So is "fat brown poof" okay then?

1. The Broadcasting Standards Authority cost NZ taxpayers $1,254,208 in 2005/06.


2. It considers that Mickey calling someone a "fat brown slug" or, for that matter, an RNZ commenter referring to "a poof" on radio is okay because "a high level of invective is necessary for the authority to conclude that a broadcast encourages denigration" and that when it comes to talkback "commentary on current issues and topics is consistently challenging and provocative in this environment".


3. In the latest batch of decisions, in fact, only one complaint in 11 was upheld.


4. Of 153 complaints received in 2005/06 the BSA upheld (all or in part) 19, or 12.4% and refused to uphold 83% (1.44 Mb pdf file).


5. Even if it finds the grossest possible breach of good taste and decency has occurred, the maximum penalty it can impose is a fine of $5,000. Canwest made $24.3 million in the first quarter of this financial year.


6. Thus the BSA is costing us $8,197 per complaint received and a staggering $66,011 per complaint upheld.


7. BSA chief executive Jane Wrightson claims the low upholding rate is because "broadcasters were very clear on the rules and in most cases followed them".

So if it's open slather for Mickey and the other ratings-challenged radio hosts to abuse all and sundry in their quest for "popularity", and the largest penalty their bosses can receive amounts to 0.2% of a quarter of one year's profits, our "challenging and provocative" response to the BSA is:


Comments on this post are now closed.