Investigation Report 3074
File no. / ACMA2013/1079Broadcaster / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / ABC3
Type of service / National Broadcaster
Name of program / You’re Skitting Me
Date of broadcast / 26 May 2013
Relevant code / Standards 7.1 and 7.7 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011
Decision date / 6 September 2013
Outcome / No breach of standards 7.1 [harm and offence] and 7.7 [stereotyping and discriminatory content] of the ABC Code of Practice 2011.
The complaint
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) received a complaint regarding a children’s television program called You’re Skitting Me broadcast by the ABC on 26 May 2013.
The complainant alleged that the program’s use of the word ‘ranga’ was ‘derogatory’ and an ‘abusive term for red-haired children’.
The ACMA has investigated the ABC’s compliance with standards 7.1 and 7.7 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code).
The program
You’re Skitting Me is described on the ABC website as:
[A] sketch comedy made for kids for ABC3, starring all-new Australian talent.
Performed by teenagers, the sketches introduce characters such as ... Tattiana the Sailor Girl, Voldemort, Internet Speak Girl, Mario and Luigi, Cavemen, Vikings, Naughty Girl Guides, Bear Cub, the Hipsters, Uncle Vijay, Inappropriate Joe, Australia's Next Big Talent judges, parodies of Twilight and the accident-prone Helmet Boy.[1]
On 26 May 2013, one of the sketches contained a group of four teenagers in a backyard band and who were about to begin rehearsal. The group discussed what the name of their band should be, and which charity they should support. One of the characters noted the types of charities that the bigger stars support, and suggested that their own charity be ‘rangas’.
A transcript of the full sketch is at Attachment A.
The relevant exchange the subject of the complaint was as follows:
B3: What about rangas?
B1: All of them? There’s so many.
B3: Exactly. More people, bigger fan base for Ruth and the Boys [name of band].
B2: The Boys and Ruth [name of band].
B1: That’s smart. I like it. From now on, the Boys and Ruth will donate 5% of all record sales and merchandise and profits, to people with red hair. Okay. Anything else? ...
Assessment
This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant, correspondence between the complainant and the ABC, as well as a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources have been identified where relevant.
Ordinary reasonable viewer
Section 7 of the Code places obligations on the ABC relating to content that is likely to cause harm and offence. This section of the Code also sets out principles which the ABC must have regard to when seeking to comply with those obligations.
The Principles in relation to Section 7 state that context is an important consideration when applying the harm and offence standards and that consideration of the nature of the target audience for particular content is part of assessing harm and offence in context [emphasis added].
The ACMA has previously determined that when assessing children’s content against the Code, regard must be had to the age group of the target audience.[2]
The ABC has submitted that the ABC3 has a target audience of six to 15 year-old children with a core demographic of eight to 12 year-olds
In determining whether the material was likely to cause harm or offence, or could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice, the ABC must have regard to the eight to 12-year old age group. Given the broad age range and the significant cognitive differences between an eight year-old child and a 12 year-old child, however, when considering the likelihood of harm or offence being caused by a broadcast, the ABC’s main focus should be at the younger end of the age spectrum, to ensure the majority of its audience is considered.
When the ACMA assesses compliance with Standard 7 of the Code, it will engage in a similar exercise to the ABC and will consider children aged between eight and 12 with a focus on children at the younger end of the age spectrum.
When assessing the target audience’s likely understanding of the content, which is similar to determining the message conveyed to the audience by a broadcast, the ACMA adopts the ordinary reasonable viewer test. In Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp164-167, the ordinary reasonable viewer is described as:
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.
Applying this description of the ordinary reasonable viewer to the current investigation requires the ACMA to consider what an ordinary reasonable eight year-old child, who was of average intelligence, would have understood from the content being broadcast, having regard to the particular standard of the Code being assessed.
Once the ACMA has ascertained the meaning conveyed, it then determines whether the Codes have been breached.
Issue 1: Harm or Offence
Relevant Code standard
Standard 7.1 of the Code states:
Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.
Submissions
The submissions of the complainant and broadcaster are at Attachments B and C respectively.
Finding
The ABC did not breach Standard 7.1 of the Code.
Reasons
Standard 7.1 of the Code must be interpreted and applied in accordance with the overarching Principles of Section 7. The Principles state that the ABC’s function is to entertain diverse audiences.
The Principles of Section 7 recognise that innovative content may offend some audience members and that the ABC should not broadcast content that is likely to offend without a clear editorial purpose.
The Principles state that:
Applying the harm and offence standard requires careful judgement. Context is an important consideration. What may be inappropriate and unacceptable in one context may be appropriate and acceptable in another.
...
Consideration of the nature of the target audience for particular content is part of assessing harm and offence in context...’
The complainant was concerned that the following reference to ‘rangas’ was ‘derogatory’ and an ‘abusive term for red-haired children’:
B3: What about rangas?
B1: All of them? There’s so many.
B3: Exactly. More people, bigger fan base for Ruth and the Boys [name of band].
B2: The Boys and Ruth [name of band].
B1: That’s smart. I like it. From now on, the Boys and Ruth will donate 5% of all record sales and merchandise and profits, to people with red hair. Okay. Anything else? ...
Where terms are not defined under the Code the ACMA uses the online version of the Macquarie English Dictionary, which provides the following definition of ‘ranga’:
Noun Colloquial (mildly derogatory) a red-headed person.
[shortened form of ORANGUTAN]
The ABC has acknowledged that the term ‘ranga’ is colloquial and ‘can be intended as mildly derogatory’, but has submitted that it ‘it is not always used as a term of abuse’. The ABC submitted that:
The sketch in question focussed on the shallowness and stupidity of forming a band when none of the group could play music. The group were not condoning or encouraging prejudice against red-haired children but instead the message which was conveyed was that people who held these views were dim-witted and ignorant. The idea that hair colour, whether: red, blonde or brunette, would determine whether someone would require charitable support is absurd and would be interpreted that way by the program’s audience.
The ACMA acknowledges that use of the term ‘ranga’ to refer to people with red hair can be offensive. In this case the use of the term together with the suggestion that people with red hair are in need of charity, could have been insulting to some people.
However, when assessing Standard 7.1 of the Code, the ACMA must consider the context of a broadcast in its entirety and whether particular content was justified by its editorial purpose.
The ACMA is satisfied that the content complained about was not ‘likely’ to cause ‘harm or offence’ in the sense contemplated by Standard 7.1.
The sketch was not solely focussed on people with red hair, there were no depictions of red haired people and it did not urge people to act against people with red hair. The humour relied on innuendo and it did not use any literal or express terms denigrating people with red hair.
The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submissions with respect to the ‘comedic satirical context of the program’ and that ‘the humour in the sketch is clearly based around the fact that the members of the band are focussed more on their image and perception of what constitutes a band, rather than on music which was their last consideration’. The ACMA also accepts that ‘ranga’ was used in this context to highlight the absurdity that people with red hair would ever constitute a charity, and that it was not intended to be taken literally.
The ACMA considers that children at the younger end of the ABC’s target audience may view content in its literal rather than its ironic context and may not have understood the intended humour. However, because of the absence of explicit terms in relation to people with red hair, this group would also not have understood the segment as deriding or derogatory of people with red hair.
The ACMA considers that older children in the ABC’s target audience would have understood that the sketch was a comedy and that the actors were performing and exaggerating their behaviour in order to parody a teenage band.
Accordingly, the ACMA finds that the ABC did not breach Standard 7.1 of the Code.
Issue 2: Prejudice
Relevant Code Standard
7.7 Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice.
Finding
The ABC did not breach Standard 7.7 of the Code.
Reasons
Standard 7.7 is concerned with the effect of programs on contemporary groups. The issue is therefore whether the program could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice against a group of people, in this case, people with red hair.
The comments in isolation may be regarded as discriminatory against people with red hair on the basis that the term ‘ranga’ is ‘mildly derogatory’, derived from the word ‘orangutan’, and used here to suggest that people with red hair require charity. However, for the reasons outlined above, the ACMA does not consider that they were unjustified in the context they were made, nor that they could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice. The comments formed part of a sketch with fictitious characters and scenarios, in a program comprising comedy sketches.
As discussed above, the ACMA accepts that some viewers at the younger end of the demographic range of the target audience may not have understood the intended humour. However, the broadcast did not contain any express derision of, or explicit derogatory remarks about people with red hair. The ACMA accepts that an audience of eight year-old children would not reasonably have interpreted the comments as condoning or encouraging prejudice or as genuine expressions of prejudice against people with red hair generally in the context of a comedic sketch.
Accordingly, the ACMA finds that the ABC did not breach Standard 7.7 of the Code.
Attachment A
Transcript
B1 = Male Lead Singer
B2 = Male Band Member
B3 = Female Band Member ‘Ruth’
B4 = Male Band Member
B1: And 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4.
B2: Hang on before we start maybe we should talk about the band name.
B1: What’s wrong with [B1] and the Boys?
B3: I’m not a boy for one.
B2: [B3]’s got a point. It sounds like we are your back up band.
B1: Yeah but all the most successful bands have been named after their lead singers.
B2: Like?
B1: Bono and the U2. Chris Martin and the Coldplay. Beyonce and the Destiny’s Child. John Bon Jovi, and the other Bon Jovies.
B1: Why don’t we just call ourselves the boys?
B3: Excuse me?
B2: Ah, the Boys, and Ruth. All in favour?
[Only Ruth indicates in favour]
B1: Alright fine, all good. Any other issues?
B3: I think we need a charity. All the big stars they’ve got some sort of charity. Ah, Rhianna helps people with cancer.
B2: Lady Ga Ga raises money for Haiti.
B1: And I guess Guy Sebastian does do the 40-hour famine a lot. Alright, agreed, we need a cause. But what?
B2: How about the rainforest?
B1: Ah no, Janis Brothers did it.
B4: Illiteracy.
B1: Ah, MFO.
B3: What about rangas?
B1: All of them? There’s so many.
B3: Exactly. More people, bigger fan base for Ruth and the Boys.
B2: [Corrects] the Boys and Ruth!.
B1: That’s smart. I like it. From now on, the Boys and Ruth will donate 5% of all record sales and merchandise and profits, to people with red hair. Okay. Anything else? A 1, 2, a...
B4: Um. This may be a silly question but, before we start, shouldn’t we actually learn to play the music?
B1: That’s funny...a 1, 2 a 1 2 3.