THE
FACTS
CHGK-FM (Fairchild Radio, Vancouver)
broadcasts a Vietnamese program entitled Lac Viet Radio [Lac Viet Public Education Society (Đài Phát Thanh
Lac Viêt)] every Saturday morning. During
their broadcasts of April 23 and April 30, 2005, there were announcements
made which troubled a listener, who was identified in those broadcasts and
soon thereafter complained about them. The show is broadcast in Vietnamese and tapes,
transcripts and translations of excerpts of episodes of the shows of November
27, 2004, April 23 and April 30, 2005, June 11 and August 20 were furnished
by the complainant. While the translated
excerpts in the hands of the CBSC are all included in Appendix
A, only brief illustrative extracts are included here. (It should also be noted that some of the translations
were provided by the complainant and some by the broadcaster but there seems
to be common acceptance of the accuracy of these by both parties.)
woman's voice: [...] serving the Vietnamese settlers in BC,
regardless of their origin in the North, Central or South [region of
1
Mr. Tien has used "un-educated" language to speak about the
policy makers of Lac Viet's station.
[translator note: the literal meaning was "uneducated language",
however, this term is a polite way of saying that the speaker, i.e. Mr. Tien
had spoken using less courteous languages, but not quite "cursing" yet].
Several seniors, who were witnesses, have told us about what was being
said.
2
Mr. Tien had publicly accused the Lac Viet station as "communist-friendly" at a meeting of the "Vietnamese
Community in the Greater Vancouver Area", on this past April 17, in the presence
of more than 100 people.
3
Mr. Tien has offended Mr. [N. A. Q.] -- also known as Mr. [R.
C.], a Canadian professor who can speak Vietnamese because he had resided
in
We regret having to publicize
this announcement and that with the sole intention of protecting the safe
environment of the Lac Viet station
and the reputation of the policy maker group, as well as our volunteers and
collaborators. We hope to continue
to receive the active support from our loyal listeners. This will conclude our section on community
news.
There was a second statement broadcast one week later,
which was sufficiently similar to the one cited here that it is only quoted
in full in Appendix A.
Additional Material
Information
Based on the correspondence and documents provided by
the complainant and the station, it appears that the complainant, Mr. Tien
The Nguyen, wrote directly to the station in March and April 2004 to complain
that the program Lac Viet Radio
should begin its broadcasts with the Vietnamese national anthem and that it
should deal with particular controversial political issues identified by Mr.
Tien, in order to better fulfill the program's self-proclaimed mandate of
promoting a sense of community. The
station also apparently received a number of anonymous letters containing
similar suggestions. It appears that
these anonymous letters generated some discussion within the Vietnamese community
and were discussed at a community meeting held in October 2004. Mr. Tien also wrote at least two open letters
in October and November 2004 (which are found in Appendix
B) about the matter, which appeared in a Vietnamese periodical.
By way of response, Lac Viet
Radio then made their own statements about the issue and about Mr. Tien
on air on April 23 and 30, 2005 (as already mentioned above). Mr. Tien complained about those April broadcasts
on the basis that they contained inaccurate and unfair information about him
personally.
The Complaint and Ensuing Correspondence
Despite the age of the challenged
program content, the initial complaint was only filed on September 6, 2005
with the CRTC, which forwarded it to the CBSC in due course. While this was well beyond the 28-day period
during which broadcasters are obliged to retain logger tapes, the complainant
furnished his own recordings of the challenged episodes and the broadcaster
did not object to their use by the CBSC. The
letter of complaint read as follows (complete copies of all correspondence
are included in Appendix C):
In their two
broadcasts (7:00-10:00 am), on April 23/2005 and on April 30/2005, Lac Viet
Public Education Society broadcasted [sic]
a "special announcement". This announcement
was repeatedly read three times: two consecutive times on 23/04/2005 - by
Ms. Tamy Dao first (not recorded)
and then by Ms. Hong Tuoi (recorded)
- and once more on 30/04/2005 by Ms. David Nhung [sic] (recorded). In the announcement, they flagrantly violated
the listeners' rights of speak [sic]
and made serious lies and slanders concerning me (Tien The Nguyen).
(a) They unfoundedly announced that: "From
now on, we will not allow a group of distorters and destroyers against Lac
Viet Radio to telephone in for discussing and urging. We do not consider them as our listeners
(meaning that we exclude them from our
audience). Concretely (meaning actually),
we will not allow Mr. Tien The Nguyen
to telephone in for discussing or arguing ...."
(b) They blatantly lied that: "Mr. Tien
used uncultured words about Lac Viet Radio board in his talks with other Vietnamese
seniors";
(c) They blatantly lied that: "In the
general meeting of the Vietnamese Community in Greater
(d) They blatantly lied that: "Mr. Tien
hurt Mr. G. [R.] - a UBC lecturer - while Mr. G. [R.] ([N., A. Q.) talked
in a Lac Viet Radio broadcast";
(e) They blatantly lied that: "Mr. Tien
personally called Mr. G. [R.] many times in order to find fault with him,
to admonish him and to deter him".
I think that
Lac Viet Public Education Society obviously slandered me and they flauntingly
violated the right of speak [sic]
and the Radio Regulations, Part
1.1, Broadcasting Content, 3(a), (b), ( )
[sic], (d), (e), page 8 of 19.
[.]
The broadcaster's Director of International Programs
responded on November 10. She said,
in part:
[.] Although there was no indication from the hosts'
words the exact broadcast dates of the programming, we trust the information
you have provided and shall call them the programming broadcast on April 23
and April 30 of 2005.
The relevant
content of the taped programming is only about 3 minutes in length and it
is mainly about an announcement made by the program hosts that you found non-agreeable.
Apparently the same announcement was broadcast on April 23 as well
as April 30 of 2005 and you have taped both broadcasts of the announcement
in the cassette.
On your September
6, 2005 letter to the CRTC, you believe the Lac Viet radio programming has slandered you, and violated your right
to speech as well as the Radio Regulations
Part 1.1, Broadcasting Content, 3 (a), (b), (d) and (e) [.]
After a thorough study of the transcript of the segments you have taped,
we cannot find the Lac Viet radio programming has violated
any of the above regulations.
We do admit,
however, it is very rare for our programs to issue a statement on air defending
their ethics and principles. Nevertheless,
I shall point out the fact that, on top of the numerous phoned-in comments
you had made on air during the Lac Viet program before the April 23 & 30, 2005 incidents, you
have sent letters to Lac Viet on
March 20, 2004 and April 21, 2004, and you have published two full-page open
letters on the Phóng Sự
magazine in October (Enclosure 2) and November 2004 (Enclosure 3) respectively.
Strong accusations were made against Lac
Viet in those phoned-in comments, letters and announcements.
Statements and accusations like, "On the morning of March 20, ... Your
Program spoke about the 'yellow flag' using the same lines as the government
of the communist party in Hanoi" (1), "... you insisted on 'asking the opinions
of the majority' in the style of the Hanoi regime, 'provocative and unfair'
..." (2), "I hope the Producer and all of Lac
Viet staffs will change and choose the correct mission for your Radio
program in the near future" (3), "the 7 of you have sat on the head of the
motherland and the people" (4), are slanderous and have seriously damaged
the goodwill and reputation of Lac Viet
and their producers, hosts, guests and supporters. It was only as the last resort that Lac Viet has decided to issue a statement
on air.
The nature
of the problem in this case, we believe, is the difference in perception of
what kind of program Lac Viet should
be. Due to the training and expertise
of the producers and program hosts, the target audience at that particular
time slot (early Saturday morning) and the format of the program, we have
decided from the very beginning that this radio program be informative but
non-political and non-religious. Naturally
our decision would not please everyone in the Vietnamese community and we
have received anonymous complaint letters against Lac Viet for not displaying the Vietnamese
nationalist flag (former
Although Lac Viet has an open-line segment that
welcomes listeners to phone in, we also have very strict regulations on how
to handle phone-ins and who to put on air.
We advise our producers to screen all incoming calls, be especially
cautious when dealing with controversial topics and know when to move on from
overly heated arguments or possibly abusive comments. Lac Viet
is a live program and we as the licence holder of this radio station is [sic]
ultimately responsible for all comments made on air, whether they are from
the hosts, the guests or the callers. We
can't help but to stay on the conservative side.
Nevertheless,
it is not our intention to upset anyone with our programming. Should you feel deprived of your freedom to
speak on air, that you were never given a chance to defend yourself, or you
feel you are not allowed the opportunity to express your points of view, we
invite you to give us a written statement to address the issue on hand and
we shall broadcast your statement on the Lac
Viet program.
When reading
your statement on air, we will make it clear that the statement is supplied
by you and that it only reflects your belief and points of view, not of the
radio station.
Please limit
the length of your statement to 500 words, content of which should be fair
and truthful. It should also be free
of personal attacks and abusive comments.
Please submit your statement to the undersigned in Vietnamese and English
and we shall forward it to the CBSC for reference and advice. Should any part of the statement appear to be
unsuitable for broadcasting on air, we shall inform you and work out the changes
together. When the statement is announced
on air, we will tape it for record.
Please make
use of this opportunity to let your opinions be known to our audience.
[.]
The complainant was not satisfied with the response and
sent his ruling request to the CBSC on November 22. The broadcaster's representative sent additional
information regarding Mr. Tien's letters to Lac Viet Radio on December 2 (noted above as being in Appendix
B). On January 13, the complainant
sent another letter to the CBSC, in which he made the following additional
points. He also included an additional
tape, the transcript of which is a part of Appendix A.
First, I would
like to emphasize that I am complaining about LAC VIET PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY's
violations in their broadcasts such as the following.
1. LVPES/DPTLV has eliminated
a large group of Vietnamese British Columbians listeners (VBCLs) to their
broadcasts and has not allowed these VBCLs (to call in) to participate in
the discussions on numerous controversial issues presented. Therefore, LVPES/DPTLV has violated the right
of getting information as well as the right of expressing opinions.
2. LVPES/DPTLV lied blatantly
about the relationship between Mr. [C. R.] and Mr. Tien The Nguyen (Mr. Tien
has not known Mr. [C.]'s telephone number). Being on air, Mr. [C.] only gave Mr. Nguyen
the email address [.]. You can check
the fact with Mr. [R.].
3. LVPES/DPTLV presented unfairly
many public controversial issues in Vietnamese British Columbians community;
LVPES/DPTLV were frequently allotting more time and allowing more expressing-turns
in the discussions on controversial issues to get more support for LVPES/DPTLV's
point of view and to suppress the con side.
4. LVPES/DPTLV frequently
used and broadcasted coarse, aggressive and abusive languages in their broadcasts
criticizing and attacking the opponents.
5. LVPES/DPTLV frequently
encouraged anonymous callers-in (no names cited, no phone numbers cited) to
criticize and to attack its opponents in almost all discussions on controversial
issues presented.
Secondly, I
would like to inform you that I sent to you by post one more audio tape, containing
recorded witnesses supporting my above-stated points. [.]
Thirdly, [.]
I would like also to advise that you need not dealing [sic] with the controversial issues in the Vietnamese Canadian community
contained in the taped broadcasts, although they really are the main causes
of the conflicts in the Vietnamese British Columbians community.
Fourthly, based
on their behaviour, I think no one of the LVPES/ DPTLV's staffs/members (including
the president/the director) has the relevant qualification requested by the
standards of CRTC and of CBSC. Probably,
they committed mistakes because they did not read even did not understand
the CRTC's Radio Regulations and
the CBSC Codes. [.]
THE
DECISION
The B.C. Regional Panel examined the complaint under
the following provisions of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters' (CAB)
Code of Ethics:
CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 6 - Full, Fair and Proper Presentation
It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion,
comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each
broadcaster. This principle shall apply
to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public
affairs, magazine, talk, call-in, interview or other broadcasting formats
in which news, opinion, comment or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster
employees, their invited guests or callers.
The Adjudicators examined all
of the correspondence and reviewed the translation of the transcriptions of
the relevant episodes. The Panel has
concluded that the broadcaster was not in breach of the foregoing clause.
On-Air Comments about Complainants
The
CBSC has had several opportunities to deal with the issue of comments made
by on-air personalities regarding persons complaining about them.
In CKAC-AM
re the Gilles Proulx Show (CBSC Decision 94/95-0136, December 6, 1995),
a listener sent two letters commenting on the treatment of listeners and the
use of the French language by one of the station's talk show hosts. Reacting with hostility to those complaints,
the host broadcast, several times, the listener's full name and city of residence,
and added some outrageous and unwarranted personal attacks. The Panel found that this violated the Code
and stated that,
other than for reasons of personal vindictiveness, there
was no reason for Gilles Proulx to reveal the listener's name and location
(city) on air. Although she wrote a
letter of complaint directly to the station management and to the host, the
complainant did not consent to being
identified on the public airwaves. A
simple communication with a broadcaster, and even with the host of a talk
show, is not tantamount to a waiver of the listener's right to privacy.
Had the host genuinely wished to answer the charges which his critic
had levelled against him, he could have done so by dealing with those
issues which had been raised. Instead,
he ignored the issues and tore after
the messenger. By revealing the complainant's full name and
location, the host made it a simple task for any listener to identify her. It is clear to the Regional Council that the
host infringed the complainant's fundamental right to privacy in circumstances
where there was no public interest, much less an overriding public interest, in revealing her identity on the airwaves.
In CIQC-AM
re Galganov in the Morning (Invasion of Privacy) (CBSC Decision 97/98-0509,
August 14, 1998), the host of a call-in show gave the complainant's name on
air, and insulted her for making her complaint to the CBSC. In this instance, the Quebec Panel also found
the broadcaster in breach and made the point about the disproportionate position
of the member of the audience
who does not benefit from the same access to the airwaves.
The Council is of the opinion that the considerable power generated
by the broadcast medium dictates that the person entrusted to wield this power
will not abuse it by using it against relatively "defenceless" individuals.
The
same situation arose in TQS
re Gilles Proulx comments on Journal du midi (transportation strike)
(CBSC Decision 03/04-0334, April 22, 2004), in which the Quebec Regional Panel
dealt with a news broadcast in which the host had commented on a complaint that
had been made against him regarding his views on an on-going strike. Proulx's comments on the complaint began with
the divulgation of the full name of the complainant and the identification
of both the city where the complainant worked and that where he lived. Once again, the Quebec Panel found that the
disclosures constituted
an unjustifiable exercise of the power of the microphone
for petty and vindictive reasons. There
was no conceivable justification for Gilles Proulx to mention [the complainant's]
name, much less to identify the city where he lives and that where he works,
on the air. The host's actions were
taken in an atmosphere of nastiness and insult. That the complainant had written Proulx directly
was a private matter, that he filed a complaint with the CRTC was also a non-public
act. [.]
It should also be remembered that those who complain
to the CRTC or the CBSC are not persons who have access to the power of a
microphone and a broadcast licence. Those
who receive such complaints and do have the power of a microphone and a licence
must be conscious that those powerful tools have not been provided for personal
retributive purposes. [.]
And finally, there is the other
example of a decision of the Quebec Panel in CJMS-AM
re comments on two episodes of Le p'tit monde à Frenchie (CBSC Decision 04/05-0939, October 24, 2005), in which
the Panel added that "The issue becomes a problem when the purpose is not
benign," which it was not in that decision.
The Application of the Foregoing Principles to the Present
File
In
the matter at hand, the Panel finds that the broadcaster operated with great
care and sensitivity. It was not brash
in its statements. It was not condemnatory.
It explained with considerable care its rationale for no longer permitting
Mr. Tien to have access to its airwaves. In
so doing, it explained its own policy of wishing to stay above the political
fray on Vietnam-sensitive issues such as the broadcast of the Vietnamese national
anthem and the display of the flag. Arguably,
the statements were not even about the complainant but rather about the issues
he raised. They were, in the Panel's
view, an excellent example of the principle of benign usage referred to by
the Quebec Panel in the CJMS decision above.
Most material of all, though, from the Panel's
perspective, is that it was Mr. Tien himself who rendered the entire matter
public by publishing two open letters in Vietnamese-Canadian periodicals.
He focused on the matters of concern to him and criticized Lac
Viet Radio to essentially the same audience that would be potential listeners
of the weekly radio program. Moreover,
it was he who first chose to make these issues public. While the Panel concedes that the specific sensitivities
of the Vietnamese cultural issues are beyond their knowledge, it is not those
disputes that are at issue. It is the
question of access. Mr. Tien had his. It is only fair for Lac Viet Radio to be able to respond. Not only did they do so but they did so temperately and even generously by inviting
Mr. Tien back on their airwaves after
they had decided not to do so. The
Panel finds their fairness exemplary and considers that they have breached
neither of the foregoing Code provisions by their broadcasts.
Broadcaster Responsiveness
The CBSC always assesses the broadcaster's responsiveness
to the complainant, which is a responsibility of membership in the Council.
It expects that response to be thoughtful and focussed on the substance
of the complaint. In the matter at hand, the broadcaster was exemplary.
Not only was the first letter long, thorough and thoughtful, but the
broadcaster responded more than once and also agreed to provide further air
time to the individual who had been so critical of it.
The Panel considers that the response of the Director of International
Programs constitutes an excellent acquittal of CHKG-FM's obligation of responsiveness
on this occasion.
This decision is a public document upon its release by the Canadian
Broadcast Standards Council. It may
be reported, announced or read by the station against which the complaint
had originally been made; however, in the case of a favourable decision, the
station is under no obligation to announce the result.