Gareth Cliff, a presenter on 5FM, one of the radio stations which fall under the control of the public 
broadcaster, the SABC, was alleged by a listener, the present complainant, to have contravened the Broadcasting Code by having been unsympathetic and insensitive to a Bangladeshi national who had lost all he had as a result of rioting. A sound clip of the weeping Bangladeshi man was broadcast a few times.
Held, if lack of sympathy for a person who has lost everything as a result of rioting amounts to incitement to violence, then clause 16 of the Broadcasting Code would be contravened. After the clip was broadcast and also later on, the presenter would seem to have been suspicious of the weeping Bangladeshi man’s words as taped by a journalist. Such suspicion might very well have been based on reasonable grounds, since it is unlikely that a person who is taped would have been taped when he or she originally wept. However, in the present case the presenter would seem to have had no grounds to come to such a conclusion since he should, at least, on air, have questioned the journalist, who had taped the Bangladeshi man’s words, as to the manner in which the tape was made. The Tribunal did not pursue this aspect, since it was not put to the respondent’s representative or, for that matter, to Mr. Cliff, who was present at the hearing. In any case, the Tribunal was not convinced that the presenter did more than create debate, which is one of the legitimate functions of a presenter on such a radio show. He might seem, to some listeners, to have been unsympathetic but, even if that were true, that is not sufficient to justify a reasonable inference that he was promoting or inciting to violence or advocating hatred based on race. Freedom of expression permits all kinds of views to be expressed and to be unsympathetic in the circumstances is probably in questionable taste, but not impermissible in terms of the Broadcasting Code.
Whether an employee of a broadcaster has a right to intervene in proceedings against the broadcaster discussed but not decided as a result of the conclusion reached and the approach of the respondent’s representative in the matter. The Complaint was not upheld.