But this compartmentalised approach is outdated as the demarcation between print and broadcast media no longer applies. Newspapers have websites posting video, and television and radio channels have websites posting text. In the field, print journalists film video and television journalists go back to their desks and write blogs.
It's a technological and content blur, and the regulations haven't kept up. A complaint about an unfair story on TV3 will be considered by the BSA, but the same story on TV3's website will not. Material shown on the internet is outside the BSA's jurisdiction.
The Press Council has extended its jurisdiction to include audio-visual content on its members' websites but it too faces problems. Should it order the removal of potentially damaging content from web archives years after the original story's news value has passed? Should complaints be accepted beyond the normal 30-day limitation if the material is still available online? Do online stories have a different standard of fairness and balance?
Then there's a whole world of bloggers and citizen journalists who compete with, complement and often feed the traditional news stream. These "journalists" - ranging from those who look and act like mainstream media to those who simply vent - currently answer to no one.
The commission's solution is a new single regulator created by statute to which all complaints about "news media" would be directed. Unlike the Press Council or the BSA, the new regulator could intervene without any complaint being laid and - possibly - even before a story is published where there are concerns about the methods the journalist used to gather information.
The commission recommends an "independent panel" to appoint members of the new body, with the majority being from outside the industry. It's not clear who would appoint this panel or that such a convoluted appointment process is required. Judges and regulators such as the Commerce Commissioner are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of a minister; none have proved to be toadies.
The commission offers two options in relation to the new regime's coverage - one voluntary, the other compulsory.
Under the first, media outlets would elect to be subject to the new regulator in return for the privileges and exemptions granted to the news media. These privileges include access to Parliament and the courts, and special rights under the Privacy Act, the Copyright Act, the Defamation Act and the Human Rights Act.
My best guess is that online news services such as Scoop or Interest.co.nz will opt in as they operate much like regular media and there will be brand and credibility advantages in being part of the club. But for the bloggers, the benefits associated with regulation may not be so relevant and they may decide that it is not worth the bother.
The alternative, then, is compulsion. But this would require drawing a line between those media who must be regulated and those who can remain unregulated. The commission accepts this is tricky and could well end up with the system we already have. So the voluntary regime looks likely to win.
One flaw in the commission's logic is that it advocates for a second regulator to manage complaints about entertainment as opposed to news and current affairs. But this glosses over the convergence between the two spheres. Is an interview with the latest movie star on Close Up really news? Or an exposé about food safety on Target really entertainment?
Overall, however, the commission's report is a thoughtful attempt to wrestle with the challenges of the new media. Submissions close in March. If you want to ensure the watchdogs are watched, then watch what happens after that.
* Former TVNZ political editor Linda Clark is a consultant at Chapman Tripp law firm. The views presented here are her own.
