I spent nearly five decades in the New Zealand broadcasting industry, most of it when the world was very different. They were times when a national radio network of frequencies was a hard won and expensive privilege, and the evening television news bulletins genuinely captured the country.
In that environment, the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) had a role to play. We accepted oversight because the airwaves were tightly controlled, the audience was captive, and with great privilege came great responsibility.
That world has gone. The BSA’s relevance has gone with it — and its recent move to start policing internet content is proof it is now fundamentally unfit for purpose.
The BSA was designed for a one-way world. That was when people had no realistic ability to answer back. If you said something on radio or television then, it sat unquestioned unless the newspaper printed a rebuttal the next day or somebody called talkback radio.
Public trust in the system relied, in part, on the existence of a state referee.
But in 2025, every New Zealander is a broadcaster. A teenager in Taranaki can reach more people on TikTok in three hours than a primetime show could in 1998. A Substack newsletter can set the national agenda more decisively than a flagship radio interview.
The audience no longer waits to be spoken to because it speaks back instantly. The conversation is fluid, decentralised, and global.
The BSA is still operating as if a small, licensed club is speaking to a passive public. It is not equipped — technically, philosophically or democratically — to judge internet speech.
By stepping into this arena, it has placed itself on a collision course with modern reality.
Here’s the first problem: inconsistency. The BSA can issue a ruling against a broadcast journalist for a comment that may be said by a You Tuber with ten times the audience, One is sanctioned. One is untouched. That is not a standard — that is theatre.
The second problem is consequence. Broadcasters are now chilled into caution — not by ratings or audience trust, but by a regulator stuck in a 1990s risk-averse mindset and what are often now referred to as “woke” ideas.
Therefore if you challenge the philosophy which says, among other thinking, that we must “honour” te Tiriti, accept that there are more than two genders and that burping cows are causing the climate to change then you’re unlikely to be a regular on mainstream and regulated media.
If you want passion, robust debate and uncomfortable questioning — the kind of thing that used to be the lifeblood of free societies — you’re more likely to find it now outside the mainstream media, unregulated entirely. The BSA is unintentionally pushing honest inquiry away from the institutions we actually want New Zealanders to trust.
Thirdly — and I say this bluntly — the BSA moves too slowly to matter. Online discourse evolves hour to hour. The BSA deliberates over weeks and delivers moral judgement when the conversation has long since moved on. It’s like sending a rescue boat to a shipwreck that happened last season.
I don’t say this with anger. I say it as someone who was part of the old system, who respects standards deeply, but who knows when an institution has reached the end of its natural life.
We need something new. Real transparency, not state-sanctioned truth. If genuine harm occurs — defamation, incitement, criminal harassment — it should be tested in court, in full sunlight, not in a quasi-legal back room designed for analogue television.
If trust in media is to be restored, it will come by allowing adults to hear, question, rebut and counter — not by quietly filtering the national conversation before it even leaves the studio.
The Broadcasting Standards Authority was right for the age of Geoff Robinson, Paul Holmes and those halcyon days of prime time, hour long TV current affairs shows. It is not right for the world of podcasts, livestreams, independent investigative Substacks and real-time commentary.
When a referee no longer understands the game being played — it’s time to change the referee.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
The BSA was designed for a one-way world. That was when people had no realistic ability to answer back. If you said something on radio or television then, it sat unquestioned unless the newspaper printed a rebuttal the next day or somebody called talkback radio.
Public trust in the system relied, in part, on the existence of a state referee.
But in 2025, every New Zealander is a broadcaster. A teenager in Taranaki can reach more people on TikTok in three hours than a primetime show could in 1998. A Substack newsletter can set the national agenda more decisively than a flagship radio interview.
The audience no longer waits to be spoken to because it speaks back instantly. The conversation is fluid, decentralised, and global.
The BSA is still operating as if a small, licensed club is speaking to a passive public. It is not equipped — technically, philosophically or democratically — to judge internet speech.
By stepping into this arena, it has placed itself on a collision course with modern reality.
Here’s the first problem: inconsistency. The BSA can issue a ruling against a broadcast journalist for a comment that may be said by a You Tuber with ten times the audience, One is sanctioned. One is untouched. That is not a standard — that is theatre.
The second problem is consequence. Broadcasters are now chilled into caution — not by ratings or audience trust, but by a regulator stuck in a 1990s risk-averse mindset and what are often now referred to as “woke” ideas.
Therefore if you challenge the philosophy which says, among other thinking, that we must “honour” te Tiriti, accept that there are more than two genders and that burping cows are causing the climate to change then you’re unlikely to be a regular on mainstream and regulated media.
If you want passion, robust debate and uncomfortable questioning — the kind of thing that used to be the lifeblood of free societies — you’re more likely to find it now outside the mainstream media, unregulated entirely. The BSA is unintentionally pushing honest inquiry away from the institutions we actually want New Zealanders to trust.
Thirdly — and I say this bluntly — the BSA moves too slowly to matter. Online discourse evolves hour to hour. The BSA deliberates over weeks and delivers moral judgement when the conversation has long since moved on. It’s like sending a rescue boat to a shipwreck that happened last season.
I don’t say this with anger. I say it as someone who was part of the old system, who respects standards deeply, but who knows when an institution has reached the end of its natural life.
We need something new. Real transparency, not state-sanctioned truth. If genuine harm occurs — defamation, incitement, criminal harassment — it should be tested in court, in full sunlight, not in a quasi-legal back room designed for analogue television.
If trust in media is to be restored, it will come by allowing adults to hear, question, rebut and counter — not by quietly filtering the national conversation before it even leaves the studio.
The Broadcasting Standards Authority was right for the age of Geoff Robinson, Paul Holmes and those halcyon days of prime time, hour long TV current affairs shows. It is not right for the world of podcasts, livestreams, independent investigative Substacks and real-time commentary.
When a referee no longer understands the game being played — it’s time to change the referee.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
4 comments:
The BSA is nothing short of the old liquor licensing clubs around the country that controlled who and where liquor could be sold/distributed.
They are a bygone regime and those that survive today only do so because they saw they either became flexible or perished.
The internet is a flux state brownian system and to try and 'control' what is 'posted' will be an impossible task because there exist smarter more proactive systems engineers (hackers) that can make and break things before most governments think them up.
The BSA are out of their time, out of their lane and out of their minds.
The same of course applies to the implementation of a digital ID and why it too will ultimately fail.
The internet hackers will have it taken apart before it is finished, all day, everyday because of the fluid nature of the intenet it is untamable. Ask Barbara Streisand, she has an internet saying named after her.
A question that I would pose is - "With all the commentary that has arisen, since the BSA has 'indicated' what it wants The Platform to do, can this be equated to a Socialist Entity trying to establish itself beyond its Mandate"?
Also to, who outside the BSA is having a "say" in this matter, and are they people who have a "loathing" for what The Platform (and Sean Plunkett in particular) is a achieving, with out being subject to BSA interventions, for which - if they are in other Media outlets have to adhere to.
An overseas example would be GB News - was not accepted when it first started and was "under attack" by the UK Media watchdog for sometime.
Also in the UK is another Media group, they operate like The Platform and post most of their content on YouTube, which places them outside the UK Media Watchdog overreach - which "the moaners" do not like.
The other factor is that it is that YouTube is 'requested' to remove certain people who "post" videos that the content is "found not acceptable by The Authorities", again we see this in the UK, particularly when it is "perceived" as being anti government.
Within the article by Peter, I focus on his comments re - "deliberation over weeks" - and having reviewed via the BSA website and the adjudication by the BSA on complaints, I get the sense of "bias" in their rulings - in many cases " we see no wrong in this matter ".
At that point I wonder how the person 'who complained' feels when this adjudicated decision is passed down.
Also with the many written comments, on the matter at hand, I get the sense that Paul Goldsmith is "not capable making a decision, and that maybe his capability as a Minister of The Crown can now be questioned".
It would not be the first time with The National Party.
I also have been in broadcasting for 5 decades, experienced the changes and don't want to go back to the over regulated oversight of bodies like the BSA.
The technology changes have made the BSA totally ineffective and redundant.
I believe that retaining it would make NZ one of the few countries in the modern Western world to be censored by a pompous Government body.
Luxon, show some initiative and scrap the BSA.
"out of their time, out of their lane and out of their minds." Sheer brilliance Anna Mouse - well done.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.