Scrapping the Broadcasting Standards Authority is a dangerous mistake

The Government’s decision to disestablish the Broadcasting Standards Authority is being sold as a modernisation of media regulation, but the reality is far less reassuring. What is being dismantled is one of New Zealand’s most important public accountability mechanisms at the very moment the country is moving toward a high-stakes election cycle in 2026.

Media and Communications Minister Paul Goldsmith has framed the move as a necessary shift in an evolving digital media environment, but the political forces behind it are impossible to ignore.

    Advertisement
  
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

Image: The Free Speech Union website. The organisation was formed in 2021 to campaign on issues of free expression in New Zealand, advocating for reforms to laws while opposing what it sees as threats to open debate. (Supplied)

Conservative activist group Free Speech Union spent recent months attacking media oversight, branding standards enforcement as censorship rather than accountability. Goldsmith has now carried that argument into government policy, making a dangerous mistake to dismantle the BSA without public mandate, a move that could fundamentally alter New Zealand’s media landscape for years to come.

The BSA was never designed to suppress speech or police opinion. Its role has always been to protect the public interest by upholding principles of fairness, accuracy and balance in broadcasting. It gave ordinary New Zealanders a formal avenue to challenge irresponsible reporting and reputationally damaging content. That structure created consequences for broadcasters who crossed ethical lines and reinforced the idea that freedom of expression carries responsibility.

Without that system in place, New Zealand edges closer to a model that looks increasingly like the United States, where deregulated and hyper-partisan media ecosystems dominate political discourse.

    Advertisement
  
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

The Americanisation of our fourth-estate will be the collapse of shared facts, and the erosion of public trust in mainstream reporting. Journalism will turn into ideological warfare where outrage intended to get likes and clicks will become the product and truth will become secondary. That shift has already played out in the United States with devastating effect.

New Zealand has historically resisted much of that decline because its regulatory environment maintained a baseline expectation of responsibility. The BSA was part of that foundation.

Removing it does not create a freer marketplace of ideas as it creates a weaker public defence against bad-faith actors who thrive in unregulated spaces.

Image: The Broadcasting Standards Authority oversees and promotes broadcasting standards on behalf of New Zealanders, acting as an independent watchdog for complaints and accountability across radio and television. Its role has been central to enforcing fairness, accuracy and balance, giving the public a formal avenue to challenge harmful or misleading content. (Screenshot / Broadcasting Standards Authority site)

Goldsmith says the BSA regime was designed for “a broadcasting environment that is rapidly disappearing” and argues “it doesn’t make sense” in a media world split across streaming, podcasts and online platforms.

That may be true in structural terms, but dismantling independent oversight without replacing it with an equally independent body creates a gap in accountability that self-regulation cannot easily fill.

The timing makes the government’s decision even more troubling and with the 2026 election approaching, misinformation campaigns intended to confuse voters will intensify. The problem is when the industry becomes the primary referee of its own conduct then public confidence in complaints and corrections becomes harder to sustain.

    Advertisement
  
    This ad is not available right now due to a network issue or pending review with the Google Advertisement Network. Please check back later.
  
    Advertisement
    Why this ad?
      
        Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉

Goldsmith added the BSA framework creates “inconsistencies and unfair outcomes” because content is treated differently depending on how it is consumed, and while that may justify reform, scrapping the watchdog entirely goes much further by removing one of the country’s few independent checks on media accountability at a time when trust in public information is under increasing strain.

Weakening media accountability months before that machinery ramps up creates fertile ground for unchecked falsehoods and politically motivated content to spread with greater force and fewer consequences.

A healthy democracy depends on being able to trust that the information shaping public perception is held to clear standards. Removing those standards under pressure from ideological lobbyist groups is not legitimate reform. It is a political gamble with democratic consequences, and New Zealand may not fully understand the cost until the damage is already done.

3 Comments

Most Voted

Newest Oldest

Nico Taylor

2 months ago

The shift to digital media is undeniable and abolishing the Broadcasting Standards Authority without a replacement is a reckless move.

Gisborne

I’m worried that scrapping the Broadcasting Standards Authority will leave us with a huge gap in media accountability at a time when we need it most. The election is looming, and the risks of misinformation campaigns and politically motivated content spreading unchecked are too real to deny.

Hemi Wilson

What’s being suggested here is that scrapping the BSA will free up the media to express more? But isn’t that just a risk when we’re heading into an election cycle? Can we really afford to weaken our public accountability mechanisms at a time when misinformation is going to spread faster than ever?

Advertisement

Advertisement Why this ad? Advertising revenue keeps articles from thisquality free to read. Ads are personalised by Google, not us. Thank you for your support! 🎉