I have felt the need to blog about this based on a couple of discussions I’ve encountered and read on the web and social networks. For those who don’t know, Jon Gaunt was sacked by Talksport in November 2008 after branding Michael Stark, a local councillor, a ‘nazi’ and an ‘ignorant pig’ during a heated discussion over plans to ban smokers from fostering children. The partial transcript can be read on The Guardian. He took the media regulator Ofcom to court, arguing that Ofcom had breached his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act by upholding complaints made against him under their own code. Sadly for him, his case was rejected.
Debate has raged once again over freedom of speech and what is right and what is wrong to say in the public domain. So let’s break down what Ofcom said about the incident and judge it that way. In their report back in May 2009, they say:
‘Whilst broadcasters are obliged under their licences to comply with the standards set out in the Code, including standards which adequately protect members of the public from offensive (or harmful) material (Rule 2.3), these standards should be applied in a manner which “best guarantees an appropriate level of freedom of expression.”
‘The fact therefore that material may be offensive to some is not, in itself, a breach of Ofcom’s Code because the Code does not prohibit the broadcasting of offensive material – to do so would be considered an inappropriate restriction on a broadcaster’s and the audience’s freedom of expression.’
They then mention in regards to the interview:
‘Ofcom noted that from the outset, not uncharacteristically Jon Gaunt took an aggressive and hectoring tone with Michael Stark. As indicated above, such an approach may well not have been at odds with audience expectation for this programme or station. However, this tone sharpened as the interview progressed. Jon Gaunt gave little chance for his guest to answer his questions, and dismissed those answers he did give. Ofcom noted that this culminated with Jon Gaunt calling Michael Stark, at times, a “ Nazi” and an “ignorant pig”. The overall tone of Jon Gaunt’s interviewing style on this occasion was extremely aggressive and was described by complainants as “oppressive”, “intimidating” and felt the interviewer was “shouting like a playground bully”‘.
‘Ofcom recognises that the subject matter in this case may have been a particularly sensitive one for the presenter, given his own experience of being in care as a child. Further, Ofcom noted that Jon Gaunt later qualified his use of the word “Nazi” to some extent by subsequently referring to Michael Stark as a “health Nazi”. However, following that qualification, he reverted back to the original term “Nazi”. The presenter also referred to the interviewee as “an ignorant pig” and told him to “shut up”.’
The rules that they’re referring to – 2.1 and 2.3 – are as follows:
2.1 – Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.
2.3 – In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context. Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion, beliefs and sexual orientation). Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.’
As a side-note, you can read the entirety of the code on the Ofcom website.
Is it acceptable to call someone a ‘nazi’ in broadcasting? In this context, I don’t believe so. The connotations of the word are not very pleasant. The Nazis were an evil that believed in things that were truly horrific. Imagine you were in a similar position – say it was a heated argument with a friend over some ‘hot potato’ political issue like immigration – and you were labelled a ‘nazi’. I imagine you’d feel pretty shocked and appalled, right? In the case of Gaunt, it was uncalled for, even though he did later clarify his term and labelled him a ‘health nazi’.
And even then, we enter a different discussion altogether: what’s the difference between ‘nazi’ and ‘health nazi’? This places me in an awkward position because I think ‘health nazi’ is merely just a figure of expression that doesn’t strike me as particularly offensive. In fact, if Gaunt had not encountered a slip of the tongue and said this originally I do wonder if things would have been different and whether such offence would be caused. It’s all relative to personal opinion, ultimately. 53 complaints were made to Ofcom, and all these complaints were for differing reasons, making it hard to figure out how many people were appalled directly by the terminology used:
‘Complainants said they were offended by the interview and said it was “unacceptable”. They objected to the way in which Jon Gaunt interviewed the councillor as they believed Mr Stark had been treated in an offensive and insulting manner culminating in him being called a “Nazi” by Jon Gaunt and an “ignorant pig”. Complainants stated that this was an “unprovoked personal attack” on the councillor and the interview was variously described as “oppressive”, “intimidating” and that the interviewer was “shouting like a playground bully”.’
In conclusion, this raises far more questions than answers. Is ‘nazi’ an acceptable word to use in broadcast media in contexts like the case study I’ve been rambling about for the last eight hundred or so words? Where do we stand on the term ‘health nazi’ and are we all hypocrites to not be offended by this and yet still be offended at the term ‘nazi’ in similar contexts? This was Ofcom’s concluding paragraph in their report:
Rule 2.3 of the Code states that offensive material: “may include…offensive language…humiliation, distress [and] violation of human dignity”. Ofcom considered the language used by Jon Gaunt, and the manner in which he treated Michael Stark, had the potential to cause offence to many listeners by virtue of the language used and the manner in which Jon Gaunt treated his interviewee. In this case, the offensive language used to describe Mr Stark, and what would be considered to be a persistently bullying and hectoring approach taken by Jon Gaunt towards his guest, exceeded the expectations of the audience of this programme, despite listeners being accustomed to a robust level of debate from this particular presenter. Even taking into account the context of this programme such as the nature of the service, the audience expectations and the editorial content, Ofcom did not consider that this was sufficient justification for the offensive material. The broadcaster therefore failed to comply with generally accepted standards in breach of Rules 2.1 and 2.3 of the Code.
In this scenario I agree with the Ofcom ruling but I don’t agree that the ruling today is a loss for free speech; they seem as keen to maintain that people have the right to say what they want to say within the acceptable parameters that is placed on society. Further more, the ‘nazi’ issue isn’t the main factor as to why I agree with the ruling. I agree with it because Gaunt was unprofessional and ill-mannered. No one should conduct an interview with the overly-aggressive tone that he used.
(Please feel the need to comment if you want to discuss this further with me. I’m quite unsure about how well these points have translated, given that law in general can be quite complex at the best of times. Also, I wrote this late at night, so forgive any grammatical shockers you may find. I’m all blogged out.)
