KEY POINTS:
What kind of restraints, if any, do New Zealanders want on broadcast content in the 21st century? The Broadcasting Standards Authority posed this question earlier this year and set about finding out what other countries are doing to address changes brought on by digital technology.
A report titled
Issues Facing Broadcast Content Regulation, commissioned by the authority and now made public, was written by four New Zealand and British specialists looking at this country's present situation compared with 13 other countries.
As fast broadband becomes a reality, television over the internet is becoming viable.
Digital free-to-air and radio is around the corner, and mobile TV not that far away. New Zealand needs to rethink its broadcast rules.
They have been in place since 1989, a date even before there was a universally accepted word for the miracle now called the internet.
Traditional free-to-air broadcast regulation in New Zealand has been light-touch for years, but it is still more constrained than pay TV, for example.
The reason behind this is the idea of the "uninvited guest" in the living room corner. The notion that while a free-to-air TV might be switched on, the content and timetable is still controlled by the channel.
That's why free channels such as TV One, TV3 and Maori TV must, by law, adhere to codes of practice covering their programmes - including things such as programme classification and protection of children.
This kind of broadcasting is what is sometimes known as "pushed content".
New technology provides new protections. Digital pay TV has direct help for its customers, who choose to buy channels in the form of electronic programme guides and a parental lock to prevent access by children to certain content.
So the pay TV code is less restrictive than that for free-to-air. Should rules for the planned digital Freeview channel be the same if they have similar protective tools?
When content is "pulled content", such as video on demand, or broadcast-like internet or mobile downloads, some argue that it should simply be a matter of "let the buyer beware".
What if the content is identical over different platforms? What if a broadcast programme is grossly unfair to a private citizen (which generally results in the authority penalising the broadcaster), yet becomes freely available on the internet? Should there be any redress? Is there a case for a uniform set of rules? All countries are grappling with this subject. Regulation of contents tends to be made up of mandatory codes of practice, formal complaints processes managed by broadcasters, and usually some kind of right of appeal against broadcaster decisions. Codes tend to cover public good requirements such as news broadcasts being fair, balanced and accurate, privacy protection, and balancing competing community standards with the right to freedom of information.
All of this provides simple protections against the power of the broadcast media. But few of these provisions are as restrictive for other media.
Some countries have converged their regulatory functions so that one body looks after most electronic content regulatory issues - except for censorship, which tends to remain separate because of the special power to ban material completely.
Other countries continue to regulate broadcast material but promote co-regulation or self-regulation of electronic content delivered on other platforms, such as the internet.
What should New Zealand do? Our report looks at what is happening in Australia, Britain, Ireland and Finland and also gives data for other countries. None has the perfect answer for our small country.
In essence, there's a clash between the more regulated world of broadcast and the online world.
The online world is generally left alone, apart from normal legal safeguards such as taking action for defamation and banning pornography.
The paper concludes with a series of questions. Should the status quo for the broadcast rules continue? Does it make a difference if you are watching content free on the home telly or getting it from a computer or phone? Should there be an increase in self-regulation?
What special protection do audiences - and those featured in programmes - still want?
And the question remains as to how we might adequately protect children, especially those more tech-savvy than their parents.
Is different treatment of the same content sensible? This has always been possible for, say, cinema films and screening them on TV.
Perhaps the issue is less about the actual content but the form in which it is accessed.
Some argue that the more control a person has in electing to receive - or not receive - a programme, provided the content is legal and well-signalled, the fewer levers there should be for complaint.
Media literacy initiatives will provide some of the solutions.
But the big question remains: In a world where you can find pretty much any kind of broadcast content you choose, on an unprecedented range of platforms, what rules should apply?
The Broadcasting Standards Authority will begin reviewing the free-to-air code of broadcasting practice next year, and the Government has signalled its interest in considering the overall framework.
New Zealanders will need to think about what they want.
* Jane Wrightson is the outgoing chief executive of the Broadcasting Standards Authority. You can access the report on www.bsa.govt.nz or phone the authority on 0800 3666 996 for a printed copy.
