Reaction to scrapping of Broadcasting Standards Authority

Source: Radio New Zealand

A former Broadcasting Standards Authority member says abolishing the regulator gets rid of one of the few ways people can challenge harmful media content.

Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith said the media landscape has changed since the BSA was set up in 1989 and regulation hasn’t kept up.

Former BSA member Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i told Checkpoint the change is a loss for communities.

Meanwhile, the government wants to explore options for self-regulation for broadcasters including through the New Zealand Media Council which has oversight of print media.

An associate professor in media and communication at Victoria University of Wellington said it was a “momentous” move to scrap the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Peter Thompson, who is also part of the Better Public Media organisation, said he was also surprised there hadn’t been any significant public consultation on the matter.

He called the move “politically expedient” and “democratically indefensible.”

“In essence, we’re abandoning enforceable content standards for the media in a digital ecology where many media are struggling to maintain professional standards.

“I expected a far more fulsome discussion of the options that were under consideration before any decision was taken.”

Thompson said removing content standards like accuracy, balance and fairness in an environment where the media were under so much pressure “really invites a significant political risk,” because it meant any media operator that chose to ignore those standards “effectively can now do so with impunity.”

He agreed media regulations needed modernising, but pointed out the BSA had been one of the key actors that’s been arguing to update them.

Thompson said the reason the decision to scrap the BSA was so momentous was the impact it could have on journalism and therefore democracy.

He said there was already a “commercial race to the bottom”, which makes it easier to proceed on the basis of “cutting corners, cutting costs, cutting journalists, in many cases”.

“Having a set of enforceable standards puts a clear line in the sand about what the public and society at large expects from our media sector.”

He didn’t think there’d be a wholesale abandonment of those standards, because that would be a problem for brand image.

But he was concerned about a “significant opportunity cost” being attached to upholding those standards, which could then lead to compromising on those standards.

“That could happen on a slow but steady trend, such that we’re led eventually in a race to the bottom, where all we have is commercial media companies fighting viciously over eyeballs and advertising share and ignoring the key tenets that uphold the Fourth Estate.”

He said those who had been arguing the BSA was “some sort of Stasi like bureaucracy out to stifle free speech” were deliberately misunderstanding its function.

“The Broadcasting Standards Authority, in many ways, is an anachronism.

“But key standards such as accuracy, balance and fairness are not an anachronism, and nor I have to say are they a threat to free speech.

“In fact, they are the very standards that underpin responsible free speech and dialogue in a democratic society.”

Media Council to engage with government

The New Zealand Media Council Chair Brook Cameron told RNZ it would engage with the government as it progressed their considerations on the future of the BSA.

“The purpose of the New Zealand Media Council is to support trust in media and freedom of expression by upholding high standards of journalism.

“The Media Council has a robust process for receiving and determining complaints to ensure the public has confidence in a fair and independent NZ media sector.”

The Platform celebrates decision

The Platform was celebrating the decision, with host Sean Plunket posting on social media that it was a “wonderful 4th Birthday present” for the outlet, which marks that anniversary on Saturday.

He told RNZ he had been “a little surprised” that the government had stepped in on the matter but the result was good news for freedom of speech and for New Zealanders.

“People are saying this is a victory for The Platform or a victory for me, not really. I didn’t choose this fight. I was sitting there doing what this outfit’s been doing for the last four years, and I find it amazing that the BSA decided to pick a fight which ended up in its own demise,” he said.

“It means that an outdated government bureaucracy that was seeking to write its own rules and entertaining complaints that didn’t have any real basis has been told that it needs to go away and that its time is over.”

He had no intention of joining the Media Council, he said.

“I don’t want to sit around the table with big newspapers and media players who are owned by overseas investors quite often, and are mostly interested in selling advertising for real estate agents.”

If misinformation was being spread online, people could complain to those spreading it, he said.

“I mean, Radio New Zealand spreads misinformation, right? And no one’s stopping you guys from doing it… you guys are just going to have to be more careful about fact checking and whether or not you’re displaying inherent bias, as we all are.

“At the end of the day, I’ll tell you what regulates The Platform is our audience. They’ll tell us when we get it wrong, and our numbers will go down and people won’t listen to us.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand