The Broadcasting Standards Authority was my idea.
What is worse, I still think the original idea was right.
To my surprise, after the 1987 election, David Lange made me Minister of Broadcasting. Much of today’s broadcasting system came out of my reforms.
Officials advised that I would receive about twenty letters a week complaining about broadcasts.
It was not an unreasonable belief that the Minister of Broadcasting had something to do with broadcasting standards.
In fact, by law the Minister of Broadcasting must not interfere in programming decisions.
All I could do was reply that Parliament had decided that the Minister of Broadcasting must not comment on content and that I had referred the complaint to the broadcaster.
I do not recall any broadcaster ever acknowledging fault.
I did read the letters.
About half complained about Benny Hill and his risqué jokes. But some complaints plainly had merit.
Broadcasters had blurred facts and opinions.
I noticed broadcasters were careful not to defame those wealthy enough to sue but often careless about the reputations of ordinary people unable to afford lawyers.
It seemed to me then — and still does — that holding a broadcasting licence is a privilege carrying obligations.
That obligation is even greater when the broadcaster is taxpayer-owned.
I knew most complaints would fail. Some complaints would be vexatious.
Allowing people to vent outrage is not necessarily a bad thing.
Some complaints would expose genuine irresponsibility.
And sometimes they did.
The Authority has upheld complaints against broadcasters humiliating unsuspecting people for entertainment, broadcasting private conversations without consent, and reckless prank broadcasts causing real harm.
Radio stations have broadcast people’s private telephone numbers without permission, leading to harassment and reputations being damaged.
Ordinary New Zealanders could never have afforded to sue. The Authority gave them a remedy.
I still think the distinction matters.
Anyone should be free to publish outrageous opinions in newspapers, magazines, pamphlets or on the internet. No licence is required. No permission from the authorities is needed.
Reader and viewer beware.
That freedom matters.
But broadcasting has always been different.
The state grants the licence. The broadcaster uses a scarce public resource. With that privilege comes obligations — including basic standards of accuracy and fairness.
The internet has blurred the old boundaries. Broadcasters now stream online beside bloggers, YouTubers and podcasters.
But a licensed broadcaster still occupies a different constitutional position from someone publishing online without a licence.
It was not an unreasonable belief that the Minister of Broadcasting had something to do with broadcasting standards.
In fact, by law the Minister of Broadcasting must not interfere in programming decisions.
All I could do was reply that Parliament had decided that the Minister of Broadcasting must not comment on content and that I had referred the complaint to the broadcaster.
I do not recall any broadcaster ever acknowledging fault.
I did read the letters.
About half complained about Benny Hill and his risqué jokes. But some complaints plainly had merit.
Broadcasters had blurred facts and opinions.
I noticed broadcasters were careful not to defame those wealthy enough to sue but often careless about the reputations of ordinary people unable to afford lawyers.
It seemed to me then — and still does — that holding a broadcasting licence is a privilege carrying obligations.
That obligation is even greater when the broadcaster is taxpayer-owned.
I knew most complaints would fail. Some complaints would be vexatious.
Allowing people to vent outrage is not necessarily a bad thing.
Some complaints would expose genuine irresponsibility.
And sometimes they did.
The Authority has upheld complaints against broadcasters humiliating unsuspecting people for entertainment, broadcasting private conversations without consent, and reckless prank broadcasts causing real harm.
Radio stations have broadcast people’s private telephone numbers without permission, leading to harassment and reputations being damaged.
Ordinary New Zealanders could never have afforded to sue. The Authority gave them a remedy.
I still think the distinction matters.
Anyone should be free to publish outrageous opinions in newspapers, magazines, pamphlets or on the internet. No licence is required. No permission from the authorities is needed.
Reader and viewer beware.
That freedom matters.
But broadcasting has always been different.
The state grants the licence. The broadcaster uses a scarce public resource. With that privilege comes obligations — including basic standards of accuracy and fairness.
The internet has blurred the old boundaries. Broadcasters now stream online beside bloggers, YouTubers and podcasters.
But a licensed broadcaster still occupies a different constitutional position from someone publishing online without a licence.
The answer cannot be to regulate the internet as though it were broadcasting.
That is where the Broadcasting Standards Authority lost its way.
Once the Authority tried extending broadcasting regulation into the online world, it undermined the case for its own existence.
The problem is not the principle of licensed broadcasting standards. The problem is regulatory overreach.
It continues to surprise me how timid ministers have become. When board members lost sight of their statutory purpose, I removed them.
This Government instead proposes abolishing the Authority entirely.
That may prove to be an overreaction.
Broadcasters now celebrating the Authority’s abolition may discover they are the biggest losers.
The media’s central problem today is collapsing public trust.
Surveys say that the most trusted media outlet in New Zealand is Radio New Zealand — and it is fully subject to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.
Every editor working under the Authority knows there is an independent body asking whether standards of accuracy and fairness have been met.
That discipline matters.
Traditional broadcasting is already in rapid decline. Television audiences are shrinking. Radio is losing listeners.
Broadcasters now compete directly with bloggers, YouTubers, podcasters and internet conspiracy theorists.
Those who think broadcasting standards no longer matter because “anything goes” online may discover that audiences will stop trusting broadcasters as well.
Trust is one of the essential foundations of a free society. If the Broadcasting Standards Authority helps maintain trust in broadcasting, it still serves a purpose.
Once public trust is lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild.
That is where the Broadcasting Standards Authority lost its way.
Once the Authority tried extending broadcasting regulation into the online world, it undermined the case for its own existence.
The problem is not the principle of licensed broadcasting standards. The problem is regulatory overreach.
It continues to surprise me how timid ministers have become. When board members lost sight of their statutory purpose, I removed them.
This Government instead proposes abolishing the Authority entirely.
That may prove to be an overreaction.
Broadcasters now celebrating the Authority’s abolition may discover they are the biggest losers.
The media’s central problem today is collapsing public trust.
Surveys say that the most trusted media outlet in New Zealand is Radio New Zealand — and it is fully subject to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.
Every editor working under the Authority knows there is an independent body asking whether standards of accuracy and fairness have been met.
That discipline matters.
Traditional broadcasting is already in rapid decline. Television audiences are shrinking. Radio is losing listeners.
Broadcasters now compete directly with bloggers, YouTubers, podcasters and internet conspiracy theorists.
Those who think broadcasting standards no longer matter because “anything goes” online may discover that audiences will stop trusting broadcasters as well.
Trust is one of the essential foundations of a free society. If the Broadcasting Standards Authority helps maintain trust in broadcasting, it still serves a purpose.
Once public trust is lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild.
The Honourable Richard Prebble CBE is a former member of the New Zealand Parliament. Initially a member of the Labour Party, he joined the newly formed ACT New Zealand party under Roger Douglas in 1996, becoming its leader from 1996 to 2004. This article was sourced HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.