ABC3 Investigation report 3074/media/Broadcasting Investigations/I… · Web viewACMA Investigation Report 3074 – You’re ... The complainant alleged that the program’s use

Investigation Report 3074

File no. ACMA2013/1079

Broadcaster 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.

ACMA Investigation Report 3074 – You’re Skitting Me broadcast by the ABC on 26 May 2013

The complaintThe 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 programYou’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? ...

AssessmentThis 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 viewerSection 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.

1 http://www.abc.net.au/abc3/microsites/skitting/skitting.htm

ACMA Investigation Report 3074 – You’re Skitting Me broadcast by the ABCon 26 May 2013 2

http://www.abc.net.au/abc3/microsites/skitting/skitting.htm

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 standardStandard 7.1 of the Code states:

Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.

SubmissionsThe submissions of the complainant and broadcaster are at Attachments B and C respectively.

2 See Investigation 2672 – 4 May 2012


FindingThe ABC did not breach Standard 7.1 of the Code.

ReasonsStandard 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: 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 Standard7.7 Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could

reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice.

FindingThe ABC did not breach Standard 7.7 of the Code.

ReasonsStandard 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 ATranscript

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: 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.


Attachment B

Complainant submissionsComplaint to the ACMA dated 27 June 2013

... [The term ‘ranga’] is derogatory term for red-haired people derived from orangutan, an Asian ape.

The ABC in their response to me note that: “You’re Skitting Me is an edgy Australian sketch”.

The show aired on ABC 3 and the ABC note that: “ABC3 has a target audience of 6 to 15 year old children with a core demographic of 8 to 12 year olds.”

In their response to me, the ABC outlined the context in which the term “ranga” was used:

“In the sketch a group of four teenagers are seen with instruments about to rehearse. Before they start they discuss what their band should be named. One suggestion is that they should call themselves “The Boys” until one of the members, Ruth, points out that she is a girl. After more deliberation they happily decide on “The Boys and Ruth”. Then Ruth suggests that the band needs a charity. They note that many big stars support charities, and list: Rhiannon supporting cancer, Lady Gaga raising money for Haiti, and Guy Sebastian supporting the 40 Hour Famine, amongst others. The character Ruth suggests ‘rangas’ and the lead singer says “all of them? There’s so many”, to which Ruth suggests that that is the point, it is smart as it will grow their fan base. After deciding on the figure they will donate to people with red hair, the lead singer asks the band if there was anything more to which the drummer says “This may be a silly question, but before we start shouldn’t we actually learn how to play the music?. They all begin to play their instruments very badly.”

First, I would like to comment on accepted usage of the term “ranga”.

In response to me, the ABC have written:

‘Ranga’ is acknowledged as a colloquial term for the identification of a red-haired person, which can be intended as mildly derogatory (Macquarie Dictionary), but this depends on the context.

and:

‘ranga’ is not always used as a term of abuse.

I do not agree that “ranga” can be intended as mildly derogatory.

The only definition I can find in a Macquarie Dictionary is:

“ranga” noun Colloquial (mildly derogatory) a red-headed person. [shortened form of orangutan]

I have been unable to find any source that suggests that the term “ranga” is not always derogatory.


I agree with the ABC that “Consideration of the nature of the target audience for particular content is part of assessing harm and offence in context.” ABC3’s target audience is children and red haired children are bullied at school because of their hair colour. I cannot cite (nor mis-cite, as the ABC seem to have mis-cited the Macquarie Dictionary) data about the prevalence of this. I can, however, quote one mother’s experience:

“My daughter has ginger hair and she’s the same as any child (just with a non average hair colour). It’s a dark ginger with a slight hint of brown in it, it’s a beautiful colour, some call her hair strawberry blonde, some call it auburn and some call it ginger. Either way she goes to hell and back for it. She has been bullied for her entire way through junior school and now senior school. Even grownups that she doesn’t know can’t resist shouting out and calling her names in the street. I only wish someone would sit them down and describe the hurt a bullied child feels and what effects it’s likely to have on them in the future. They do not realise how lonely and isolated it makes the children feel. It is heartbreaking to see your young child sat there in front of you crying their eyes out, telling you that they want to dye their hair and move so that they can start a fresh and fit in with a brand new hair colour. It’s painful when they tell you they feel that they don’t like who they are purely because of other people. It’s sad that some people see this as acceptable!”

(http://victoria-stephens.hubpages.com/hub/Gingerism-Bullied-a-Ginger-Kid; accessed 26/06/13)

I believe use of the term “ranga” breaches editorial standard 7.1 “Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context”. I believe that this derogatory term for a minority group is unacceptable and offensive in the context used. I will not offend you by listing them, but I cannot imagine that derogatory terms for racial, ethnic or religious minority groups would have been acceptable in the context. Why is an abusive term for red haired children acceptable?

I believe use of the term “ranga” breaches editorial standard 7.7 Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice. The ABC note in their response to me “The sketch is a satirical piece about shallow people who have uninformed views of the world” and “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 ABC noted that ABC3 has a target audience of 6 to 15 year old children. Would a six year old child (or even a ten year old) have the sophistication to realise that because the term was being used by shallow people it was unacceptable? My 10 year old daughter merely learnt a term of abuse that she had not encountered before seeing this sketch. The ABC show “Summer Heights High” has been credited with popularising the use of the term “ranga” (www.urbandictionary.com). Even in this show with (I presume) an adult target audience the term is used in a context in which it is made clear that it is unacceptable.

Letter to the ABC 23 dated June 2013

Before I pursue this matter with ACMA, may I ask for one small point of clarification?

You cite the Macquarie Dictionary:


‘Ranga’ is acknowledged as a colloquial term for the identification of a red-haired person, which can be intended as mildly derogatory (Macquarie Dictionary), but this depends on the context.

May I have details of the edition of the dictionary you used?

This will help me make a fair argument to ACMA in regard to the accepted usage of the term “ranga”. Until reading your email, I was under the impression that the term “ranga” was accepted as always derogatory. Perhaps the Macquarie definition of “ranga” has been revised in the edition of the dictionary you have, as my edition of the Macquarie Dictionary has the definition:

“ranga” noun Colloquial (mildly derogatory) a red-headed person. [shortened form of ORANGUTAN]

Letter to the ABC dated 3 June 2013

...

My daughter & I watched the episode of "You're Skitting Me" on iView - as such there was no specific broadcast time. However, I believe that the episode was broadcast at 8:45am Sunday, May 26 2013.

The term [ranga] was used in Season 1, Episode10 at 12min 56sec. This is derogatory term for red-haired people derived from orang-utan, an Asian ape. The term was used in the context of a school band wanting a charitable cause to support. Other causes (e.g. cancer) already being supported by famous bands they opted to support [rangas]. The implication is that red haired people are somehow disadvantaged or disabled.

I believe the use of term [ranga], in the context it was used, breaches the following standards:

7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.

7.7 Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice.

Letter to the ABC dated 31 May 2013

I have a ten year old daughter.

Like the vast majority of Australians, I have been appalled by the “ape” comments recently made about Adam Goodes.

The ABC coverage of this topic has been typically excellent and has helped me discuss with my daughter why name-calling is wrong and hurtful.

While we were discussing these awful events, my daughter reminded of a question she had asked me while watching a recent episode of "You’re Skitting Me".

In that episode the term [ranga] was used. My daughter had never heard this name and wondered what it meant. I explained that it was a derivation of orang-utan and used to describe people with red hair.

What my daughter then asked me was why in that episode of "You’re Skitting Me" was it OK and indeed funny to call people with red hair apes?


I could not think of a reason why this was acceptable to use this derogatory term to describe people with red hair?

To quote Adam Goodes (pasted from the ABC News web site) talking about the girl who called him an ape: "Unfortunately it's what she hears, in the environment she's grown up in that has made her think that it's OK to call people names." "I guarantee she has no idea right now how it makes people feel to call them an ape."

Perhaps the producers of "You’re Skitting Me" should think about these comments before again calling people with red hair [rangas] and contributing to an environment where it is acceptable to call minority groups apes.

The producers of "You’re Skitting Me" may rightly think that racial vilification is much more serious than calling people with red hair apes.

However, my daughter’s question led me to look a little further into the matter. Even a quick search of the internet finds numerous articles (in reputable newspapers) that document sometimes quite horrific cases of red-haired schoolchildren being bullied and describe the isolation and humiliation that bullied red-haired children can feel.


Attachment CABC’s submissionsResponse to complainant 3 June 2013

In accordance with the ABC's complaint handling procedures, your correspondence has been referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC. The role of Audience and Consumer Affairs is to investigate complaints alleging that ABC content has breached the ABC's editorial standards.

"You're Skitting Me" is an Australian sketch comedy series starring six Australian teen actors who perform sketches about zombies, cavemen, naughty girl guides and parodies of Twilight and talent shows. The ABC3 has a target audience of 6 to 15 year old children with a core demographic of 8 to 12 year olds.

We understand that you are concerned about the use of the word 'ranga' in a skit which appeared on the "You're Skitting Me" program. The ABC takes complaints about program content seriously, however Audience and Consumer Affairs is not able to provide a substantive response to complaints of a general nature. To be able to consider your concerns further, we require further details about the skit, including: specific examples from the program, time/date of the broadcast and nomination of the standards which you believe were breached; and we will be happy to consider the content in context. Please feel free to provide this information by return email.

For reference, the ABC Code of Practice follows: http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CodeofPractice2013.pdf In particular, I draw your attention to section 7, titled "Harm and offence". The principles which accompany these standards state in part as follows: "... context is an important consideration. What may be inappropriate and unacceptable in one context may be appropriate and acceptable in another, ...unconventional situations may form a legitimate part of reportage, debate, documentaries or a humorous, satirical, dramatic or other artistic work. Consideration of the nature of the target audience for particular content is part of assessing harm and offence in context..."

Response to complainant 21 June 2013:

...

We understand that you were offended by use of the word ‘ranga’ in one of the sketches in the program, and that you have requested that the sketch be assessed against editorial standards 7.1 and 7.7, which state as follows:

7.1 Content that is likely to cause harm or offence must be justified by the editorial context.

and

7.7 Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice.


You’re Skitting Me is an edgy Australian sketch comedy series starring six Australian teen actors who perform sketches about zombies, cavemen, naughty girl guides and parodies of Twilight and talent shows. I should note that ABC3 has a target audience of 6 to 15 year old children with a core demographic of 8 to 12 year olds.

In the sketch a group of four teenagers are seen with instruments about to rehearse. Before they start they discuss what their band should be named. One suggestion is that they should call themselves “The Boys” until one of the members, Ruth, points out that she is a girl. After more deliberation they happily decide on “The Boys and Ruth”. Then Ruth suggests that the band needs a charity. They note that many big stars support charities, and list: Rhiannon supporting cancer, Lady Gaga raising money for Haiti, and Guy Sebastian supporting the 40 Hour Famine, amongst others. The character Ruth suggests ‘rangas’ and the lead singer says “all of them? There’s so many”, to which Ruth suggests that that is the point, it is smart as it will grow their fan base. After deciding on the figure they will donate to people with red hair, the lead singer asks the band if there was anything more to which the drummer says “This may be a silly question, but before we start shouldn’t we actually learn how to play the music?”. They all begin to play their instruments very badly.

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. They are clearly not blessed with much intelligence and really don’t know what they are talking about. They do name many serious charitable causes, such as: illiteracy, disaster relief, and cancer research, amongst others, and the idea that red-haired people are somehow disadvantaged, or in need of charitable support, is clearly ridiculous. The sketch is a satirical piece about shallow people who have uninformed views of the world.

Consideration of the nature of the target audience for particular content is part of assessing harm and offence in context. ‘Ranga’ is acknowledged as a colloquial term for the identification of a red-haired person, which can be intended as mildly derogatory (Macquarie Dictionary), but this depends on the context. You write that your daughter had asked you why it was OK for the term ‘ranga’ to be used in this program but not elsewhere, this is partly due to the comedic satirical context of the program and also that ‘ranga’ is not always used as a term of abuse. 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.

On review, Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied that the program was in keeping with editorial standards. We do not believe that the use of the word ‘ranga’ in this context would have caused offence to the target audience who had tuned in to watch a satirical comedic sketch program. We also do not agree that its use in the sketch had condoned or encouraged prejudice against red-haired children.


Nonetheless, please be assured that your feedback has been noted and conveyed to ABC Children’s Television so that the relevant staff can be made aware of your reaction to the sketch.

For your reference, the ABC's Code of Practice is available on the ABC's website: http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CodeofPractice2013.pdf. Should you be dissatisfied with this response, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority: http://www.acma.gov.au.

Response to complainant dated 27 June 2013

I regret that you are dissatisfied with our reply to your complaint. I note that you have submitted a complaint to ACMA, and thank you for providing the ABC with a copy.

In answer to your question regarding the version of the Macquarie Dictionary which was paraphrased in our response, it is the current online version, the transcript of which follows:

ranga

/ˈræŋə/ (say 'ranguh)

noun Colloquial (mildly derogatory) a red-headed person.

[shortened form of ORANGUTAN]

Bibliography: The Macquarie Dictionary Online © Macquarie Dictionary Publishers Pty Ltd.

What I intended to convey in our response, is that there are some terms which are derogatory and they will almost always be intended as such. However ‘ranga’ is not always intended to belittle. ‘Ranga’ is sometimes used as a moniker to differentiate someone with red hair, without any negative connotation or implication that they resemble an orang-utan. There are many well known Australian red-heads, such as: Kerry O’Brien, and the Prime Minster Julia Gillard, who have been referred to as ‘rangas’ and have not necessarily taken offence. In a Q&A program broadcast on ABC1 on 9 August 2010, the PM Julia Gillard commented that she manages to deal with the reference by owning and being proud to be a ‘ranga’. She also notes that although her friends do not call her a ‘ranga’ some journalists do. She does not indicate that this is offensive to her.

Should you care to watch the segment, it appears at about the 34 minute mark of the program at this link: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2971154.htm.

That is not to say that ‘ranga’ is not used as a mildly derogatory term in some circumstances, however as explained in my previous reply, we do not believe that the use of the word in the context of the You're Skitting Me skit would have caused offence to the target audience who had tuned in to watch a satirical comedic sketch program, or that it had condoned or encouraged prejudice against red-haired children.


http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2971154.htm

Documents

ABC3 Investigation report 3074/media/Broadcasting Investigations/I… · Web viewACMA Investigation Report 3074 – You’re ... The complainant alleged that the program’s use