Thursday, October 22, 2020

The latest to your inbox twice a week.

Home Community Media relaxed with state moves to police "harm" in broadcasts

Media relaxed with state moves to police “harm” in broadcasts

By John Drinnan

There is reason to be nervous about a new strategy for the Broadcasting Standards Authority to focus on “harm” when administering the codes. The new strategy is being developed in tandem with a government review of the legal approach to “hate”. “Hate” is like “harm” – a word that people will seek to define for their own purposes.

Radio New Zealand Mediawatch producer Colin Peacock interviewed BSA chairman Judge Bill Hastings (chief film censor from 1998 to 2010) and chief executive Belinda Moffatt about the change. 

Of course, this is not happening in a vacuum. Free speech is being hammered around the world, powered by cultural turmoil and censorious politicians. The BSA insists it is taking a neutral stance, however the timing of this change to the code is worrying.

Further limits of what the news media can say or repeat is dangerous in a time of rapid change. And so far, the media that were once the champions of free speech have been remarkably silent on this clear danger. 

The New Zealand media have been replete with comments that seeks to “unify” themselves by identifying views that are beyond the pale. Some, like RNZ and Newshub, imagine a burgeoning white supremacist movement here after the March 15 terrorist attack. The media collective known as the “Media Freedom Committee” volunteered restricted coverage of the Brenton Tarrant trial. 

This does not serve these news companies in the way they think it will. Soon more people will turn to local publications or overseas that remain independent from the state. 

Equally as worrying are the powers of purportedly independent bodies like the BSA.

The BSA chief executive Belinda Moffatt says that the standards watchdog is “always concerned about freedom of speech” with a high threshold to warrant intervention, yet she defends this dangerous adoption of a test for harm. There are a number of other members of the BSA are position there by politicians. This is hardly independent.

While the BSA decisions are subject to judicial review in the High Court, this is only useful or those that can be bothered, or that can afford them. There is an obvious cost barrier for free speech so far as BSA appeals are concerned. The number cases too expensive to appeal will only increase with the importation of the subjective “harm” factor the BSA is proposing.

The BSA insists it “consults with ‘the community’” on changes in strategy, and subsequently any review of the codes. That means talking to interest groups including ethnic, religious and LGBT groups. “For a specific complaint that may arise where there is a cultural issue, we might look to how it affects the Samoan or Thai or Maori community, Moffatt says.

“We would talk to anyone who wanted to talk to us. We receive communications from Family First and Better Public Media,” says Moffatt, “We look across a range of articles in the media.”

It is not just in the BSA that there are concern about the political independence of those that hold the levers of power so far as speech arises. Another former chief film censor and chief executive of NZ on Air, Jane Wrightson, allocates public money toward media. Broadcasters have a representative who has traditionally acted as a brake to restrictions. Nowadays it is former Mediaworks radio CEO Wendy Palmer.

Journalists and the wider media might have acted on supposedly self-interested support of free speech in the past. But they are no longer reliable.

The BSA needs to seek out views that promote freedom – not academics who promote ways to trim, censor and control.

View the Original Article here

Guest Authorhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
We gratefully share the works of many guest authors under the Creative Commons License. This Article may be shared and re-posted while honoring the terms of this licence. Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the original work and to the license as well as indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Rent-A-Crowd Looters in Caravans of Rent-A-Cars

I've written before that BLM and Antifa are really just the latest version of the same racially-obsessed radical communist movement which has...

Covid 19 coronavirus: Victoria fights for power to detain ‘high-risk’ spreaders

The Victorian Government will debate sweeping powers that would allow police to detain anyone they believe was "high risk" of spreading coronavirus.

Don Delivers! Is Freedom of Speech Under Threat in New Zealand?

Lindsay Perigosolopassion.com Here is a speech by a man who nearly became Prime Minister, and...

Part Four: Making NZ Serve China

Professor Anne-Marie BradySupplementary Submission to the New Zealand Parliament Justice Select Committee Inquiry into Foreign Interference Activities, 2019 Part...

Recent Comments