Co
mplaint that when a caller phoned in to express his view about the land question (currently an issue of public importance), the presenter reacted very emotional, interrupted the caller continuously and ended the call without affording him the opportunity to explain his statement. The presenter ended the call after a few minutes, but continued to discuss and insult the caller for an hour afterwards without giving him a right of reply. Tribunal held that the complainant should have been afforded an opportunity to defend himself, that the show lacked balance and that the remarks of the presenter impaired the dignity of the complainant.
