Different strokes for different folk: Regulatory distinctions in New Zealand media

For much of the past century there was broad acceptance of the stark contrast between the state’s involvement in the regulation of the content of broadcasting and its laissez-faire relationship with the columns of the press. The ‘failed market’ argument that substantiated regulation of the airwaves...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Gavin Ellis
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Asia Pacific Network 2005
Materias:	ethics broadcasting journalism ethics mas media accountability media ethics Communication. Mass media P87-96 Journalism. The periodical press, etc. PN4699-5650
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/5ff211e3e0ae48b7949805787ad969be
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:5ff211e3e0ae48b7949805787ad969be
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:5ff211e3e0ae48b7949805787ad969be2021-12-02T08:57:10ZDifferent strokes for different folk: Regulatory distinctions in New Zealand media10.24135/pjr.v11i2.10531023-94992324-2035https://doaj.org/article/5ff211e3e0ae48b7949805787ad969be2005-09-01T00:00:00Zhttps://ojs.aut.ac.nz/pacific-journalism-review/article/view/1053https://doaj.org/toc/1023-9499https://doaj.org/toc/2324-2035 For much of the past century there was broad acceptance of the stark contrast between the state’s involvement in the regulation of the content of broadcasting and its laissez-faire relationship with the columns of the press. The ‘failed market’ argument that substantiated regulation of the airwaves was difficult to counter. Fundamental changes in technology and media markets have, however, rendered the rationale open to challenge. Some aspects of the ‘failed market’, such as frequency scarcity, simply do not apply in the digital age. This article examines the nature of media regulation in New Zealand, noting its similarity to the dichotomous approach in Britain, Canada and Australia but also its divergence toward a more neoliberal market model that largely limits statutory oversight to matters that fall broadly into the categories of morals and ethics. It argues that, given the New Zealand government’s decision more than 15 years ago to forego regulation of ownership or the mechanisms that would serve the public good aspirations of a Reithian model, the continuing role of the state in regulation of broadcasting is questionable. A replacement model could be based on an effective regulatory body already present in the New Zealand media industry—the Advertising Standards Authority Gavin EllisAsia Pacific Networkarticleethicsbroadcastingjournalism ethicsmasmedia accountabilitymedia ethicsCommunication. Mass mediaP87-96Journalism. The periodical press, etc.PN4699-5650ENPacific Journalism Review, Vol 11, Iss 2 (2005)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	ethics broadcasting journalism ethics mas media accountability media ethics Communication. Mass media P87-96 Journalism. The periodical press, etc. PN4699-5650
spellingShingle	ethics broadcasting journalism ethics mas media accountability media ethics Communication. Mass media P87-96 Journalism. The periodical press, etc. PN4699-5650 Gavin Ellis Different strokes for different folk: Regulatory distinctions in New Zealand media
description	For much of the past century there was broad acceptance of the stark contrast between the state’s involvement in the regulation of the content of broadcasting and its laissez-faire relationship with the columns of the press. The ‘failed market’ argument that substantiated regulation of the airwaves was difficult to counter. Fundamental changes in technology and media markets have, however, rendered the rationale open to challenge. Some aspects of the ‘failed market’, such as frequency scarcity, simply do not apply in the digital age. This article examines the nature of media regulation in New Zealand, noting its similarity to the dichotomous approach in Britain, Canada and Australia but also its divergence toward a more neoliberal market model that largely limits statutory oversight to matters that fall broadly into the categories of morals and ethics. It argues that, given the New Zealand government’s decision more than 15 years ago to forego regulation of ownership or the mechanisms that would serve the public good aspirations of a Reithian model, the continuing role of the state in regulation of broadcasting is questionable. A replacement model could be based on an effective regulatory body already present in the New Zealand media industry—the Advertising Standards Authority
format	article
author	Gavin Ellis
author_facet	Gavin Ellis
author_sort	Gavin Ellis
title	Different strokes for different folk: Regulatory distinctions in New Zealand media
title_short	Different strokes for different folk: Regulatory distinctions in New Zealand media
title_full	Different strokes for different folk: Regulatory distinctions in New Zealand media
title_fullStr	Different strokes for different folk: Regulatory distinctions in New Zealand media
title_full_unstemmed	Different strokes for different folk: Regulatory distinctions in New Zealand media
title_sort	different strokes for different folk: regulatory distinctions in new zealand media
publisher	Asia Pacific Network
publishDate	2005
url	https://doaj.org/article/5ff211e3e0ae48b7949805787ad969be
work_keys_str_mv	AT gavinellis differentstrokesfordifferentfolkregulatorydistinctionsinnewzealandmedia
_version_	1718398306056404992

Different strokes for different folk: Regulatory distinctions in New Zealand media

Ejemplares similares