used to illustrate the characteristic of a breed of dogs. The nature of the program is relevant to the assessment of the context of the comment. While the program is not a comedy, its style is light-hearted and warm; it does not deal in serious political or social issues. It could be described as folksy and the comment was clearly intended to be gently humorous in that manner. This inevitably and significantly affects the meaning that is communicated or conveyed to the audience. All the other signals being given in the program are of care and consideration for animals. In this context the words used by Dr [W] are likely to be interpreted as not being seriously intended to denigrate the Irish.

The effect of the comment would have been fundamentally different if the same words had been used, for example, in a discussion about Irish politics, Irish history or the history of Irish migrants in Australia. In such a discussion a comment about the Irish liking a fight might be taken seriously as to indicate some impact on real events. But this comment was completely divorced from any such discussion that would give it any relationship to real people or real events past or present…

Dr [W] made it clear that the comment was not intended to be disrespectful of the Irish by saying “I didn’t mean any disrespect to the Irish”…

It is our view that if it is accepted that Dr [W] intended no offence, it would also have been conveyed to a reasonable listener that he meant no offence. It should therefore be taken into account in assessing the context in which the original comment was made and therefore the meaning that was conveyed to and understood by listeners.

If the speaker had been a person known for his or her strong or controversial views the impact would have been completely different.

It should be also taken into account that Dr [W] is a widely admired man with an impeccable reputation for his integrity and humanity. [...] His reputation would be well-known to listeners of this program and listeners would have interpreted his comment with his reputation in mind. It is highly unlikely, to the point of being in conceivable, that anyone knowing his reputation would believe that Dr [W] actually believed or intended to be conveyed, any prejudice or harmful stereotype about any group. His reputation, therefore, is an important contextual factor.

The social position of the Irish in contemporary Australia is also relevant to the context of this comment.

The Irish are not a vulnerable group who are the object of prejudice or discrimination in this society. The level of sensitivity shown to particular groups in society should be proportionate to the vulnerability of that group. For instance, in practice, broadcasters are much more careful to avoid any inadvertent offence to vulnerable groups, such as Indigenous Australians, Asian Australians or Muslims. There are very good reasons for this that relate to the relative positions of power of these groups in Australian society and the recent history of discrimination against individuals from these communities.

[...]

Convey stereotypic assumptions

To “convey” a stereotype as intended by the Code of Practice, requires more than it being “communicated to the audience”. To be in breach of the Code of Practice it must be conveyed or communicated to the audience in a way that the audience believes that the speaker believes the stereotype is true or in a way that might make a reasonable member of the audience believe that there is truth in the stereotype. Otherwise any mention or discussion of a stereotype in any context would be in breach of the code.

In our view, the audience would have understood that all Dr [W] was trying to convey was that Irish Terriers like a fight, not that Irish people like a fight.

[...]

Convey prejudice

[…]

People often use clichés and stereotypes to illustrate a point without necessarily accepting that there is a basis of truth in the original clichés or stereotypes. Again, it is relevant here that Dr [W] was attempting to explain that characteristics of dogs not people. What Dr [W] believed and would have been conveyed to the audience was that Irish terriers like a fight. We do not believe that it would have been conveyed to a reasonable person that Dr [W] actually believed the literal meaning of the stenotype about Irish people.

Furthermore, the conclusion that an unfavourable prejudgement had been made is inconsistent with the conclusion that Dr [W] was not intending to be disrespectful to the Irish and that the comment was made without malice. It is fundamentally disrespectful to suggest the Irish actually prefer fighting to eating. If one accepts that Dr [W] was sincere that he meant no disrespect, then one cannot conclude that he actually held this unfavourable prejudgement and that it was conveyed to the audience.

[…]

Finding

The delegatefinds that the broadcasterdid not breach clause 2.7 of the Code.

Reasons

The delegate considers that the ordinary, reasonable listener would have understood that the broadcast involved Dr W, as a vet and animal welfare advocate, advising a caller on the best approach to handle a dog which was a ‘cross between a Staffie and a Pitbull Terrier’.

In this context, Dr W described Irish Terriers as follows:

Now Irish Terriers are rather like the human Irish: they love a fight better than a feed. They’re the sort of dogs that stand outside the pub while their owners are having a few jars and they get into all sorts of fights.

The ordinary, reasonable listener would have understood Dr W’s comment to convey, among other things, that Irish people and Irish Terriers like to fight.

Clause 2.1 of the Code provides that ‘the guiding principle in the application of the general content codes is context. What is unacceptable in one context may be appropriate and acceptable in another. However, the useof language, sound or images for no other purpose but to offend is not acceptable.

Clause 2.7 of the Code contains a two-stage test. The first test is to determine whether the material that was broadcast included language or images which:

disparage or discriminate against any person or group on grounds such as race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, disability or sexual preference; marital, parental, social or occupational status; religious, cultural or political belief or activity;

are not representative and reinforce stereotypes, or convey stereotypic assumptions;

convey prejudice; or

make demeaning or gratuitous references; for example to, people’s physical characteristics, cultural practices or religious beliefs.

It is sufficient that one of the grounds set out above is satisfied in order to consider the second test. Given the way in which the complaint is expressed, the delegate has assessed whether the material broadcast included language which conveyed stereotypic assumptions or prejudice.The second test is to determine whether the content was ‘factual or the expression of genuinely-held opinion, or [...] presented in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work’. If so, then the broadcaster cannot be considered to be in breach of clause 2.7 of the Code.

Convey stereotypic assumptions

The word ‘stereotype’ is relevantly defined in the Macquarie Dictionary[4] as follows:

Stereotype:

3. a set form; convention; a standardised idea or concept’.

6. to characterise according to a conventional idea or concept’.

The broadcaster acknowledged in its letter to the complainant dated 2 February 2011 that the notion that Irish people like to fight is a stereotypic assumption:

Whether deserved or not, Irishmen have a reputation for enjoying a fight. This is undoubtedly a stereotype, in that it is not a true representation of all Irishmen.

The broadcaster submitted that the use of the stereotype was directed as a comment about Irish Terriers rather than Irish people. In this regard, the broadcaster statedthat it is“commonplace” to compare people to animals and is not necessarily offensive:

To make a simile or metaphor that uses the perceived characteristics of an animal to describe a person, and vice versa, is almost universal in language. For example to describe a person as “strong as an ox” or “stubborn as a mule” or a dog as “like a grumpy old man” is commonplace.

The delegate agrees with the broadcaster that Dr W’s use of the stereotype appeared to be predominantly for the purpose of illustrating the nature of Irish Terriers as opposed to Irish people. Nevertheless, the delegate considers that the program did two things: in addition to comparing people with animals, it included language which clearly and directly conveyed the stereotypic assumption that Irish people like a fight and are generally aggressive.

The delegate does not accept the broadcaster’s submission that the audience would not have been persuaded that there was any truth in the stereotype. While the purpose of the overall discussion concerned breeds of dogs with aggressive characteristics, the genuine manner and tone used by the speaker in the expression of the stereotype about Irish people could have indicated that he believedit was true, notwithstanding that he later said he meant no disrespect to the Irish. The delegate considers that the remark was unnecessary and could have been conveyed just as effectively without likening the behaviour of Irish Terriersto Irish people.