BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A publicity stunt organised by 91ZM (Wellington) on 10 September 1997 required male

volunteers to stand naked on the street for 90 minutes with a goldfish bowl

appropriately positioned to avoid embarrassment.

Mr Drake heard about the stunt on TV3's 6.00pm news on 22 September and

complained to The Radio Network Ltd (TRN) that the stunt was grossly objectionable

and exceeded the good taste standard. When asked by TRN to clarify what his

complaint was based on, he responded that in his view all of the promotional material

relating to the stunt would have breached the standards.

TRN responded initially that the matter was not one of broadcasting standards, since

nude men could not be seen on the radio. Furthermore, there were no tapes or copies of

programmes relating to the promotion. It submitted that the Authority should decline

to hear the complaint on the grounds that it was not related to a broadcast. Further, it

submitted, the complaint was frivolous.

Dissatisfied with TRN's response, Mr Drake referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint in all the

circumstances.

Decision

The members of the Authority have read the correspondence (summarised in the

Appendix).

A report about radio wars was broadcast on TV3's 3 National News on 22 September.

Part of the report concerned a Wellington station, 91ZM, which had promoted a

competition in which men were said to have stood naked on a street corner holding an

appropriately positioned goldfish bowl.

Mr Drake complained to TRN that the publicity and promotion of the event on 91ZM

would have breached broadcasting standards.

TRN responded that the complaint was frivolous, did not involve broadcasting

standards, and furthermore, not only were there no tapes available, but there was no

broadcast to complain about.

The Authority observes that Mr Drake's complaint is based upon his assumption that

the promotion of the stunt involved a broadcast which breached the good taste standard.

He did not enlighten the Authority as to what constituted a breach of standards, since he

did not hear the broadcasts complained about. TRN advised that there was no pre-

promotion of the stunt and no invitation to listeners to turn up to see naked men on a

street corner.

The Authority concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that the stunt was

promoted on-air in the manner which Mr Drake supposed. With respect to the display

of naked men, it emphasises that behaviour in a public place is a matter for the police

and not for the Authority.

In all of the circumstances, the Authority declines to determine the complaint under

s.11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Finally, the Authority deals with Mr Drake's request that media releases on the decision

be made in the name of the lobby group "Preserving Communication Standards". The

Authority advises that it does not release media statements with its decisions.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to determine the

complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
26 February 1998

Appendix

Graham Drake's Complaint to The Radio Network Ltd – 23 September 1997

Mr Drake of Rotorua complained to The Radio Network Ltd (TRN) about a publicity

stunt organised by 91ZM (Wellington) in which naked men stood for 90 minutes on a

city street holding an appropriately positioned goldfish bowl. The stunt was reported

in an item on TV3's news on 22 September.

Mr Drake expressed his disgust at the stunt, suggesting it was insulting to men in

general. He said he found it grossly objectionable and in breach of the good taste

standards.

In a second letter, dated 2 October, Mr Drake clarified some matters. He explained that

he was offended by all the broadcasts relating to the stunt, including all of the relevant

promotional material.

TRN's Response to the Formal Complaint – 4 November 1997

In its response, TRN noted that the Codes of Practice concerned broadcasts, ie what

was on air. It pointed out that a promotional campaign on radio clearly could not show

nude men.

TRN advised that music radio stations such as 91ZM were not required by law to retain

copies of programmes. Those rules, it noted, applied to news and current affairs

programmes. Therefore, it advised, no tapes were available, and there was no broadcast

to complain about.

TRN declined to deal with the letter from Mr Drake as a broadcasting complaint.

It noted that the issue was a TV3 item about the radio wars. It was not an issue

concerning a broadcast or a complaint arising from a radio broadcast. TRN was not

prepared to take the matter further.

Mr Drake's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 26 November

1997

Dissatisfied with the response from TRN, Mr Drake referred his complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Drake maintained that TRN's response had not dealt with his complaint adequately.

He argued that the TV3 coverage of the story was only incidental and was not the real

complaint issue. The issue was that there were several radio broadcasts pertaining to

the publicity stunt on 91ZM. Mr Drake considered this broadcasting grossly

objectionable and a breach of the good taste and decency standard.

He questioned TRN's assertion that no copies of any relevant programmes existed. In

his view, it was obvious that the stunt was promoted by the station, and he considered

the programme information should be procurable.

When asked by the Authority to clarify which broadcasts he was referring to, Mr Drake

responded in a letter dated 3 December 1997 that between approximately 7.30am and

8.30am on 3 September 1997, 91ZM's broadcast breached standard R2 of the Radio

Code of Broadcasting Practice. This included any broadcasting relating to the publicity

stunt and the behaviour of the announcers and what they said.

Referring to standards R35 and R36, Mr Drake contended there was an obligation on the

station to provide comprehensive programme information relevant to the stunt.

He included a copy of a letter he had received from the Police which advised that they

were not informed the stunt was going to take place and agreed that it was inappropriate

for that sort of behaviour to take place on a public street. It noted that the organisers

had been warned of the consequences of such a stunt in future.

Mr Drake asked that the lobby group name "Preserving Communication Standards" be

used in any press release associated with the complaint.

TRN's Response to the Authority – 8 December 1997

TRN pointed out that the original complaint related to a television broadcast, not a radio

broadcast.

In a second letter, dated 16 December, it provided a memorandum from the General

Manager of TRN in Wellington concerning the competition. It repeated its earlier

submission that the Authority should decline to hear the complaint on the grounds that

it was not related to a broadcast and further that it was frivolous.

The memorandum, which was attached, described the background to the competition. It

noted that there was no pre-promotion of the activity required for the event, and no

suggestion that listeners should turn up at the location to see naked men. It continued:

The Wellington Police were asked for an opinion and Senior Sergeant Tony

Wareham (who was present), responded that the activity could only be the

subject of an offence if a member of the public complained. The police were

present throughout, no complaint was received.

Mr Drake's Final Comment – 5 January 1998

Mr Drake described the memo from 91ZM as a questionable and unsatisfactory

response. First, he noted, it was contradicted by a letter he had received from the police

regarding the stunt.

He wrote:

Contrary to the memo, preparative broadcasting about the competition did

promise a context to 91ZM listeners that the Police are obviously concerned

about. This particular broadcasting was later confirmed in a TV3 news item

which indicated a distasteful zeal from the 91ZM announcers when promoting

the competition on radio.

Mr Drake considered that everything broadcast relevant to the competition should now

be made available to enable the Authority to determine the complaint properly.

He maintained that the overall point of the complaint was that there was a lack of

consideration for normal good taste and decency, beginning from the time the programme

was instigated.