« Labour’s weird response to the Law Commission | Main | The NZ Herald’s weird response to the Law Commission »
TVNZ’s weird response to the Law Commission
By Steven | March 28, 2013
Stuff is reporting that the NMSA is “not to broadcasters’ liking” and that “broadcasting agencies said dissolving the BSA would leave gaping holes for their non-news content.”
Odd. For one thing, Stuff only seems to have talked to one agency, TVNZ. The TVNZ spokeswoman said she was concerned that broadcasters like TVNZ, which show both news and current affairs content and entertainment programming, would be accountable to different standards bodies.
“You have to ask if that will be any less confusing to viewers who want to lay a formal complaint.”
This hardly makes any sense at all. Is TVNZ worried that there would be gaps for non-news content (because the BSA would be abolished) or that there would be two sets of standards (because the BSA would be retained)?
I don’t know whether the confusion comes from Stuff or TVNZ, but I do know there’s confusion.
The Law Commission’s proposal only relates to news, current affairs and factual programming. So there may be some residual role, perhaps temporarily, for the BSA, in relation to entertainment content (ie does it breach standards of taste and decency? is it unsuitable for children?, but not whether it’s fair and accurate). In a short chapter in the end, the Law Commission suggests that the government review the question of how we set standards in relation to entertainment content.
True, there will be some fuzziness about the edges of the concept of factual programming. When does reality TV become entertainment? Docu-dramas? The Law Commission says if it purports to provide factual information about real people, it’s within NMSA’s bailiwick. There’ll be a few programmes on the margin. But not many. It will usually be obvious who to complain to. And it’s likely that the censor’s office and the remaining BSA powers will be rolled up at some stage: that’s another messy interface in the law.
But the biggest head-scratcher here is the suggestion that broadcasters are hostile to the report. Most have accepted the looming need for a converged regulator. Many have been suspicious of the BSA and its political appointments and statutory basis. They prefer self-regulation. Well, the Law Commission’s proposal seems a big step in the right direction by those lights.
If there’s a real dual-complaint issue, then surely it’s the problem that many people will complain both to the BSA (about a particular broadcast) and the new Online Media Standards Authority (about the fact that it’s now on the broadcaster’s website), so the broadcaster will have to track two sets of standards and two sets of complaints jurisprudence.
It gets better: their funding obligations may be smaller. They get an appeal right to an NMSA appeal body (easier than using the courts, and probably with a wider appeal remit). There’s a mediation process that may head off court claims. There is no chance that damages will be awarded against them, and the Law Commission makes no mention of costs.
If you’re a broadcaster, what’s not to like?
Topics: Broadcasting Standards Authority | 49 Comments »
49 Responses to “TVNZ’s weird response to the Law Commission”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 26th, 2020 at 10:47 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
May 30th, 2020 at 2:19 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
May 31st, 2020 at 2:30 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
June 5th, 2020 at 11:22 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
June 12th, 2020 at 10:08 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
June 25th, 2020 at 8:08 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
July 1st, 2020 at 1:57 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
July 4th, 2020 at 11:39 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 78498 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
July 10th, 2020 at 11:37 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
July 24th, 2020 at 10:04 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 96808 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
August 1st, 2020 at 7:47 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
August 8th, 2020 at 12:54 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
August 10th, 2020 at 12:33 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
August 12th, 2020 at 4:12 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
August 21st, 2020 at 12:06 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 3:40 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 1:15 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
August 31st, 2020 at 1:48 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
September 1st, 2020 at 9:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
September 2nd, 2020 at 11:44 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 86578 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
September 2nd, 2020 at 11:00 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
September 10th, 2020 at 11:08 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
September 25th, 2020 at 4:21 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 92197 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
September 30th, 2020 at 2:55 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 28824 additional Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
October 8th, 2020 at 11:37 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
November 8th, 2020 at 6:53 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 51451 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
November 24th, 2020 at 6:28 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
November 28th, 2020 at 10:45 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 16057 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
November 28th, 2020 at 5:16 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 69639 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
November 28th, 2020 at 11:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
December 2nd, 2020 at 2:09 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
December 12th, 2020 at 12:29 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
December 20th, 2020 at 9:12 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
January 13th, 2021 at 4:14 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
March 22nd, 2021 at 2:46 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
March 27th, 2021 at 1:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
May 18th, 2021 at 6:11 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
May 28th, 2021 at 2:10 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
June 27th, 2021 at 3:04 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
July 18th, 2021 at 1:02 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
October 21st, 2021 at 11:39 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 57586 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
November 13th, 2021 at 2:58 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 76575 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
November 13th, 2021 at 10:57 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
November 20th, 2021 at 2:12 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
December 14th, 2021 at 1:57 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
January 5th, 2022 at 1:42 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
January 5th, 2022 at 7:56 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
January 6th, 2022 at 10:20 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]
February 15th, 2022 at 9:20 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=600 […]