Investigation Report No. 2481
File No. / ACMA2010/1523Broadcaster / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / ABQ Brisbane
Type of Service / National Broadcaster
Name of Program / The Armstrong and Miller Show
Date of Broadcast / 24 June 2010
Relevant Code / Clause 2.7 of the ABC Code of Practice 2007
Date Finalised / 17 December 2010
Decision / No breach of clause 2.7 (discrimination and stereotypes)
The complaint
On 11 August 2010, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received a complaint concerning the program The Armstrong and Miller Showbroadcast on 24 June 2010 by ABQ Brisbane (the broadcaster).
The complainant alleged thatthe program was ‘sexist, disrespectful and derogatory to women’.
The complainant was not satisfied with the responses of the ABC Audience and Consumer Affairsand Complaints Review Executive. The complainant referred 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
The Armstrong and Miller Show is a 30-minute character-based sketch show hosted by British comedians Alexander Armstrong and Ben Miller. The program comprises of a series of sketches acted by the hosts.[2]
In the episode broadcast on 24 June 2010, the program contained a one-minute sketch about an expatriate doctor, Dr Tia, in Botswana. The broadcast included the following:
Dr. Tia:My name is Doctor Tia. I live in Botswana saving lives. Do you?
[Puts up achart titled, “principal organs of the lower female abdomen”].
Dr. Tia:Medical genius? No.Miracle worker? Sometimes.Lunatic? Now we’re getting close.This primitive and crude medical centre is my kingdom. The people here call me “mamafat”. How to explain in a way you understand? In the bush they believe in a legend, a legend that tells of a white devil that will one day be their salvation. They flatter me by calling me their “Mamafat”. Ahh, Africa.
[Close up footage of the chart shows that the word “mamafat” is the Tswana word for female genitalia].
Assessment
The assessment is based on:
a recording of the broadcast provided by the broadcaster;
the complaint received by the ACMA on 11 August 2010;
the response of the ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairsand the Complaints Review Executiveto the complainant; and
other sources, as relevantly identified in the report.
Issue1: discrimination, disparagement and stereotyping
Relevant Code
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 viewer’ 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 viewer’.
Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable viewer’ 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 question what the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood this program to have conveyed. This requires consideration of the broadcast’s overall context including tenor andtone.
Complainant’s submissions
The complainant submitted:
[The]ABC have already acknowledged the reference to a woman’s genitalia is sexist. However, they have missed the glaringly obvious that in Botswana in particular – where the sketch was set and where the oppression of women is rife and largely fatal – for a man to be called a women’s anatomical part is a great insult. The same is true in our Western World. To be referred to as a female anatomical part is to be disparaged by the speaker. The use of the female gender as a means of disparagement is called discrimination.
[...]
Given the extremes of this factual reality, the sketch reinforced negative stereotypes of women and conveyed stereotypical assumptions of women’s second class citizenship. Such stereotypes are not factual representations of the female gender’s equality of importance in humanity as a whole. This is particularly so when considering the life-giving importance of the female anatomy.
[...]
There can be no legitimisation of this sexist sketch in that it was/is not humorous to use the female gender in whole or part, as a yardstick for lowliness and contempt. Satire may well be used to criticise those personalities who think they are God (i.e. the doctor in the sketch) – but [...] that could have been accomplished by using a picture of an animal’s nether regions. It is not satire to use the female gender as an instrument of insult.
This sketch was presented as a comedy and not a dramatic work.
If the sketch was offered as the ‘genuinely held opinion’ of the writer/s then such writers need immediate education on the true nature of women and their torturous history at the hands of such patriarchal genuinely held opinions.
ABC’s submissions
The ABC’s Audience and Consumer Affairs submitted in their response to the complainant dated
26 June 2010:
The Armstrong and Miller Show is an award-winning British sketch comedy program featuring Alexander Armstrong and Ben Miller. The sketch to which you refer featured the introduction of a recurring character, Dr Tia, a condescending ex-pat doctor living in Botswana, played by Armstrong. [...]
The visual punch line of the sketch was the revelation that Dr Tia was mistaken in his understanding of the word ‘mamafat’, as a chart behind him title ‘principal organs of the lower female abdomen’ had the female genitalia labelled ‘mamafat’. The humour was derived from the character’s foolishness: not only was he deluded about the meaning of the word, but he was also deluded about the local people’s esteem for him, as they had tricked him into believing they were flattering him when in fact they were apparently insulting him.
While the Audience and Consumer Affairs does not believe the sketch disparaged or discriminated on the basis of gender, reinforced stereotypes, conveyed prejudice, or made demeaning or gratuitous references to physical characteristics, we do acknowledge your concern that the reference to female genitalia was sexist. However, in our view, this reference was presented in the legitimate context of a humorous work and adhered to the requirements of section 2.7 of the Code.
The Complaints Review Executive submitted in their report dated 4 August 2010:
The primary objective of the sketch was the man and his ignorance, with the nickname given to the man applied to female genitals on an adjacent chart. The script did not explicitly express the intentions of the comedy program producers, relying on a visual reference and consequently the sketch was open to interpretation by viewers.
[...]
[The Code] makes clear that the requirements of section 2.7 are not intended to prevent “content presented in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work”.
The schedule on ABC2 on Thursday evenings consistently presents different comedy programs, which will appeal to a particular target audience and demographic, but not necessarily to all viewers. Section 11.1.2 of the Editorial Policies recognises the diversity of community standards and the complex nature of standards of taste and decency.
Given the context of the established programming of comedy on Thursday nights on ABC2 there is no evidence that the sketch “offended to a substantial degree, the standards of the content’s target audience” for this program, consistent with the requirement of Section 11.1.2.
Finding
The delegatefinds that the broadcaster did not breach clause 2.7 of the Code.
Reasons
Clause 2.1 of the Code
Clause 2.1 of the Code provides that the ‘guiding principle’ in relation to the application of the general contentCodes is ‘context’ and what is acceptable in that context.The applicable and very narrow test under the Code is whether the images and accompanying comments were made for ‘no other purpose but to offend’ as well as what is appropriate and acceptable in that context.
The program is described by the ABC and on the program’s website as a comedy program.[4]As outlined above, the program is presented by British comedians Alexander Armstrong and Ben Miller.The program complained of contained 15 short sketches in which the comedians portrayed different characters, and satirised situations in which the characters found themselves. The primary purpose of the sketches was to entertain and provoke laughter from the studio audience, which was audible during the sketches.
Accepting that the context was comedy, the primary purpose of which was to entertain and satirise, the delegate finds no evidence that the material was used for no other purpose but to offend. The material would have been validly construed as part of a satirical sketch of a particular type of self-important and somewhat deluded professional working outside of his milieu and it was therefore appropriate and acceptable within the context of a satirical and humorous program.
Clause 2.7 of the Code
As the complainant’s concerns were focused on discrimination and stereotypes, the delegate has considered whether the content used language or images which disparaged or discriminated against women on the grounds of sex, which reinforced stereotypes or conveyed stereotypic assumptions or of women.
Disparage or Discriminate
The word ‘disparage’ may mean ‘bring reproach or discredit upon’.[5] The word ‘discriminate’ may mean ‘to make a distinction, as in favour of or against a person or thing’.[6]
The words, ‘on the grounds of’ are interpreted as meaning that there be an identifiable causal link between the prohibited ground and the action complained of. There is a great deal of judicial interpretation in relation to this issue in the context of discrimination law. The Victorian Court of Appeal in Catch the Fires Ministry & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria[7]held that the RRTA determines whether the words or conduct are unlawful by reference to their effect on the relevant audience. Nettle J held that:
The question was whether, having regard to the content of the statements in the context of the whole seminar, and to the nature of the audience [...] the natural and ordinary effect of what was stated was to encourage [the requisite feelings of hatred etc].
It is not in dispute that the content concerned disparaged, belittled and discriminated against Dr Tia’s character. It is less clear whether, having regard to the satirical humorous content and context of the sketch and the consequent natural and ordinary effect, the ordinary reasonable viewer would understand that women were being disparaged or discriminated against on the grounds of sex.
It is not strictly necessary to reach to a definitive finding on this issue as the Code provides that the requirements concerned are not intended to prevent content presented in the legitimate context of a humorous or satirical work. The delegate is satisfied that the content concerned was presented in the legitimate context of a humorous or satirical work. The particular features of the program and its overall context have been explored above.
Reinforce Stereotypes
The word ‘stereotype’ may mean ‘a standardised idea or concept’.[8] In order for The Armstrong and Miller Show to have reinforced stereotypes about women, it would have to be established that the program strengthened a standardised idea or concept of women.
It is considered that the ordinary, reasonable viewer would not have understood the program as reinforcing stereotypes of women. The program depicts a comedic send-up of a man purporting to be a doctor in Botswana. The punch line is that the doctor is the source of ridicule by the Botswana people. The delegate does not consider that the decision to refer to Dr. Tia in this context as female genitalia as an insult representsa standardised view of women.
Accordingly, the ABC did not represent and reinforce stereotypes, or convey stereotypical assumptions.
ACMA Investigation Report – The Armstrong and Miller Show broadcast by ABQ Brisbane on 24 June 2010 1
[1] Section 151(1) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 refers to the ACMA’s role in investigating complaints under national broadcaster codes of practice.
[2] accessed 14 October 2010.
[3]Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164–167.
[4] ABC’s response to the complainant dated 26 June 2010 and by ACMA staff on 28 October 2010.
[5]Macquarie Dictionary – online edition, accessed by the ACMA on 27 October 2010.
[6]Macquarie Dictionary – online edition, accessed by the ACMA on 27 October 2010.
[7] [2006] VSCA 284.
[8]Macquarie Dictionary – online edition, accessed by the ACMA on 27 October 2010.