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
7 comments:
If the BSA was the arbiter of trust in our state owned broadcasters - ensuring fairness and balance then they deserve to be dismantled for their utter failure at that job. Alone.
I agree that the idea of having a Broadcasting Standards Authority is not wrong. The problem with it, and the other similar authorities, are that they have become instruments of political censorship, which promote woke politics and come down hard on anyone who broadcasts political views not their own. I notice that the majority of the BSA are Jacinda's appointees, even though it is three years since she left office. Jacinda was very effective in putting her loyal cronies in all the important public positions in the NZ media. Two members are lawyers - one a tattooed woman from the Wairarapa. One member is a "communications" person, as Jacinda was. Another is a lady from the TAB. Those four are the people who determine what we can and cannot watch and see.
All very good Richard but did you at any stage anticipate the stunning levels of arrogance, ignorance and incompetence demonstrated by the Board chair and CEO?
Did the BSA di anything when Ardern stood at the Podium of Truth, day after day, and lied on public television ?
Nah, and highly unlikely as she had loaded the BSA with with her cronies.
Sir, The problem with both current mainstream broadcasters and the BSA is not so much their blatant left-wing bias as their dishonesty in claiming neutrality while exercising that bias.
THAT is the discretion that is unforgivable.
I would suggest that, before they remove the data from Google, readers/commenters go research what the BSA undertook as arbitration on written complaints - and find -
1. - how many where actually implemented and those who were "at fault", what steps were taken to rectify?
2. - all those complaints that >
a:- may have had merit in what was perceived as an issue
b:- had the final statement - "Not Upheld"!
With 2, above, I will acknowledge that we have here in NZ, serial complainer's, who, if watching TV, Podcast - will look for every mistake/vocal tone etc.et.al - that they perceive as being "misleading", whatever.
You do not have to watch TV or read BSA Reports on Decisions made, just look at how Social Media has transformed into "platforms" of hate/ statements that either defamatory and/or derogatory / fat shaming
plus others - all done behind pseudonym's - that the "target' of such messaging has no "BSA" to turn to, for redress, their redress is to 'clap back' at the message sender and from what I have seen, leads to more "on-line harassment".
To quantify my statement above, I have seen the end result of those actions.
As to Ardern, we will never know - what/who prior to her becoming PM and during her "tenure" - was behind the "many things" that took place, or were put into place, for I am sure she did not have the capacity to enact such actions.
As with all other such organisations members are prone to favour their own brand of leanings. That was basis for selection. But additionally in the modern world there is huge incentive for members and staff to extend any sinecure of which they have the good fortune to be part. So instead of dismissing the mumbo jumbo comment as entirely reasonable and appropriate, the steps necessary to trigger a major make work exercise were commenced External lawyers and consultants eagerly anticipate lucrative participation. Sadly we have been cheated of the spectacle of challenge of undefined, unwritten, very variable whimsical tikanga, conjured in the heads of a myriad artful latter day tohunga equivalents.
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.