You win some, you lose some. The New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho (BSA) has NOT upheld my complaint against RNZ when an interviewee from PGF Services wrongly claimed that “we know around the world that a lot of countries have banned loot boxes.”
It’s of utmost importance to be transparent, not just about wins but also losses. Quasi-litigation can help to establish the regulatory position and provide clarity regardless of the outcome.
The BSA did find at [15] that “the statement in the interview would have led the audience to believe ‘many countries have banned loot boxes and New Zealand may be falling behind’.” We know that is wrong and misleading as a matter of fact.
However, in contrast to the Media Council’s March 2025 decision (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/leon-xiao_xiao-v-radio-new-zealand-2025-nz-media-activity-7312315641850449920-KQ52; https://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/rulings/leon-y-xiao-against-radio-new-zealand/), the BSA did not consider that “the statement complained about was material in the context of the full interview or would have significantly affected listeners’ understanding overall” and so at [16] “found no breach of the accuracy standard.”
Notably, the BSA and the Media Council apply differing standards, hence the opposing conclusions.
1️⃣: The BSA’s accuracy standard could only be breached by inaccuracies relating to “material” points of fact ([13]).
2️⃣: In contrast, the Media Council’s accuracy principle requires accuracy “at all times” (footnote 7 of the BSA decision citing [44] of the Media Council decision).
I am not surprised by the BSA decision. It is reasonable to disagree as to whether that point is material or not in the context of this specific radio segment (https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/537018/programme-launched-to-combat-impacts-of-gambling-like-games). It certainly would have been material if the story were about loot box regulation specifically. However, this story was, at least ostensibly, about a new programme being launched by PGF Services to address gambling-like video game mechanics, with the lack of regulation discussion being a complementary point.
The differing standards also arguably make sense due to live programming (subject to the lower BSA standards) being temporary and subject to time constraints, whilst publications in paper or online (subject to the stricter Media Council principles) are more permanent and capable of being easily retroactively corrected.
Beyond this case, I do have some wider concerns.
Firstly, there might be a potential ‘cumulation’ problem. If the New Zealand public is repeatedly exposed to loot box regulation misinformation (with each instance being minor and supposedly non-material), then the combined effect is that an erroneous understanding is developed and reinforced.
Secondly, these proceedings revealed that at least one gambling-related organisation (“a respectable authority funded by the Ministry of Health”) is basing its advocacy on false information. What if it is invited to advise policymakers in the absence of other stakeholders (e.g., academia and industry) that could correct such factual errors?
Thirdly, procedural mistakes arose in both the BSA and the Media Council proceedings. The national broadcaster failed to appreciate the separate jurisdictions of the BSA and the Media Council; applied the wrong legal tests; and misdirected the complainant as to procedure. The Media Council also failed to give the complainant a final right of reply (which it has since said it will always do going forward). Regulatory processes must be robust.