7 ms·

NZ Government to Disestablish the BSA

30 points by xupybd 4mo ago

xupybd 4mo ago
This is what caused their problems https://lawnews.nz/administrative-public/bca-investigates-itself-decides-it-can-rule-on-racism-complaint-against-the-platforms-sean-plunket/ https://lawnews.nz/administrative-public/bca-investigates-it...
- bcjdjsndon 4mo ago
  Typical colonists. Trying to one up the homeland on prudishness. Australia is making similar "save the children" noises.
Taniwha 4mo ago
They investigated one too many rightwinger who supported the government
- nephihaha 4mo ago
  Jacinda Ardern's other half was in broadcasting. It's not a new issue. They're all part of the same clique.
  - Taniwha 4mo ago
    he made fishing shows, not exactly politically contentious
    - nephihaha 4mo ago
      Doesn't matter. In Scotland, we have variously a former BBC news reader who was married to a politician and a Gaelic child actor (often on BBC made programmes) whose father was MP for the Outer Hebrides and whose uncle was a BBC news reporter. You could argue neither of those were political roles. It comes over as very cliquey and nepotistic to me. There are millions of people in NZ, many of whom can't get into these circles, and folk at the top of politics and media hang around with each other. Then the public wonders why they come over as out of touch. Ardern's ?uncle was also a big noise in the Mormon church. Used to run the Pacific region, where it has major influence in countries like Samoa and Tonga. She's well connected.
isodev 4mo ago
Does NZ have a right wing government right now? Nothing in the history of anything has ever improved with “Self regulation” so it must be useless policy season.
- promiseofbeans 4mo ago
  It is useless policy season. This is highly unlikely to get through before the upcoming election. The press releases are mostly just virtue signalling.
  - JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
    > useless policy season What does this mean?
promiseofbeans 4mo ago
I’m highly doubtful about this - it seems to be an excuse to disestablish the BSA, rather than a genuine basis for the decision. I think this will help drive more partisan and sensationalist media, like one gets in the US. NZ has been relatively resistant to populism and partisanism in the past, partially because we have a watchdog to make the media all play nice. Based on their arguments, they should really be expanding the BSA’s remit to officially cover internet-based NZ media. Also, they’ve done a press release and talked on the radio about it to try and stir up headlines, but it’s highly unlikely to get through parliament before the upcoming election. Based on the current polling, the makeup of parliament is likely to dramatically alter by the end of the year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_New_Zealand_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_N...
- toyg 4mo ago
  Without knowing anything about the current state of NZ politics, some general political strategies could be the source: 1. since they are in a lame-duck state (as you mentioned, everyone expects there will be an overhaul), they are trying to get done the dirty stuff they promised to big donors (this particular thing looks like a wet dream of Rupert Murdoch, for example) 2. since they expect to be beaten, they think unleashing the "dogs of hell" of unregulated media might actually help them 3. they have an actual proposal that is different from this but that they can sell as a compromise, after the inevitable pushback on this one, which will then be rushed through sight-unseen "because there is no time left" 4. this is just campaign noise, meant to attract interest from moneyed media so that they get treated well in the upcoming election cycle If I were a betting man, I would put money on 1.
  - xupybd 4mo ago
    I expect National to get back in next election.
    - pseudohadamard 4mo ago
      ... possibly for the same reason Trump got back in: No effective opposition.
nephihaha 4mo ago
New Zealand has always imported the bulk of its television content from the USA, Australia and the UK (more rarely Canada and elsewhere) and yet New Zealanders are forced to pay a sky high TV licence. Where is this money really going? The obvious answer is that a handful of people are creaming it off to fund their lifestyles rather than to produce domestic content. Has the BSA ever addressed this obvious elephant in the room? Other than "Shortland Street", the news and some sports games, there has been disappointingly little in the way of domestic television production. A shame because NZ can produce excellent films and dramas sometimes. It is pretty clear that Peter Jackson has done more for New Zealand that way than the state broadcasters ever did.
- pansa2 4mo ago
  > New Zealanders are forced to pay a sky high TV licence There’s no TV license in New Zealand
  - nephihaha 4mo ago
    My bad. But my point sticks, because NZ TV licenCe did exist for most of the time TV has been in New Zealand, i.e. for well over forty years. These days, the state, aka "the Crown", controls major outlets, and still pays for some programming from public taxes as well as taking advertising revenue. So the public pays for it whether they want to or not. (Much like Australia which abolished its licence a while ago, and the Republic of Ireland which retains a TV licence but also carries advertising on RTÉ.) Where is most of that public money going to?
jmclnx 4mo ago
The US did something similar in the 1980s Reagan years, look were the US is now. You really should expand it to new media. So, welcome to the oligarchy, were a few ultra rich controls media.
iamnothere 4mo ago
“Broadcasting standards” make little sense in the age of streaming, internet platforms, and user generated content. Network TV is basically dead. Regulating individual streamers and content creators is a fool’s errand and only creates resentment against the government. If you want to retain influence over national media, the effective modern path seems to be for governments to help fund that content, as in Canada or Japan.
- nephihaha 4mo ago
  I think "broadcasting standards" can be extended to streaming and content creators although harder to police due to sheer numbers. In many countries, the internet has led to a democratisation of video/TV content despite outlets such as YouTube trying to manipulate it and shut out most smaller uploaders.

30 points by xupybd 4mo ago

This is what caused their problems https://lawnews.nz/administrative-public/bca-investigates-itself-decides-it-can-rule-on-racism-complaint-against-the-platforms-sean-plunket/ https://lawnews.nz/administrative-public/bca-investigates-it...

bcjdjsndon 4mo ago
Typical colonists. Trying to one up the homeland on prudishness. Australia is making similar "save the children" noises.

Taniwha 4mo ago

They investigated one too many rightwinger who supported the government

nephihaha 4mo ago
Jacinda Ardern's other half was in broadcasting. It's not a new issue. They're all part of the same clique.
- Taniwha 4mo ago
  he made fishing shows, not exactly politically contentious
  - nephihaha 4mo ago
    Doesn't matter. In Scotland, we have variously a former BBC news reader who was married to a politician and a Gaelic child actor (often on BBC made programmes) whose father was MP for the Outer Hebrides and whose uncle was a BBC news reporter. You could argue neither of those were political roles. It comes over as very cliquey and nepotistic to me. There are millions of people in NZ, many of whom can't get into these circles, and folk at the top of politics and media hang around with each other. Then the public wonders why they come over as out of touch. Ardern's ?uncle was also a big noise in the Mormon church. Used to run the Pacific region, where it has major influence in countries like Samoa and Tonga. She's well connected.

isodev 4mo ago

Does NZ have a right wing government right now? Nothing in the history of anything has ever improved with “Self regulation” so it must be useless policy season.

promiseofbeans 4mo ago
It is useless policy season. This is highly unlikely to get through before the upcoming election. The press releases are mostly just virtue signalling.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago
  > useless policy season What does this mean?

promiseofbeans 4mo ago

I’m highly doubtful about this - it seems to be an excuse to disestablish the BSA, rather than a genuine basis for the decision. I think this will help drive more partisan and sensationalist media, like one gets in the US. NZ has been relatively resistant to populism and partisanism in the past, partially because we have a watchdog to make the media all play nice. Based on their arguments, they should really be expanding the BSA’s remit to officially cover internet-based NZ media. Also, they’ve done a press release and talked on the radio about it to try and stir up headlines, but it’s highly unlikely to get through parliament before the upcoming election. Based on the current polling, the makeup of parliament is likely to dramatically alter by the end of the year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_New_Zealand_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_N...

toyg 4mo ago
Without knowing anything about the current state of NZ politics, some general political strategies could be the source: 1. since they are in a lame-duck state (as you mentioned, everyone expects there will be an overhaul), they are trying to get done the dirty stuff they promised to big donors (this particular thing looks like a wet dream of Rupert Murdoch, for example) 2. since they expect to be beaten, they think unleashing the "dogs of hell" of unregulated media might actually help them 3. they have an actual proposal that is different from this but that they can sell as a compromise, after the inevitable pushback on this one, which will then be rushed through sight-unseen "because there is no time left" 4. this is just campaign noise, meant to attract interest from moneyed media so that they get treated well in the upcoming election cycle If I were a betting man, I would put money on 1.
- xupybd 4mo ago
  I expect National to get back in next election.
  - pseudohadamard 4mo ago
    ... possibly for the same reason Trump got back in: No effective opposition.

nephihaha 4mo ago

New Zealand has always imported the bulk of its television content from the USA, Australia and the UK (more rarely Canada and elsewhere) and yet New Zealanders are forced to pay a sky high TV licence. Where is this money really going? The obvious answer is that a handful of people are creaming it off to fund their lifestyles rather than to produce domestic content. Has the BSA ever addressed this obvious elephant in the room? Other than "Shortland Street", the news and some sports games, there has been disappointingly little in the way of domestic television production. A shame because NZ can produce excellent films and dramas sometimes. It is pretty clear that Peter Jackson has done more for New Zealand that way than the state broadcasters ever did.

pansa2 4mo ago
> New Zealanders are forced to pay a sky high TV licence There’s no TV license in New Zealand
- nephihaha 4mo ago
  My bad. But my point sticks, because NZ TV licenCe did exist for most of the time TV has been in New Zealand, i.e. for well over forty years. These days, the state, aka "the Crown", controls major outlets, and still pays for some programming from public taxes as well as taking advertising revenue. So the public pays for it whether they want to or not. (Much like Australia which abolished its licence a while ago, and the Republic of Ireland which retains a TV licence but also carries advertising on RTÉ.) Where is most of that public money going to?

jmclnx 4mo ago

The US did something similar in the 1980s Reagan years, look were the US is now. You really should expand it to new media. So, welcome to the oligarchy, were a few ultra rich controls media.

iamnothere 4mo ago

“Broadcasting standards” make little sense in the age of streaming, internet platforms, and user generated content. Network TV is basically dead. Regulating individual streamers and content creators is a fool’s errand and only creates resentment against the government. If you want to retain influence over national media, the effective modern path seems to be for governments to help fund that content, as in Canada or Japan.

nephihaha 4mo ago
I think "broadcasting standards" can be extended to streaming and content creators although harder to police due to sheer numbers. In many countries, the internet has led to a democratisation of video/TV content despite outlets such as YouTube trying to manipulate it and shut out most smaller uploaders.