It has never been sublime but now, by God, it is ridiculous: Media regulation in New Zealand has reached the point where the public it is supposed to serve are left confused and incredulous.
The fault lies with successive governments that have seen the issues, then walked away because they think the solutions are too hard or they do not have the guts to confront powerful foreign forces. Governments led by both National and Labour have wilfully ignored the fact that the entire system is anachronistic and needs urgent replacement.
Last week the outdated nature of the system was brought into sharp relief by the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s attempt to ram a round peg into a mouldy square hole. In order to claim jurisdiction over Sean Plunket’s online entity The Platform, the BSA was forced to squeeze every last morsel of possible meaning out of its empowering legislation. Continue reading “When something is this broken, it’s time get a new one”→
Three-quarters of New Zealanders who experience an event which improves their trust in news media are likely to believe it continues to be better. So why do our media ignore such crashing statements of the obvious and continue to lose credibility?
The statistic is drawn from a new study commissioned by the Broadcasting Standards Authority on trust in media. Carried out by The Curiosity Company, it draws on both focus groups and an online opinion survey. Most of its findings reinforce what we already know, and that begs the question: Why do news outlets continue to exhibit the sort of behaviour that contributes to declining trust when the solutions are so obvious?
This is the quotation that leads the BSA report: “If it tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in news reports, clearly separating opinion and content, I am more likely to trust the provider.”
Yet every day we see example after example of fact and opinion being mixed together in what is presented as news stories, with the audience finding it increasingly difficult to differentiate between reportage and comment.
Yes, in an age when anyone has the ability to spread their views (however asinine) through a digital megaphone, it is only natural that news media believe the opinions of their informed journalists should also be heard. Not, however, in the same breath or paragraph as the facts they are reporting or events they are relaying.
We see regular examples of click-bait headlining and story selection – particularly on news sites that use artificial intelligence, algorithms, and analytics to curate content–that leaves the audience feeling both cheated and intellectually belittled.
The 66-page BSA report canvasses broad consumer views of news and information, factors that promote trust, and factors that drive distrust. It reinforces other studies such as those by AUT’s Research Centre for Journalism, Media and Democracy the Reuter’s Institute in the United Kingdom, and the Pew Center in the United States. Continue reading “Solutions to declining trust are staring news media in the face”→
The New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority may be about to learn that mission creep never ends well. Its provisional decision to claim jurisdiction over Sean Plunket’s online entity The Platform has far-reaching implications.
Its interlocutory decision was marked ‘Not for publication’: That was as naïve as thinking that old warhorse Plunket would meekly accept its finding that the BSA had jurisdiction over online broadcasts. The decision inevitably was published, and there were predictable reactions from the Platform’s owner and from the leaders of the two coalition partners with an inordinate influence on the actions of the present government.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters posted on social media, saying “Why does the Broadcasting Standards Authority think they can make up their own rules in secret meetings to act like some Soviet era Stasi.” ACT MP Todd Stephenson – no doubt acting on instructions from party leader David Seymour – complained to Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith and intimated that ACT is considering a private member’s bill seeking the BSA’s abolition. Goldsmith batted the complaint away as an operational matter.
Both coalition parties see the BSA’s decision as mission creep and, by implication, an attempt to do something that is the prerogative of Parliament. It is for a majority of the House to determine the jurisdiction of its statutory regulators through legislation, not the body empowered by that legislation. Continue reading “BSA’s mission creep could prove to be its nemesis”→
There was a reassuring sense of common purpose in a joint media release this week by the four bodies charged with keeping the next election’s media campaigns honest. So why did I get a feeling it was like a rerun of the League of Nations in the 1930s?
The media release announced a short video described as a consumer guide to complaints processes during the election. The video explained the roles of the Electoral Commission (NZEC), Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), and New Zealand Media Council (NZMC) in the complaints process. The four bodies also helpfully provided an infographic on who does what.
Each organisation has specific jurisdiction during elections and rules that must be followed. The Electoral Commission has comprehensive rules for political parties, candidates, and third party promoters on everything from hoardings and flyers to how much can be spent on advertising. Both the Advertising Standards Authority and Broadcasting Standards Authority have comprehensive rules, guides, and a stack of past rulings that light their path. The Media Council simply requires election editorial coverage to comply with its 12 principles of good journalism.
The release carried a solemn statement from the four bodies:
“Political speech and election related content, which includes campaign material and commentary on advocacy groups, politicians, political parties and their policies, are vital components of the right to freedom of expression and a democratic election process. We are committed to supporting all those who publish or promote election related content to comply with the standards expected within New Zealand, and encourage members of the public who view, read or hear content that concerns them to raise this with us.”
Now, all this is very reassuring and New Zealand does have a good working model for ensuring election advertising and media coverage is above board. Electors have been reasonably well served in past elections and over time a system has developed that allows for fast redress on matters requiring urgent attention.
