Full Story

Complaint about Nightline nudity thrown out

Mon, 01 Nov 2010 12:19p.m.

The piece featured nude rugby at student pub, The Gardies

By Dan Satherley

Conservative lobbyist group Family First has criticised the Broadcasting Standards Authority for not upholding its complaint about a Nightline story featuring full frontal nudity.

In June, 3 News reporter Dave Goosselink reported on the closing down of Dunedin student pub The Gardies. To celebrate, a group of students held a game of nude rugby.

Footage from the match was included in the story, which drew a complaint from Family First director Bob McCoskrie.

“The morally dysfunctional BSA has given the green light to full frontal nudity in our current events and news programmes and has no problem with sexual innuendo and offensive comments," says Mr McCoskrie.

The BSA said the item was broadcast well after the 8:30pm watershed, preceded by a clear warning and that Nightline viewers were unlikely to have been offended.

“The incoming tide of sexual content disguised as news is a disturbing trend," says Mr MrCoskrie. "The TV channels are trying to mask sexual innuendo and pornographic material as news and current events.”

Mr McCoskrie also filed a complaint against another item broadcast in June, where humorous potential porn film titles starring MP Shane Jones, collected from Twitter, were read out, on air.

This complaint was also not upheld.

3 News

Tags

nudity

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide

Name

(Won't be published)

Your comment

Comments

03 Nov 2010 09:15p.m.

Chris wrote:

Man, I can't believe that our society has sunken so low! Not only is the BSA allowing it, you guys are taking it out on Family First for complaining to the authority! I thank the Lord for Bob and his organisation for standing up for the morally right. Pro 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Pro 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

03 Nov 2010 09:15p.m.

Chris wrote:

03 Nov 2010 10:10a.m.

Ngawhere wrote:

Dont forget TV3 is a foreign corporate therefore multinational bent on indoctrination of material desire. It's tabloid propaganda has no distinction between filth and dignity.

02 Nov 2010 10:19a.m.

Malcolm Boura wrote:

Family Last will only deserve the name Family First when they start putting children first. That means looking at the facts and acting on them. Anything else is nothing but prejudice. Try comparing the teenage pregnancy rates of Denmark, New Zealand and the USA. Then think long and hard about the attitudes which make such an enormous difference. Prudery is child abuse with good intentions. Family Last have been told often enough and they know where to find the evidence, so they don't even have the excuse of ignorance. Unfortunately they can wreck the lives of hundreds of young people but because it can't be proved that they were the cause of the harm to any specific individual then they can get away with it without being sued.

02 Nov 2010 02:27a.m.

Dr. P. Rapoport wrote:

"The incoming tide of sexual content disguised as news is a disturbing trend." No, the incoming tide of narrow ranting disguised as intelligence is the disturbing trend. Mr. McCoskrie is simply one of the more vocal prudes on the planet who wishes his problems on everyone else. I challenege him or anyone in New Zealand to show that images of nudity such as are the subject here are harmful. *Reputable* research in the past 40 years has been unable to do so. Curtailing freedoms because of priggish prejudice is a very bad idea. So is calling something "Family First" when it has nothing to do with families and everything to do with self-righteous ignorance.

01 Nov 2010 11:17p.m.

Abby wrote:

Justice an Conor, I think you are both right. Justice, I agree with you that there is far too much sex used in ads and it would be nice if companies tried something different to sell their products. BUT Conor is right that Family First is backward - at least this time. Nudity is NOT pornography and it would be nice if people would finally understand the difference! Nudity is just a state of (un)dress you are in while pornography involves sexual acts. Even though I am not a nudist, I have no problem if my child sees someone naked at a beach or on tv, in art, etc but I would be upset if they saw sexual content. No matter how distasteful Family First or others may find nudity - it doesn't make it pornographic.

01 Nov 2010 10:26p.m.

Bob wrote:

How about Family First focus on both issues - alcohol advertising, which we dealt with in our submission to the Law Commission - and the increasing trend of news networks to show sexually explicit material disguised as news items.

01 Nov 2010 04:50p.m.

Craig wrote:

The item in question was aired at 9.30 pm, one hour after the watershed time of 8.30 pm, from whence adult content broadcasting is deemed to start.

Family First would be better advised focusing its attention on preventing the broadcast of liquor advertising, or at the very least limiting it to post-watershed timeslots, so that it cannot attract the attention of teenagers. Harmless naked larrikinism doesn't harm families, but excessive alcohol consumption does.

01 Nov 2010 04:16p.m.

Justice wrote:

Yes Conor Adults are older enough but lets not forget there are porno channels that the old enough adults can pay for if they want to watch that kind of stuff, you say that:Family First needs to stop trying to push it's morally backward and closed minded opinions on the rest of the reasonably forward thinking NZ.
Well its about time that the non moral people of New Zealand stopped pushing sex on us ALL the time, its everywhere,ads for soft drinks,butter god everything, even at the Parent and Child show. Ever looked at the statistics for sexual assaults in this country and we dont even batter an eyelid

01 Nov 2010 02:14p.m.

Conor wrote:

Honestly Family First needs to stop trying to push it's morally backward and closed minded opinions on the rest of the reasonably forward thinking NZ. The logic of such a complaint after a time when children should be in bed is quite flawed. Adults are old enough to make a choice whether or not to watch. We should not have our viewing censored in this extreme manner. This is not Victorian England.