Steven Price

My book

Media Minefield


Guide to NZ Media Law

Official Information Act

Official Information Act


Bill of Rights Act

Media law resources

Feeds (RSS)


« | Main | »

Oh, and one other thing about the BSA’s dumb Aramoana decision

By Steven | April 20, 2011

It was based on a really dumb complaint. Here’s the BSA’s summary of the complainant’s original grounds:

… the policeman’s “obscene language” breached standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, responsible programming and children’s interests. The complainant considered that it gave “a negative impression of New Zealand policing” and that “it signals that criminals should naturally abuse, taunt and swear at police because police are expected by TV to talk just like the cons. [The complainant] was of the view that the broadcaster may have “coached” the interviewee into thinking that he had used these words.

The complainant has only just managed to raise the issue that the majority of the BSA eventually upheld, and the thrust of his complaint is spectacularly dopey.

This isn’t the first time that the BSA (and to give them credit, the broadcasters) have had to rescue the droplet of viable complaint from the complainant’s tsunami of dross, and it is probably sensible that our system works hard to accommodate complainants who aren’t familiar with the precise requirements of the braodcasting standards. But still, this off-target ramble¬†might have been a clue to the BSA that these views are not widely shared…

Topics: Broadcasting Standards Authority | No Comments »

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.