Publications
Freedoms and Fetters: broadcasting standards in New Zealand
Download the full report as a PDF (1.6mb)
Executive Summary
The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) frequently surveys New Zealanders on their attitudes towards various broadcasting standards. The BSA's function in this regard is prescribed by the Broadcasting Act 1989: 'To conduct research and publish findings on matters relating to standards in broadcasting'.
This study focuses on two major types of broadcasting standard: the journalistic standards of balance and fairness in their application to factual programming, and good taste and decency, a standard that is applicable generally. A genre of broadcasting, talk radio, is used to discuss issues of balance and fairness; the discussion about good taste and decency springs from an analysis of past BSA decisions. A third element, the right to freedom of expression, is explored in focus groups.
The report consists of six studies. Each study offers a different perspective and employs different methodologies from which to examine the selected standards.
Balance and fairness
The standards of balance and fairness are the focus of the first four chapters.
In Chapter 1, we report on focus group participants who show an intense interest in the application of balance and fairness principles across a range of factual formats. They say that some formats, such as consumer advocacy TV programmes and talk radio, do not need to be as balanced as news and current affairs. Older participants appear to be more concerned than younger ones that news is reliable, and that programmes treat individuals and organisations fairly. When considering freedom of expression, participants strongly defend the individual's right to express a genuinely held opinion—unless that individual is a newsreader.
Chapter 2 presents an abridged history of the development of talk radio in America and Australia, and a more detailed account is given of its establishment and status within the New Zealand radio scene.
A discussion of talk radio's role in a democratic society contrasts conflicting viewpoints: that talk radio is an important ingredient in democratic nation building, versus, that talk radio is only an outlet for extremist views and may be a danger to democracy rather than supporting it.
The writer posits that talk radio in New Zealand has become an entertainment medium that no longer plays a vital role in the democratic process; consequently, there has been a shift in expectations of talk radio, which may have an impact on audience and industry expectations of broadcasting standards such as accuracy, balance, and fairness.
The relevance of broadcasting standards for talk radio is explored in Chapter 3 through interviews and a survey with New Zealand talk radio practitioners. Practitioners see commercial talk radio as a business whose roles include the dissemination of information, discussion of issues, and provision of entertainment. Talk radio broadcasters need to create an audience for financial gain but its practitioners recognise their accountability to listeners for issues such as accuracy, balance and fairness.
Chapter 4 reports on focus-group discussions with talkback listeners. They discuss issues of balance and fairness, the standard of social responsibility (which is a standard specific to radio broadcasters), and the right to freedom of expression.
Participants agree that there is a need for balance in talkback, particularly where people or groups are named. They see it as part of the host's role to help provide this balance, but are suspicious that efforts to obtain significant points of view could be manipulated by a host selecting only callers who support his or her view, and cutting-off others. They say that everyone should be given the right of reply.
There is general agreement among the talkback listeners interviewed that the fairness standard is important as it encourages the respectful treatment of callers and their being given a fair go. However, they are also aware that spirited interactions play a necessary part in creating interest for listeners. They feel that social responsibility will be achieved if the host conducts a fair debate. They say that ultimately there cannot be complete freedom of expression. There must be limits, and common sense should apply.
Good taste and decency
New Zealand society is diverse, and people’s expectations of broadcasting vary based on age, culture, religion and personal values. While the broadcasting standards refer to 'current norms of decency and taste in language and behaviour', there are no uniform standards or norms that the BSA can apply mechanically to good taste and decency complaints.
Chapter 5 notes that the BSA will always refer to the 'contextual factors' of a broadcast in decisions about good taste and decency. It is only after taking these factors into account that a meaningful determination can be made. A key contextual consideration is whether the broadcast aired during normally accepted children's viewing times.
Whether about radio or television, the BSA’s decisions emphasise a strong expectation that material likely to be heard or seen by children should recognise their innocence and vulnerability.
Another discussion concerns freedom of personal choice. The more that adult viewers and listeners are able to make informed choices about what they watch and hear, the less justification there is for the BSA to intervene.
However, despite the audience's right to choose, there are bottom lines. Where those lines are drawn is not constant; they shift based on the context of each case and prevailing societal attitudes.
National Survey
Chapter 6 reports the findings of a national survey about public attitudes towards free-to-air broadcasting standards. It was conducted during May and June 2005 with 500 members of the general public aged 18 years and over.
The findings add to the BSA’s longitudinal research, last reported in Monitoring Community Attitudes in Changing Mediascapes in 2000. In 2005 new emphasis was given in 2005 to exploring issues of balance and fairness. Television violence and privacy standards were not explored because major studies about these were released in 2004.1
This survey confirms that a majority of the public continue to consider it important that an independent organisation should be responsible for overseeing the standard of broadcasting in New Zealand.
Findings reveal that two thirds of New Zealanders spontaneously describe something that concerns them about what is shown on television. As in previous BSA studies (published in 1993 and 2000), the most frequently mentioned concerns relate to the portrayal of violence, sex and nudity, and bad language. There are indications that, compared with 2000, there may be a higher level of concern about sexual content and bad language on television.
Just one third of New Zealanders spontaneously describe concerns about what they hear on radio, with the most common concern being bad language.
While balance, fairness and accuracy standards are seen as very important in all factual formats on both television and radio, the public indicates that accuracy is of paramount importance. This is particularly the case for television news broadcasts.
Slightly more leeway is given to radio talkback in relation to these standards. However, regular talkback listeners rate fairness and balance more highly than does the population as a whole.
With regard to 'bad language' there has been a slight softening of attitudes overall, but the words the public find unacceptable in broadcasting in 2005 are largely the same as those found unacceptable five years ago.
As with the 2000 research, in 2005 the strongest determinant of whether a scene is acceptable or not relates to the time of broadcast (before or after 8.30pm). Secondary determinants are the level of explicitness and the importance of the scene to the story.
When the results of this survey are considered in their entirety, and comparisons made where possible with 2000, it seems that, while society may have become more liberal over time, there is possibly more concern now than in the past about protecting children. This view is based on the following results.
- Some people spontaneously mention concerns about what children are exposed to on television, when this concern has not been so prominent in previous survey
- Even though the great majority indicate that it is largely parents’ responsibility to control what their children watch on television, most people also see it as critical that there are standards for broadcasting that consider the interests of children
- The three sex and nudity scenarios that respondents find slightly less acceptable than in 2000 are arguably those that might be seen by children (early evening news, drama and movies shown before 8.30pm).
If concern has increased, the researchers suggest another influence may be the high-profile prosecutions seen in recent years for child abuse, paedophilia, and possession of child pornography.
Order a copy of Freedoms and Fetters by email to the BSA and we will post it to your address with an invoice for $19.95 purchase price or download the full report as a PDF (1.6mb).
1 Towards Precautionary Risk Management of TV Violence in New Zealand (2004) the report to the Minister of Broadcasting of the Working Group: TV Violence Project. www.tv-violence.org.nz
Broadcasting Standards Authority (2004) Real Media, Real People: Privacy and Informed Consent in Broadcasting, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North.