As recently as 1961, the government controlled all but two of New Zealand’s 34 radio stations. Our first television station had just started up. We had to wait until 1975 for a second national channel. Both were state-owned.
The years since have seen a continuous expansion of the number and diversity of broadcasting outlets: privately owned AM radio stations burgeoned, FM radio emerged, privately owned television stations were permitted, and satellite television was launched. The government no longer controlled the broadcast media, and even took steps to ensure the independence of the parts it still owned. But it still believed it had a role to play in regulating broadcasting standards. Since 1990, this role has been filled by the Broadcasting Standards Authority, administering a complaints regime set up under the Broadcasting Act 1989 to govern matters such as fairness, accuracy, balance, privacy, and taste and decency. The system applies to all New Zealand radio and television broadcasters, public and private. And since the people broadcasting to New Zealanders were invariably based in New Zealand, that regime has worked relatively well.
Until now.
But things have changed. The ongoing revolution in information technology means that New Zealanders are increasingly receiving films and audio-visual programming from sources other than television and radio. Sources that often originate overseas and are accessible to anyone with a PC via the Internet. Sources that are probably beyond the reach of the current standards regime.
This paper sets out to examine what these new technologies are, and what they mean for the future of media regulation – and in particular, broadcasting regulation – in New Zealand. How are these new technologies changing the nature of broadcasting? To what extent is the current regime well-adapted to deal with these new technologies? What pressures are they likely to place on it? Can the regulatory regime be extended to encompass the new formats? Should it be? Would it need to be modified? Should it be scrapped altogether instead?
The paper is in two parts. Part one explores the technological developments themselves. It looks at the growth of audiovisual content online, the explosion in file-sharing, the development of new communities online, the rise of collaborative information tools and citizen journalism, the emergence of Internet protocol television and the use (and misuse) of filtering technology. It also outlines the mainstream media’s response to new technologies, and crystal ball gaze about the future of broadcasting.
Part two examines the implications of new technologies for New Zealand’s broadcasting regime. It summarises the regulatory challenges created by new technologies, sketch the existing regulatory environment in New Zealand, and identify some gaps and shortcomings. It then focus on the implications for broadcasting regulation, and suggest some potential legislative and judicial responses.
Purpose
Examines what the new information technologies are, and what they mean for the future of media regulation particularly, broadcasting regulation in New Zealand.
Key Results
- New technologies allow audio-visual content to be quickly and efficiently distributed around the globe
- Media industry – particularly the broadcast sector is in a period of accelerated innovation in response to consumer pressure
- Audio-visual content plays key role in these communities; within which individuals increasingly "quote" media to each other
- Dichotomy exists between single sources of authority and the mass of individual voices
- New Zealand making belated move towards free-to-air digital broadcasting based on the Freeview model pioneered in Britain
- Technical means to filter internet content exist but are not perfect and filtering creates its own problems
- The advent of new technologies creates problems for regulators trying to control fraudulent material, harmful to children, criminal, offensive, invasive of privacy, anti-competitive or unethical
- New Zealand’s system of media regulation a patch work of private and public regulatory bodies
- The regulatory emphasis moves from dictating standards to informing audiences about the nature of the content available and empowering them to make judgements, participate in emerging community standards processes
- Attempt to extend the BSA’s jurisdiction to cover other broadcast-like platforms will encounter difficult practical and policy problems
- Case for expanding the BSA’s jurisdiction is arguably greatest with respect to audiovisual content, publicly owned or funded content sources, transmissions to large audiences, and broadcasts of local news and current affairs
- An international consensus on regulating internet content looks very unlikely