[promiseofbeans]

I’m highly doubtful about this - it seems to be an excuse to disestablish the BSA, rather than a genuine basis for the decision.

I think this will help drive more partisan and sensationalist media, like one gets in the US. NZ has been relatively resistant to populism and partisanism in the past, partially because we have a watchdog to make the media all play nice.

Based on their arguments, they should really be expanding the BSA’s remit to officially cover internet-based NZ media.

Also, they’ve done a press release and talked on the radio about it to try and stir up headlines, but it’s highly unlikely to get through parliament before the upcoming election. Based on the current polling, the makeup of parliament is likely to dramatically alter by the end of the year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_N...

[roenxi]

> I’m highly doubtful about this - it seems to be an excuse to disestablish the BSA, rather than a genuine basis for the decision.

The title of the piece is "Government to disestablish the BSA" and the domain is .govt.nz. I think it only fair to point out they're being very upfront that this is their excuse for disestablishing the BSA.

> NZ has been relatively resistant to populism and partisanism in the past, partially because we have a watchdog to make the media all play nice.

It's an island [0] that has a smaller population the 2 largest cities of the nearest mainland, Australia. A substantial chunk of the country is uninhabitable due to mountains (and Orcs, based on what I've seen of it). It'd be quite challenging for the NZ population to rift into partisanship, they don't have enough people or space. If you look at somewhere like the US, it tends to be populations the size of NZ locked in a fight with other populations the size of NZ for who wants the right to tax the other.

What is NZ supposed to fight over, whether the factories go on north island or south island? It isn't that big a deal. I suppose no fight more serious than one over trivia, but really.

[0] Islands?

[pseudohadamard]

NZ imported a lot of MAGA crap during Covid despite having one of, if not the, best Covid responses in the world. They had something close to the US Jan 6 where a large collection of MAGA-inspired nutters camped outside parliament and caused a near-riot, or an actual riot depending on how you see it. So it can happen anywhere, unfortunately. The reach of Fox News has grown long indeed...

[bombcar]

Venice was a hotbed of political intrigue in the olden days and had half the population of NZ.

[roenxi]

I suppose. Although if NZ manages the sort of vigour and industry of Venice back in the day I am going to move there.

[bombcar]

It's amazing reading history, about a huge city that totally affected the course of a major war, manufacturing and logistics hub - open it up and look inside: "Population 10,000."

Roman Army at it's peak: 450,000 men.

Walmart: 2.1 million

(Cue reddit arguments about Roman Army vs Walmart)

[pseudohadamard]

> Roman Army at it's peak: 450,000 men.

Plague of Justinian: A handful of rats (initially).

[piva00]

I don't think the republic of Venice ever had 2 million people, what time period are you referring to?

[bombcar]

Wikipedia reports it peaked at 2.5m - "16th century estimate".

[whateverboat]

Cyprus, Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia: all small countries with small population divided by civil war. More than population it can be the strategic location of the country and powers that want that country.

[toyg]

Without knowing anything about the current state of NZ politics, some general political strategies could be the source:

1. since they are in a lame-duck state (as you mentioned, everyone expects there will be an overhaul), they are trying to get done the dirty stuff they promised to big donors (this particular thing looks like a wet dream of Rupert Murdoch, for example)

2. since they expect to be beaten, they think unleashing the "dogs of hell" of unregulated media might actually help them

3. they have an actual proposal that is different from this but that they can sell as a compromise, after the inevitable pushback on this one, which will then be rushed through sight-unseen "because there is no time left"

4. this is just campaign noise, meant to attract interest from moneyed media so that they get treated well in the upcoming election cycle

If I were a betting man, I would put money on 1.

[xupybd]

I expect National to get back in next election.

[pseudohadamard]

... possibly for the same reason Trump got back in: No effective opposition.

[pseudohadamard]

I have some MAGA friends in NZ who are applauding this decision, so the impression I get is that it's a sop by the government for the conspiracy-theorist side of their support base. They were certainly very happy that from now on no-one would be prevented from spreading the "truth" about how dangerous vaccines are and so on.

In addition, given that the BSA was mostly charged with dealing with (genuinely) objectionable content in public media and complaints about unfair reporting, slander, etc, it seems like an empty gesture to placate the MAGA fan base. They weren't a censorship group, they just made sure that certain minimum standards were maintained, which will now presumably no longer be the case. I'm now waiting for someone to publish a story about how the Communications Minister who approved this is intimate with sheep and abuses small children.