Hard News: News media meets new media: Privileges and accountabilities
64 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
And with that, I have to go out for the afternoon. Please endeavour not to cause harm in my absence.
-
Serious question: have the Law Commission ever got it really, really wrong?
Silly question: could we not just outsource the writing of our laws to them?
-
Kingdom for a horse
reigning in the “Wild West out there in cyberspace”
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Kingdom for a horse
Oops!
-
Thomas Beagle, in reply to
I'd say that the Law Commission report on Search & Surveillance was pretty damn bad.
Then there was the bit in the suppression review where they wanted to make ISPs responsible for blocking access to breaches of suppression orders.
-
I'm fairly unconvinced that more regulation of "speech" is the answer.
The regulation of (wireless) broadcasters is, I think, predicated on their use of a scarce resource that gives them monopoly power to disseminate content. For as long as that state continues, something like the current situation is probably appropriate. (Though there is a question whether print media, given their high barriers to entry, should be included on this basis, and whether we should accept the foreign monopoly ownership of all our significant daily papers).
Everything else should, I think be subjected to as minimal regulation as possible. The legal "privileges" of the media would seem to come in two forms:
- crowd control, where only limited numbers can have physical access to an event
- legal exceptions, where a statute would limit the ability of the media to operateI'd suggest that actions, rather than status, should determine the latter. If someone has files on people and they're writing a book/blog/thesis, then that should be a defence under the Privacy Act, providing their use of the information is appropriate. If they're selling electricity, then they shouldn't have that defence.
Also, [I haven't checked if this is touched on] it would make sense for our laws to stand the test of international best practice (article 10 of the ECHR and the First Amendment to the US constitution). Apart from being a Good Idea, this might help build a consensus on setting boundaries that can be enforced internationally.
-
merc,
"Wild West out there in cyberspace"
"Simon Power called for a review..."
"The Law Commission has come up with in the discussion paper..."
"...and it dwelt on problems that, while difficult to address at a practical level, seemed largely covered by existing law,..."This cycle itself merits greater scrutiny, Simon gets knickers in a twist, money is spent, perceived problem not addressed, money is spent, what was the problem?
-
I found that the regulatory bodies were basically an old-boys club and very Wellington-centric. As magazine publishers, my partner at the time and I took action against our competitor, the NZ Retailers Assn, over their misleading subscription figures which were used by them to help sell advertising into their magazine NZ Retail. The Audit Bureau of Circulation stepped in and made them change the way they reported their circulation figures in November 2000. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0011/S00217.htm
However they continued to advertise the incorrect figures in display ads within their publication, so we took them to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board. Now this is where it got tricky because the NZRA are very good friends with the ASCB (The Warehouse, Farmes, Progressives etc etc). So instead of taking our case to the ASCB Board for a hearing, their executive asked the CEO of the NZRA what the story was and the CEO denied all wrong-doing. We chased it up and showed hard evidence, including the ABC report and so the CEO of the NZRA told the ASCB that they wouldn't use the figures again. They continued to use the figures. I took it back to the ASCB. They made out the whole time like our case had been heard. This time, on 25 June 2001, it was reported as settled. Then the NZRA ran a story in their magazine saying our complaint had been rejected so we took them to the Press Council. It was one of the only cases upheld by the Press Council that year - in March 2002. http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/display_ruling.php?case_number=871
The NZRA continued to run the false ads and as a result were kicked out of the ABC in June 2003 - and that is the main reason AGM (and now Tangible) publish their magazine. It was only on re-reading the report now years later that I noticed that the Advertising Standards Complaints Board never heard our case. The amount of Yes Minister-style mincing around our situation was quite destructive for us. Our competitor was lying and it took 18 months to fix the situation instead of the month-or-so that I expected. It cost us a lot of energy and time but was a fairly inexpensive process otherwise. Over the 18 months that they continued to lie it may have cost us a lot of money in lost business though. We would do better with a completely independent panel but we're such a small country that anyone in business is going to have a network to appease if appointed regulator. The amount they can fine offenders is also fairly pathetic. -
Some quite enlightened thinking from the Law Commission. The problem with the BSA is that the majority of complaints it receives are vexatious or downright banal. Then it takes an age to adjudicate on them. If there was to be a new body, it would have to wary of occupation by both sectional interess (eg Christian fundamentalists) and comnmercial freewheelers. Maybe some sort of electoral college rather than govt or industry appointments, as well as some sort of upper threshold regarding the seriousness of a complaint?
-
merc, in reply to
Exactly, regulatory bodies don't operate like the Courts do. Make the law the law and enforce it, make it transparent, make it cost effective /not going to happen, ever/.
-
Download full paper from here.
-
we’d be responsible for everything published on our websites. If David Farrar wants the rights of access that pertain to proper journalists, he might finally have to accept more responsibility for comments published on Kiwiblog.
A big difference between the old and new media is the interactivity. And while it's possible to legislate/regulate against defamation, hate speech and harassment, I don't think we can force people to be decent to each other.
It would be so great if the PAS experience* could be replicated elsewhere on the web. Sometimes I forget what a wild and abusive world it is out there in the rest of the internet, particularly for women. How stupid and angry and pointless most internet discussions are. We have this amazing tool to connect with and understand other people and it mostly gets used for shouting and point-scoring.
*good name for a band, that
-
Sue,
i wonder what constitutes commercial activity? if you run ads does that count?
PAS experience* could be replicated elsewhere on the web.
was talking about this yesterday, metafilter is a good example.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
regal neighsayers...
Kingdom for a horse
nicely observed and served...
:- ) -
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
It would be so great if the PAS experience* could be replicated elsewhere on the web.
I'm sure it's been said before, but the best online communities seem to be ones where a significant proportion of the people involved have met in person. Not that everyone needs to know everybody, but you need something to continually reinforce the idea that people are real.
It's probably also valuable to have a wide range of topics to discuss, so you can see people as more than just a position on the current thread.
I think some degree of private backchannel communication is also important. We don't see the little messages saying "go easy on so-and-so, you don't know how bad a day she's having" or the phonecalls saying "am I being a dick on this thread?", but they have a big cumulative effect on the overall tone.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
people are real
WHAT?! Now you tell me.
;-)But yeah, these are good points you make.
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
WHAT?! Now you tell me.
Or... do I?
WOoooooooOoOoOooooo.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I’m sure it’s been said before, but the best online communities seem to be ones where a significant proportion of the people involved have met in person. Not that everyone needs to know everybody, but you need something to continually reinforce the idea that people are real.
What we've often seen here is those bonds being forged after initial contact online, however. I've long thought it useful for people who relate to each other online to have the opportunity to meet in person, which is the basis of the Great Blend events (see also: meetups, tweetups, etc).
But I absolutely agree on "people are real". It seems to me that the most consistent abuse is perpetrated by authors who are incapable of seeing others -- and particularly outsiders -- in a discussion as real people.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Something that can happen in RL groups is that past a certain point they become impermeable to outsiders -- the shared history and references and in-jokes form a barrier that can't easily be crossed. But PAS regulars are a large and geographically scattered group with many kinds of networks and links between us. It'd be interesting to draw a chart of who knows who offline, and how that changes over time.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
But I absolutely agree on “people are real”. It seems to me that the most consistent abuse is perpetrated by authors who are incapable of seeing others – and particularly outsiders – in a discussion as real people.
Too true – it’s the classic modus operandi of trolls. They’re far more scared of being outed than getting knuckle-sandwiched. In the pre-Internet age, they would have hidden behind things like white hooded robes.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
In the pre-Internet age, they would have hidden behind things like white hooded robes.
I read an awesome true story recently where the teller grew up in a small US town. The local Klan marched down main street in their anonymising hoods as an intimidatory show of strength. An effect fatally undercut when a friendly dog (with a highly distinctive pattern) broke out of the crowd and started dancing around the feet of the grand high wizard at the front, and happily trotting along beside him. Sotto voce hisses of 'go home, spot' from under the hood were more or less drowned out by laughter from the crowd, and cries of 'hey, that's doc simpson's dog!'.
Apparently, the Klan in that town never really gained a lot of traction.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
‘hey, that’s doc simpson’s dog!’.
What a wonderful story. Like unknown corpses are referred to as “John Doe” we now have a name for all people who’s name has been suppressed, Doc Simpsons dog did it.
Anyhow. Slightly off topic but related…
Govt may subsidise Igloo set top boxes
Something stinks here. Once again the evil hand of Joyce at work.
Why would we subsidise Sky Tv? we already have freeview, which was made possible by Kordia an SOE.
Could it be for this bunch of money grabbing bastards to control the airwaves or is it just another case of bailing out the private sector?
It seems, although not specifically mentioned in any article I have read so far, that Igloo is an internet service and the Governments subsidy is purportedly to help the late adopters of the digital (terrestrial and satellite) service to be able to receive TV when the switch-over happens next year. They would be better served by the Govt. subsidising Freeview rather than a private company, surely?. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
Govt may subsidise Igloo set top boxes
Something stinks here. Once again the evil hand of Joyce at work.
Why would we subsidise Sky Tv? we already have freeview, which was made possible by Kordia an SOE.I sincerely hope that Drinnan has this wrong.
The Transitional Access Plan is a necessary measure -- otherwise poor people don't have access to television after digital switchover.
But the idea of using taxpayers' money to buy tens of thousands of decoders tied to a commercial pay TV service (and which won't actually work properly for TV3 and TV4 at this point) -- effectively throwing away the $110m we've already spent establishing Freeview -- is insane.
I should note that I directly asked Chaz Savage whether they'd be going for TAP subsidies at the Igloo launch (where Drinnan was present) and he said no. Even John Fellett seems to think it's a weird idea.
The fact that the government even appears to be even considering this is bizarre.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I don't think internet trolling is analogous to the hate crimes, arson and murder, practiced by the KKK. Most internet trolling is just people being rude and inconsiderate. And there are plenty of trolls who either use their own names or whose identities are well known.
Because the internet deals in text, it's easy to forget there are people out there writing it. We can get caught up arguing with the words, and forget about the person, who may not have expressed themselves well or clearly, and who may not mean what we think they do.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Because the internet deals in text, it’s easy to forget there are people out there writing it. We can get caught up arguing with the words, and forget about the person, who may not have expressed themselves well or clearly, and who may not mean what we think they do.
The most unpleasant personal trolling I’ve had here – and with which I put up too long – came from someone I realised was incapable of seeing me as a person. Weirdly, it was someone I had known for years.
Otherwise, it's mostly Kiwiblog commenter types who see others as cardboard cut-outs of their political stereotypes.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.