Investigation report no. BI-204
SummaryFile no. / BI-204
Licensee / Nova Entertainment (Perth) Pty Ltd
Station / Nova 93.7
Type of service / Commercialradio
Name of program / Kate, Tim & Marty
Dateof broadcast / 17 June 2016
Relevant code / Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice & Guidelines 2013
Date finalised / 29 July 2016
Decision / No breach of code 1.1(e) [proscribed matter]
Background
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation under section 170 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) intoa segment on Kate, Tim & Martybroadcast on Nova 93.7 by Nova Entertainment (Perth) Pty Ltd on 17 June 2016 at approximately 4.35 pm.The investigation commenced in July 2016.
The ACMA received a complaint alleging that a topic of discussion on the radio program was discriminatory and ridiculed individuals from a particular group in the community. The complainant stated that she fell within this particular group and was extremely offended by the comments.
The ACMA has investigated the licensee’s compliance against code 1.1(e) of the Commercial Radio Australia Codes of Practice Guidelines 2013 (the Codes).
The program
Kate, Tim & Marty is a weekday drive-time program broadcast between 4.00 pm and 6.00 pm, described as:
Three of Australia’s most respected personalities come together for the drive home. Kate Ritchie, Tim Blackwell and Marty Sheargold bring a conversational cheekiness to the Nova Network. Mixing the day's hot topics with the best of the web, Kate, Tim & Marty engage their audience by letting them join their 'club.' It’s not an exclusive club, with more than 1.48 million listeners every single week![1]
The segment,That’s not pet food—what did they eat?involved a discussion about the unusual things that dogs eat, which led to comments between the hosts about young women in India who eat their own hair.
A transcript of the segment is at Attachment A.
Assessmentand submissions
When assessing content, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the material, including the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and any inferences that may be drawn. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener or viewer.
Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener or 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.[2]
Once the ACMA has ascertained the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the Codes.
The investigation takes into account the complaint (at Attachment B) and submissions from the broadcaster (at Attachment C). Other sources are identified below.
Relevant code provision
Proscribed matter
1.1A licensee must not broadcast a program which in all of the circumstances:
[…]
(e) is likely to incite hatred against, or serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, any person or group of persons because of age, ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual preferences, religion, transgender status or disability.
1.2Nothing in sub-clause 1.1 prevents a licensee from broadcasting a program of the kind or kinds referred to in those sub-clauses if the program:
(a)is presented reasonably and in good faith for academic, artistic (including comedy or satire), religious instruction, scientific or research purposes or for any other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about any act or matter.
Interpretation
Codes 1.1(e) and 1.2 shall be interpreted according to the principles in case law that apply to the interpretation of corresponding legislation.
Finding
The licenseedid not breach code 1.1(e) of the Codes.
Reasons
To assess compliance, the ACMA has addressed the following questions:
Did the program identify a person or group of persons on a relevant basis?
Was the program likely to incite hatred against, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of that person or group of persons on that basis?
The complainant submitted:
The comments […] struck me as being highly inappropriate, inaccurate, racist and insensitive. […] To put this in perspective, the act of someone eating their hair is known as Trichotillomania which is a compulsive psychological disorder. […] In my opinion, we should not trivialise what sufferers of certain mental conditions are experiencing and refrain from passing despicable remarks […].
The licensee submitted:
We acknowledge that the comments may not have been to everyone’s liking. However, when considering the comments as a whole, at no point during the segment did the announcers attempt to incite (expressly or impliedly) amongst its audience any hatred against, serious contempt for or severe ridicule of any persons of the Indian community or persons suffering Trichotillomania or Trichophagia.
Did the program identify a person or group of persons on a relevant basis?
The broadcast comments identified ‘stories out of India’ and ‘Indian young girls’ as well as alluding to women’s experiences of living in India.In the segment, the hosts identified, as a group,women and girls in India and women from the Indian community more broadly.
Additionally, while it was not discussed by reference to its medical label, hair eating is known as Trichophagia(associated with Trichotillomania) which is a psychological disorder that may be characterised asa disability.
Accordingly, the ACMA is satisfied that for the purposes of code 1.1(e) the segment identified a group of people on the basis of nationality, ethnicity and disability.
Was the program likely to incite hatred against, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of that person or group of persons on that basis?
Incitement
For a breach finding, the material broadcast must be capable of urging, stimulating, or encouraging listeners to share feelings of hatred, contempt or ridicule. Conduct that merely conveys a person’s hatred of, contempt for, or ridicule towards a group of people is not unlawful.
The briefcommentsreferred (in an anecdotal manner) to someyoung women in India who eat their hair. The comments described the consequences of eating hair, speculated that it was linked to anxiety and alluded to livingin India as being a potential source of the anxiety.
There was no explicit or implied condemnation of Indian women with respect to their nationality or ethnicity,or,to women who eat their hair in relation to their disability. The hosts did not appeal to listeners to treat these women with hatred, contempt or ridicule. Nor was there anything in their comments that would have been understood by an ordinary reasonable listener as urging, stimulating or encouraging them to share feelings of hatred, contempt or ridicule towards these women based on their nationality, ethnicity or disability.
The ACMA considers that the requisite element of incitement was absent from the comments.
Hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule
Code 1.1(e) contemplates a very strong reaction to the broadcast and sets a high test for the proscribed matter. The use of the adjectives serious and severe indicates that it is not sufficient that the broadcast induces a mild or even strong response.
Some listeners may have considered the comments insensitive, for example responding ‘it’s so gross’,about coughing up balls of hair. Beyond this flippant remark directed at the consequences of eating hair, the hosts did not use hateful or derogatory language or convey their comments in a tone that wasdisapproving of Indian women or critical of women with Trichophagia. Host Kate Ritchie’s interjection, that young women who eat their hair may be experiencing anxiety, indicated a level of empathy towards the women.
Additionally, the ACMA acknowledges that some people in the community may have been offended by the use of stereotypes and inferences about life in India. However, to the extent that these comments may have conveyed an element of ridicule, it was mild and not intense or inflammatoryenough to be capable of inciting listeners to share feelings of severe ridicule towards this group of women.
While the licensee conceded that the comments were in poor taste, given the humorous context of the segment overall and the light-hearted nature of theKate, Tim and Marty radioprogram,regular listeners would have understood the comments to be said in jest and not targeted at Indian women, women fom the Indian community or women with Trichophagia to insult or cause hurt.
For these reasons, the ACMA considers that the comments were not likely to incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule towards Indian women or people with Trichophagia on the basis of their ethnicity, nationality or disability.
Accordingly, the licensee did not breach code 1.1(e) of the Codes.
Attachment A
Transcript of segment on Kate, Tim & Marty, broadcast on Nova 93.7 on 17 June 2016
Marty: A six month old dog, named Luke, from Oklahoma city.
Tim: Luke?!
Marty: Lukey. Lake, rather, from Oklahoma city, has ended up at the vet after he swallowed half a bottle of glue.
Marty: You’ve gotta love him. Have a look at him. Big dopey. What is he?
Kate:Weimaraner.
Marty: Oh, he’s a Weimaraner.
Marty: That’s what he looks like to me.
Marty: He does, doesn’t he?
Kate: Or a version of that.
Marty: Yeah.
Kate: I love those dogs but they need to be taken out twice a day.
Marty: Is that right? They get a bit mental if they don’t get a run.
Tim: As in ‘taken out’, as in shot?
Kate: No.
Marty: There’s a Weimaraner in that funny, you know that dog show movie done by those guys.
Tim: Best in Show.
Marty: Yeah.
Marty: There’s a funny Weimaraner in that movie.
Kate: I haven’t seen that for a while.
Marty: It’s a good movie.
Kate: It is a great movie.
Tim: Oh, do yourself a favour on the weekend.
Kate: I know, it’s worth watching.
Marty: If it’s raining, pour yourself a red wine and make it a midday movie on Sunday.
Kate: What’s the other one they do, that Waiting for Guffman or something?
Marty: Waiting for Guffman, yeah, was it Guffman? Yeah.
Kate: I think so.
Marty: And they go as far back, some of that crew, as Spinal Tap.
Tim: Oh, classic.
Marty: One of the legendary mockumentaries. In fact, THE legendary mockumentary. The first of the genre.
Marty: Owner Chrystal Wilson said Lake saw the glue and mistook it for food.
Marty: Well, dogs will do that.
Marty: She said, I didn’t think anything of it until that night when she started vomiting. Classic dog behaviour.
Tim:She also said this:
Dog Owner: Just a small amount had swollen up into, like, the size of a turkey leg, l mean it was huge. Pretty much took up the size of her stomach.
Marty: Yeah, what’s happened is she’s eaten the glue and it has swelled. It’s like, you know whenever we hear those stories, and they’re always out of India. This is not me making a comment, this is a fact, where Indian young girls start eating their hair and cough up a furball that is exactly the same size as their stomach.
Sound of someone making choking noises.
Tim: Yeah, I know, as their stomach.
Kate: Oooohit’s so gross.
Marty: Yeah, well that’s what this is.
Tim: Just have a couple of onionbhajis.
Marty: Spicy samosa chaat, you idiot.
Kate: But they’re probably, there’s probably all, it’s all to do with anxiety. I’d be anxious too.
Marty: Yeah, if I lived in India.
Tim: Well what are you saying?
[Laughter]
Kate: Well I am just saying that if I was a young woman there.
Marty: Yeah, well, hmmmm.Let’s not beat the fun out of it.
Kate: I’m just, let’s be honest.
Marty: Yeah, well, I mean not everyone…
Tim: There are some beautiful parts though…
Kate: Oh beautiful. I have lots of friends that holiday there regularly. I’m just saying if I was a young…
Marty: Name three of them. Name your three favourite Indians as well.
Tim: Well, Tanya Zaetta.
Marty: Ah, well is she though?
Kate: She’s not Indian.
Tim: Hey, she’s a Bollywood superstar mate.
Kate: Is she?
Marty: Yeah, but I don’t believe she’s Indian.
Tim: That makes her Indian in my eyes.
Marty:Jamie Durie is Sri Lankan so he doesn’t count either.
[Loud laughing]
Marty: Veterinarian Dr Leonard Bayersused an x-ray machine to examine Lake and once he saw the giant glue mass, the dog was immediately rushed into surgery.
Tim: I think we’ve got enough of this dog now.
Marty: Yeah, I reckon you’re right.
Attachment B
Complaint
Complaint to the licensee dated 22 June 2016:
[…]
The topic of discussion was initiated by an article in the news about a pet dog consuming glue, which then raised more generic questions to callers about weird things their pets have consumed. At this point before phone lines were open, either Tim or Marty, (as I was unable to distinguish the voices) passes a comment. I quote the conversation as follows at 1620hours:
Tim or Marty: …it is like you know whenever we hear those stories, they are always out of India. This is not me making a comment, this is a fact. Where Indian young girls start eating their hair and cough up a furball that is exactly the size of their stomach.
Kate: Oh this is so gross.
Tim or Marty: Just have a couple of onion bhajis or spicy samosa chutneys.
Kate: This is probably all due to anxiety. I’d be anxious too.
Tim or Marty: Yea if I lived in India [Laughter].
Tim or Marty: Well what are you saying?
Kate: Well I’m just saying that if I was a young woman living there.
Tim or Marty: Let’s not beat the fun out of it.
The comments that lasted for merely 40secs, struck me as being highly inappropriate, inaccurate, racist and insensitive. Firstly, if hosts are not well-researched in a specific topic or subject, they should highly refrain from even indulging in it to prevent passing a statement that could more likely than not cause upset and hurt to some members of the public. To put this in perspective, the act of someone eating their hair is known as trichotillomania which is a compulsive psychological disorder. It may be related to abnormalities in brain pathways that link areas involved in emotional regulation, movement, habit formation, and impulse control. Some people with trichotillomania may also have depression. Trichotillomania is slightly more likely if it runs in their family. In my opinion, we should not trivialise what sufferers of certain mental conditions are experiencing and refrain from passing despicable remarks that only stems from ignorance about one’s condition. […] I can completely relate to this as mental illness runs in my family […].Therefore, this was a particularly sensitive topic especially for me, with ill-informed hosts making a mockery out of mental conditions by Tim or Marty referring to it as “fun”.
Secondly, this condition is not only present in India but also in other countries including Australia. In 2014, it was reported that a girl from Kyrgyzstan was diagnosed with this condition. In 1999, a hairdresser from the United Kingdom was diagnosed. Whereas in 2007, a girl from Chicago was diagnosed and in 2015, a girl was brought in to hospital in Adelaide, Australia to remove the hair she had ingested. It is unfair to stereotype that it is ALWAYS Indian girls are diagnosed with this condition as stated by Tim or Marty which struck me as highly offensive and racist on many levels. Also, the comment passed by Tim or Marty claiming it was a “fact” was clearly not the case as obviously very little or no research at all has gone into this topic of discussion. To which Kate remarked as being “so gross.”
Lastly, it was very evident that Kate’s comments as to a woman would be anxious in a place like India was indirectly a dig at the country as a whole. Studies have also shown that there are other countries in the world where people experience hardships in life that could lead to anxiety. However, this should not be a pedestal for others to poke fun at, which was what Tim or Marty did by laughing after passing the comment about living in India. And so, it was a sweeping statement which had no basis whatsoever. Being an Indian, I was utterly disgusted and affected by the comments made.
In all, the comments passed in the 40seconds of coverage was so inaccurate and insensitive that it could lead one to believe that your station has significant prejudice against certain nationalities and people with mental illnesses. […]
Complaint to the ACMA dated 24 June 2016:
I recently emailed NOVA 937 regarding a particular topic of discussion on the radio on 17/06/2016 at 1620hours regarding the discriminatory nature of the content and the ridiculing of a particular group of people in the community. This was highly unacceptable to me as I happen to fall in this particular category and was extremely offended by it. I have attached a copy of the email thread between the broadcaster and myself. However, I find that the response was inadequate considering the sensitivity surrounding the subject and the likely repercussions of the comments made.
Attachment C
Licensee’sresponse and submissions