BSA Protects Drug Offender But Not Families

Media Release 28 Feb 2011
Family First NZ says that the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) is completely dysfunctional and a menace to families after it upheld and awarded costs to a dope smoker who claimed his rights were infringed, but rejected three complaints of explicit sexual material including oral sex, public displays of sex, and a promo about penis size during supposed family viewing times. 

“We always suspected that families were at risk from decisions made by the BSA but these decisions have removed any doubt we had,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First. 

“When the BSA is willing to take strong action against a broadcaster who simply highlights a person caught breaking the law, but then at the same time makes pathetic excuses to protect broadcasters who are broadcasting scenes of oral sex, public sex and a promo for ‘Penis Envy’ before or just after the watershed 8.30pm, it’s time we sacked the lot of them.” 

“Broadcasting standards are an oxymoron, and the BSA is simply a joke. Broadcasters must be loving the unaccountable freedom they have to promote explicit sexual and violent material and offensive language disguised as mild entertainment,” says Mr McCoskrie. 

As a result of the decisions released today, Family First will be writing to the Minister of Broadcasting to call for a clean-out of the BSA membership. 

Last year, a poll of 1,000 NZ’ers found that 2/3’rds of respondents were concerned about the level of offensive and sexual material being broadcast during family viewing hours.



5 comments for “BSA Protects Drug Offender But Not Families

  1. Kevin
    28 February 2011 at 11:20 am

    Will support any initiatives you consider worthwhile pursuing.
    What do we need?
    To get the Ministry off their butts?
    To get responsible leadership in the BSA?
    To hurt broadcasters who persist in showing this filth.
    To educate the public that it is not harmless?

    How can we do it?
    By a coordinated effort. Suggestion to have advertisers promise to only advertise on “family orientated” channels and we have a ‘clean’ list and a ‘dirty’ list. Then we promise to support their products. When the broadcasters are not getting the advertising revenue, they will listen.

    Any other ideas?????

  2. Bob
    28 February 2011 at 12:13 pm

    Increasing the quantity and quality of complaints would work them off their feet!
    It would also be good to take legal action against one of their decisions – that would really put the pressure on. But would be costly.
    Unfortunately we simply don’t have the political leadership to make the necessary changes

  3. GT
    1 March 2011 at 3:18 pm

    I gather the advertisers may not even watch free to air programs, but respond to their media reports reflecting sales figures and be unaware that their products are ‘in bed’ with ‘offensive’ programs and advertisers.

    Examples of these relationships need to be exposed to all (repeat all) advertisers so they evaluate for themselves whether their advertising dollar is in the right place or not. Then you will see the free to air program directors clean up their act.

    Bob is right when he says he looks forward to the day when advertisers front up to the tv stations and say my advertising dollar is going elsewhere.

    I add that the consumer will see ‘clean free to air’ programs when we front up to these advertisers and say I know where you advertise and I’m buying another product.


  4. Daniel
    1 March 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Hi Bob.

    It’s time we turned the TV off and moved to forms of media where the viewer is totally in control.

    At home, my wife and I control what we watch and when we watch it. Our TV is currently located in the garage with it’s face against the wall. We now use our computer with a permanently mounted projector. It’s really nice because when it’s off we don’t have a blank tv screen intruding on our living area.

    The result is we have total control of what is viewed and when. Our Children (1 and 3.5 years old) don’t get much “tv” time (at the most 1 – 2 hours per week, and when they do it tends to be age appropriate content that we have chosen.

    It’s time to relegate broadcasted TV to the scrap heap and take control of what we watch.

    The internet whilst it has is raw and unfiltered, (incidentally, that’s the way I think it should be – the DIA filter is the wrong solution to the wrong problem,) doesn’t dictate what you watch and when like the tv broadcasters do.

    There is plenty of quality content available on the internet and dvd, and generally without any objectionable advertising. The funny thing is we spend much less time watching “tv/videos” then we ever did when we had a TV.


  5. Michaela
    3 March 2011 at 1:58 pm

    I find this whole issue very frustrating. The problem is the diversity of what is deemed to be offensive to some and not others. Personally, I get sick of seeing adverts and promos with sexually charged images. I also get frustrated with the warnings at the beginning of a programme or movie. They are ambiguous. Sometimes they say ‘sex scenes’ and other times they say ‘adult content’ which can be anything from sex scenes to whatever else. Incidentally, I find the same problems when hiring DVDs. They don’t always have when there are sex scenes. The whole system sucks, and the standards are so low that it’s almost impossible for a programmer to breach the ‘good taste and decency’ law….lol. It’s really laughable. And, unfortunately, I can’t see it changing any time soon. Grrrrrr.

Comments are closed.