“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.
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_N...
> I’m highly doubtful about this - it seems to be an excuse to disestablish the BSA, rather than a genuine basis for the decision.
The title of the piece is "Government to disestablish the BSA" and the domain is .govt.nz. I think it only fair to point out they're being very upfront that this is their excuse for disestablishing the BSA.
> 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.
It's an island [0] that has a smaller population the 2 largest cities of the nearest mainland, Australia. A substantial chunk of the country is uninhabitable due to mountains (and Orcs, based on what I've seen of it). It'd be quite challenging for the NZ population to rift into partisanship, they don't have enough people or space. If you look at somewhere like the US, it tends to be populations the size of NZ locked in a fight with other populations the size of NZ for who wants the right to tax the other.
What is NZ supposed to fight over, whether the factories go on north island or south island? It isn't that big a deal. I suppose no fight more serious than one over trivia, but really.
It's amazing reading history, about a huge city that totally affected the course of a major war, manufacturing and logistics hub - open it up and look inside: "Population 10,000."
Roman Army at it's peak: 450,000 men.
Walmart: 2.1 million
(Cue reddit arguments about Roman Army vs Walmart)
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
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.
It is useless policy season. This is highly unlikely to get through before the upcoming election. The press releases are mostly just virtue signalling.
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.
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.
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.)
“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.
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_N...
> I’m highly doubtful about this - it seems to be an excuse to disestablish the BSA, rather than a genuine basis for the decision.
The title of the piece is "Government to disestablish the BSA" and the domain is .govt.nz. I think it only fair to point out they're being very upfront that this is their excuse for disestablishing the BSA.
> 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.
It's an island [0] that has a smaller population the 2 largest cities of the nearest mainland, Australia. A substantial chunk of the country is uninhabitable due to mountains (and Orcs, based on what I've seen of it). It'd be quite challenging for the NZ population to rift into partisanship, they don't have enough people or space. If you look at somewhere like the US, it tends to be populations the size of NZ locked in a fight with other populations the size of NZ for who wants the right to tax the other.
What is NZ supposed to fight over, whether the factories go on north island or south island? It isn't that big a deal. I suppose no fight more serious than one over trivia, but really.
[0] Islands?
Venice was a hotbed of political intrigue in the olden days and had half the population of NZ.
I suppose. Although if NZ manages the sort of vigour and industry of Venice back in the day I am going to move there.
It's amazing reading history, about a huge city that totally affected the course of a major war, manufacturing and logistics hub - open it up and look inside: "Population 10,000."
Roman Army at it's peak: 450,000 men.
Walmart: 2.1 million
(Cue reddit arguments about Roman Army vs Walmart)
I don't think the republic of Venice ever had 2 million people, what time period are you referring to?
Wikipedia reports it peaked at 2.5m - "16th century estimate".
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.
This is what caused their problems
https://lawnews.nz/administrative-public/bca-investigates-it...
Typical colonists. Trying to one up the homeland on prudishness. Australia is making similar "save the children" noises.
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.
It is useless policy season. This is highly unlikely to get through before the upcoming election. The press releases are mostly just virtue signalling.
> useless policy season
What does this mean?
They investigated one too many rightwinger who supported the government
Jacinda Ardern's other half was in broadcasting. It's not a new issue. They're all part of the same clique.
he made fishing shows, not exactly politically contentious
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.
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.
> New Zealanders are forced to pay a sky high TV licence
There’s no TV license in New Zealand
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.)
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.