Will Ralston is hosting the Saturday Rub this afternoon for JB
1 Like
Good talent Will Ralston. Heâs also been hosting the Mid-Week Rub while Ryan Warren has been away and I believe is a senior producer in general for the Saturday Rub too.
Didnât hear much of the pre-show of Triple M Brisbane at Riverfire, but heard reports there were a few issues with parts of the OB broadcast dropping out.
After the fireworks it seemed there was a fairly quick closedown, and then they went onto a âNon-Stop Riverfireâ music soundtrack for the remainder of the evening instead of heading to NRL. In the past they have had the broadcast team stick around for a bit and take some audience/listener reaction.
1 Like
Felt janky, the OB crashed into the feed at 5.15pm and started way later than usual
Marty Sheargold Show breaches decency rules
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has found four broadcast licensees in breach of decency rules due to comments broadcast on the Marty Sheargold Show about womenâs sport.
The ACMA investigation found that Triple M Sydney Pty Ltd, Triple M Brisbane Pty Ltd, Gold Coast FM Pty Ltd and Maryborough Broadcasting Company Pty Limited all contravened the Commercial Radio Code of Practice by allowing derogatory language and sexist themes to be broadcast on the program.
These included comments that the Australian womenâs national football team, the Matildas, were behaving like âYear 10 girlsâ, with the host proceeding to mimic a Year 10 girl, perpetuating stereotypes of womenâs behaviour.
The sexist comments, expressed in a demeaning and sarcastic tone, demonstrated a level of contempt and disdain for womenâs sport, and more generally of women.
The offensive themes were then exacerbated by the host referring to his genitalia in a further degrading comment about womenâs sport.
Authority Member Carolyn Lidgerwood said the demeaning and insulting language used by the host went beyond generally acceptable standards of decency.
âSexist comments like this donât belong in Australian broadcasting. Even if the comments were an extremely ill-judged attempt at humour, a reasonable listener would have found them offensive and to have crossed the line,â Ms Lidgerwood said.
The ACMA notes that following the broadcast, Southern Cross Austereo (SCA), the parent company of Triple M, made the decision to cancel the show and mutually parted ways with Mr Sheargold.
The ACMA is currently considering enforcement action against the licensees for breaching the code and will publicly announce the outcome once it is finalised.
4 Likes
What I donât get about this is that the content likely went out to other stations that werenât necessarily mentioned in any complaint - how is it that they arenât also in breach?
1 Like
Its because the listeners who made the complaints were listening to those stations, so only those stations that the complaint was made against were breached, even though other stations aired the same program.
The TV complaint process is similar, i think there have been instances where WIN was breached for something on a Nine Network program, but i donât think Nine was breached themselves.
thatâs a poor outcome - if content that breaches the code is broadcast, each licencee that had it go to air should be punished equally, it shouldnât be reliant on someone making a complaint in each market.
It being networked content shouldnât be relevant
4 Likes
itâs an outdated model that hasnât stacked up well in a heavily-networked environment across commercial radio and television. But I canât imagine ACMA or the networks have any desire to change the situation. Not that any outcomes come from these complaints anyway other than a slap on the wrist.
7 Likes
6 months later and they still donât have an âenforcement actionâ figured out? How is the backlog at the ACMA this bad? Feel like you could have listened to the segment and put out this kind of response in a week tops.
Not only a slap on the wrist, but a late one at that. Are they contacting every person who complained? Conducting lengthy interviews with the licensees? With the hosts? Genuinely curious what this kind of investigation involves.
1 Like
There actually needs to be a government enquiry into the ACMA. They move at a glacial pace on everything. Are they that understaffed? Or just top-heavy and incompetent? Something needs to change.
3 Likes
Imagine if ACMA said all is fine & that SCA jumped the gun in sacking Marty.
Theyâre way too slow.
What a broadcaster deems to be acceptable broadcasting conduct and what the code says donât always have to neatly align. Just because it doesnât breach the code doesnt mean that its something the broadcaster is necessarily willing to accept.
2 Likes
An interesting point raised during the investigation centres around the âsocial media amplificationâ of the comments.
Essentially, SCA tried using the argument that: due to the complaints being made directly after the comments appeared on social media, rather than directly after the broadcast, it meant Triple M listeners didnât have a problem with what Marty said.
In its submission, SCA claims ââŚit received no complaints about the Comments prior to their circulation on social media. It was only after they were posted online on Tuesday, 25 February 2025, more than 24 hours after the original broadcast, that SCA received the first of thousands of complaints at approximately 9:00pm. This surge in complaints was directly linked to social media users amplifying the Comments beyond the Showâs core audience and providing others with the information needed to lodge complaints.â
ACMA acknowledged SCAâs point in stating *ââŚthat there was a direct correlation between the âsocial media amplificationâ and the number of complaints received by the ACMA about the relevant broadcast.â
However, ACMA shot down the argument by determining that "while demographic characteristics may assist in suggesting potential tolerance of a particular style and language use, they do not necessarily indicate the attitudes of the audience to specific materialâ and that thereâs no proof that â⌠the audience of the Program would have standards that differ greatly from what a regular cross section of the Australian community would consider as âgenerally accepted standards of decencyâ.â
I hope I havenât rambled on too much. The point I was meaning to raise was whether ACMA should accept complaints from people who didnât hear the broadcast? After all, ACMA does assess content ââŚaccording to the understanding of an âordinary reasonableâ listener.â On the other hand, should everyone have the right to be protected against content they find objectional no matter the source of the content?
2 Likes
I think it depends on the type of content.
With Martyâs comments, it was a topic which perpetuates values which are not consistent with the general communityâs expectations. Broadcasting is using the public asset of the airwaves so content has to meet the wider communityâs expectations.
For example, If a station relaunched as a neo-nazi station sprouting racist beliefs would it be acceptable on the basis that only neo-nazis would be listening? No, because a public asset shouldnât be used to perpetuate those beliefs.
On the other hand, something lower level thatâs purely in the moment and doesnât perpetuate unacceptable beliefs, such as a bit of basic swearing, should probably be limited just to the ears that were listening.
4 Likes
I can almost guarantee you there will be lawyers trying to negotiate. Itâs the same as other government agencies who issue enforceable actions.
2 Likes
How do you ensure that the complainant heard the broadcast (and what counts as âthe broadcastâ)?
Substantially similar complaints should be treated singularly (per market) - so a petition or a series of âform letterâ complaints dont necessarily have an impact on the investigation.
Maybe in the complaints process the complaint has to include the time of day it occurred. It doesnât have to be an exact time just a time period. âI heard x broadcast between 3 and 3.30PMâ
Yes youâre right.
But it also depends on the audience. Because if something is broadcast and there are absolutely no complaints from the public (or anyone else) then ACMA can not act. Its charter requires it to act on complaints, but likewise, it can not just act of its own volition without a complaint. As a separately constituted government body it can issue guidance, warnings and general cautions, but in order to any stronger by way of enforcement it requires written complaints.
Your neo-nazi example is a good one, but once again it would still require a written complaint in order for it to act. Presumably this written complaint in this instance would come from the minister.
Yes. For a networked show, one complaint should apply to the whole of the broadcast coverage area.
3 Likes
I suspect one issue is that the ACMA doesnât see eg. Triple M as a network, itâs just a collection of individual licences.
And they canât/wonât assume that because one station on the network aired that content, that the whole network did eg. there are different Rush Hour programs on the network.
And I suspect the breach has to be issued at the licence level, not the network level.
2 Likes