BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An item on Real TV, broadcast on TV3 on 14 July 1998 commencing at 9.30 pm, focussed on an accident at Western Springs Speedway in 1997 when parts of a racing car broke away, flew among the spectators and injured a number of people. The item included footage of an injured child being assisted after the accident, and an interview with the child’s mother.

Ms Mansson, the mother of the child, complained to TV3 Network Services Limited, the broadcaster, about the use of the footage which had originally been filmed for news coverage. She wrote that the accident had been a frightening and life threatening experience, the memories of which continued to mentally and physically affect her family. The repeated use of the footage had added to the family’s ongoing distress, she contended. She had refused, she wrote, to consent to the coverage of her family on this programme.

TV3 responded that the complainant gave implicit consent to the screening of the item in the subsequent programme by allowing her comments to be filmed in the first place. Declining to uphold the complaint, it noted that footage of the actual accident was taken from a long view in which individual people were unrecognisable, and it did not otherwise identify the complainant or her family. Footage of the victims was taken after the accident, and the victims were not identifiable, it wrote.

Dissatisfied with TV3’s response, Ms Mansson referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the item complained about, and have read the correspondence (which is summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Footage of an accident at Western Springs Speedway in 1997, showing parts of a racing car breaking away and flying among spectators, was broadcast in an item on Real TV on 14 July 1998. The footage, which had been originally filmed for news coverage, included an injured child being assisted after the accident, and an interview with the child’s mother. Footage of the accident taken from the item was highlighted on two occasions in the programme, before the start of the item.

Ms Mansson of Auckland, who is the mother of the child, complained to TV3 Network Services Limited that her consent to "televise our involvement" had been sought by the producers of the programme, and she had "repeatedly said no". The accident was a frightening and life threatening experience to her family, she wrote, and the memories of it continued to mentally and physically affect them. When the item was broadcast, her two young sons (both of whom had been injured in the accident) expressed shock and fear, Ms Mansson continued. She questioned how such a traumatic experience could be broadcast without the people involved knowing about it. She asked "how many times are we going to be flaunted on television"?

TV3 advised that it had assessed the complaint under standards G17, G18, G24 and V13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which had been nominated by the complainant. The first three standards provide:

G17 Unnecessary intrusion into the grief and distress of victims and their families or friends must be avoided. Funeral coverage should reflect sensitivity and understanding for the feelings and privacy of the bereaved.

Broadcasters must avoid causing unwarranted distress by showing library tape of bodies or human remains which could cause distress to surviving family members. Where possible, family members should be consulted before the material is used. This standard is not intended to prevent the use of material which adds significantly to public understanding of an issue which is in the public arena and interest.

G18 News flashes prepared for screening outside regular news bulletins, particularly if during children’s viewing hours, should avoid causing unnecessary distress or alarm. If, for compelling reasons, news flashes contain distressing footage, prior warning should be given.

G24 Broadcasters must be mindful that scenes containing incidents of violence or other explicit material may be acceptable when seen in the total context of a programme, but when extracted for promotion purposes such incidents will be seen out of context and may thereby be unacceptable, not only in terms of the codes but also for the time band during which the trailer is placed.

The final standard, dealing with the portrayal of violence in news, current affairs and documentary programmes, provides:

V13 The use of library footage containing violent incidents, be it from a battle field, sports venue or elsewhere, should be used only when its repetition is necessary to illustrate the issue being discussed.

At the outset, TV3 advised that it would consider the complaint under standards G17 and V13 only. Standard G18, it wrote, was not relevant as it related to news flashes only, not to programmes. The Authority notes that the footage had originally been filmed for news coverage. It appreciates that because of its origin Ms Mansson may have considered that the use of the highlighted footage during the programme constituted "news flashes". However, whatever the original format of the footage, the Authority does not consider that its use in the context of this programme allowed it to be regarded as "news", or the excerpts as "news flashes". The Authority therefore declines to uphold the complaint under standard G18.

TV3 argued that standard G24 applied to programme trailers and promotions. Noting that because Ms Mansson’s complaint related only to the Real TV programme, it declined to consider the complaint under that standard. The Authority notes that the action footage which was used had been taken from the context of the programme. The extracted action footage was used on two occasions in the programme to highlight the item complained about, which followed. The Authority notes that the extraction of footage, to highlight the broadcast of a succeeding item, is a commonly-used device. It is not persuaded that TV3 was correct in its interpretation in this instance. In the Authority’s view, standard G24 does contemplate the use of footage in the manner which occurred in this programme. However, in this instance, it does not consider that the highlighted footage offended the standard, for the scenes were neither violent or explicit, and it declines to uphold the complaint under standard G24.

In turning next to standard G17, the Authority notes that Ms Mansson emphasised to the broadcaster that the accident had been a frightening and life-threatening experience for her family, the memories of which continued to affect them. TV3 declined to uphold the complaint under this standard, arguing that the footage involving the actual accident was taken from a long view and the victims were not identifiable at that time. The footage, showing the interview with Ms Mansson and separate footage of her injured son, was shown subsequent to the shots of the accident, it wrote. By allowing her comments to be filmed and in being aware of the camera, TV3 asserted, Ms Mansson gave implicit consent for the item to be broadcast, and also gave (at least) implied permission for the use of the footage in Real TV. The broadcaster claimed that the New Zealand producer of the programme did not seek Ms Mansson’s consent to the broadcast of the item as the story had been cleared "for world-wide screening through the American distributor". Ms Mansson responded that the interview was specifically recorded for public news, not a "promotional weekly television programme" which "consists of violence". She questioned how an overseas distributor could have world-wide clearance to the use of the footage. She wrote that

…the interview with myself and the returning home of …[her son], was not with Real TV, as they made it out to look like, but with Channel 1 and 3 News whom I had given my … consent to do the interview with.

TV3 responded that it had sighted a copy of the footage licence agreement between Real Television U.S.A. and TVNZ which confirmed that Real TV had worldwide clearance for the use of the speedway accident footage.

The broadcaster argued that standard G17 was not breached because the footage did not include funeral coverage or library tape of human remains, and did not include any footage in which the victims were identifiable. The Authority disagrees with TV3’s interpretation of this standard. It points out that it will apply to any unnecessary intrusion into the distress of victims and their families. However, in this instance, while the Authority appreciates that the footage may have been distressing for the family to watch, it does not consider that it breached the standard. Ms Mansson apparently consented to the interview she gave to the news broadcaster and, as her son’s caregiver, also consented to him being filmed. In those circumstances, the Authority is unable to find the necessary intrusion into the family’s grief or distress which is a requirement of the standard. The Authority notes that other consent and ownership issues raised by the use of the footage are not matters over which it has jurisdiction.

Finally, the Authority turns to standard V13. TV3 argued that the footage was not violent because the camera focus was on the collision between the cars, and the spectators who were hurt were not visible at the time of the accident. The footage of the interview with Ms Mansson, and her child, was not violent, it concluded. Ms Mansson responded that the "whole television programme"was violent, and that the accident was an emotional and traumatic experience which continued to affect her family. The Authority considers that the standard extends to an item of the type broadcast, for although it was not a conventional documentary, the programme contained both actuality footage and commentary. However, the Authority is not persuaded that the standard was transgressed on this occasion. The material which was broadcast was not violent and, in the Authority’s view, it was appropriate and necessary to illustrate the subject matter of the item. Ms Mansson’s complaint about the use of the footage is not a standards matter but, as the Authority has noted above, possibly a licence or copyright matter.

In the circumstances, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint for the reasons outlined.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
26 November 1998

Appendix

Penny Mansson’s Complaint to TV3 Network Services Limited – 15 July 1998

Ms Penny Mansson of Auckland complained to TV3 Network Services Limited, the broadcaster, about the screening of the programme Real TV on TV3 on 14 July 1998. Her complaint was in the form of a letter to the broadcaster, enclosing a copy of her letter of 13 July 1998 to Touchdown Productions, which is summarised below.

Ms Mansson complained to Touchdown Productions in a letter dated 13 July 1998 about the proposed scheduling in the programme Real TV of "a most frightening and life threatening experience" for her family. The screening, she wrote, would "unveil the tragic memories that are still mentally and physically affecting us today".

Ms Mansson pointed out that she had received numerous requests to consent to the televising of her family’s involvement in the incident and had repeatedly said no. She was writing, she continued, to request that the coverage of her family not be shown, in consideration of the physical and mental injuries inflicted upon her family.

Penny Mansson’s Further Complaint to TV3 Network Services Limited – 21 July 1998

Ms Mansson complained to the broadcaster, through the Broadcasting Standards Authority, about the screening of the programme Real TV on 14 July 1998 at 9.30 pm. She wrote that the footage in the programme, about which she had earlier complained, breached standards G17, G18, G24 and V13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TV3’s Initial Response to the Formal Complaint – 27 July 1998

The broadcaster wrote that its Standards Committee did not see the relevance of standard G18 to Ms Mansson’s complaint as it related to news flashes only, not to programmes.

Similarly, it wrote, Ms Mansson’s complaint related to the Real TV programme only, and standard G24 applied to programme trailers and promotions.

TV3 concluded that, accordingly, "the Standards Committee will not consider your complaint in relation to these Standards".

TV3’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 24 August 1998

Commencing by noting that the process of how the footage came to air in Real TV was not "what would normally be expected", TV3 commented that New Zealand footage in the programme was normally sourced directly from the person who taped the incident in New Zealand. In this case, it advised, it was supplied to the production company by the American distributor. That meant that the production company regarded it as "overseas" footage, which did not require further clearance because all footage supplied by that distributor had unrestricted worldwide clearance, it wrote.

Therefore, TV3 continued, the production company claimed it did not contact Ms Mansson for consent for the screening of the story, as it did not need consent. It considered that the story had been cleared for world-wide screening through the American distributor.

Referring to Ms Mansson’s request to the production company that no coverage involving her family be shown in the television programme, TV3 commented that she had given implicit consent to the item being screened by the very act of allowing her comments to be filmed. Indeed, it wrote, "it is obvious from the footage that you were fully aware of the camera". Further, it maintained, the American distributor would never have supplied the footage if it had not had the proper clearance for the footage to be screened. The broadcaster said that the process implied that Ms Mansson had given a more formal consent to the person who had interviewed her for the footage, and then sold it to the US distributor. It was therefore unreasonable "at some later stage to request that the item not screen in Real TV", it concluded.

Turning to standard G17, TV3 observed that the footage did not include funeral coverage or library tape of human remains. It wrote:

All the footage involving the actual accident itself was taken from a long view and the victims are not identifiable at the time of the accident. The subsequent interview of yourself and your son was given with your (at least) implied permission.

The broadcaster declined to uphold a breach of standard G17.

In considering standard V13, TV3 wrote that "it cannot agree that the footage is violent". The broadcaster recognised that the incident was unfortunate and noted that family members suffered injuries as a result of the accident. However, it wrote, the camera focus was on the crash, not the people in the audience, and the people in the audience were not visible at the time of the accident. In declining to uphold a breach of standard V13, TV3 concluded:

Any footage of the victims occurs after the fact [of the crash] and even then the victims are not identifiable. The interview with yourself and your child is not violent.

Ms Mansson’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 4 September 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Ms Mansson referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

She wrote that her nine and seven year old sons were injured in the accident which occurred at the Western Springs Speedway on 13 January 1997. One son sustained a fractured leg, and the second son had plastic surgery to his leg. It was, she wrote, an experience which none of the family would ever forget. The complainant continued:

The week prior to Tuesday 14^th July, our boys were on holiday out of Auckland and therefore had no knowledge of what was about to occur on Real TV that night. Both their reactions to this [were]… not a very good one. As soon as coverage of the accident came to air they immediately jumped behind me with fear. It was like they were sheltering themselves. At once I burst into tears to see my children in such shock, once again, and immediately comforted them. [A’s] first question was, mum did you know this was going to be on tonight. My answer was no.

Questioning where responsibility lay and who was responsible, the complainant asserted that the interview with herself and her son was:

…specifically recorded for public news only, not some promotional weekly television programme who continuously get a robust sensation when viewing violent incidents. The whole television programme consists of violence.

Ms Mansson also questioned how overseas distributors had world-wide clearance when:

…the interview with myself and the returning home of …[her son], was not with Real TV, as they made it out to look like, but with Channel 1 and 3 News whom I had given my implicit consent to do the interview with.

She asked how such an emotional, traumatic experience, which would affect someone for the rest of their lives, could be put on television without the person involved knowing anything about it. She wrote:

Is notification too much to ask for, and why do my children continuously need to be advertised, and I mean advertised, because their only intentions are to make a buck (dollar) not the concerns and feelings of the person/s involved.

Ms Mansson concluded by asking:

…how many times are we going to be flaunted on television, for promotional purposes, and when will this ever come to an end.

TV3’s Response to the Authority – 30 September 1998

The broadcaster commented that Real TV was rated AO and its screening commenced at 9.30 pm, an hour after the Adults Only watershed. Its Standards Committee, it wrote, had found the programme content to be suitable for its rating and timeslot.

Footage of the accident in which the Mansson family was involved had previously screened on New Zealand television news programmes during G time, TV3 wrote. In Real TV, it maintained, the main focus of the accident footage which was used was the crash of the two vehicles, with footage of the resultant debris and fuel tank flying into the crowd. That footage, it wrote, was taken from a long view, with members of the public being unidentifiable. Its Standards Committee, the broadcaster observed, was unable to identify Ms Mansson or her son in any of the accident footage or the aftermath. The footage showing Ms Mansson and her son was taken after the event and away from the accident scene, TV3 advised.

Referring to Ms Mansson’s statement that she had told her son that she did not know the accident coverage was to be shown, the broadcaster referred to her letter to the production company of 13 July. That indicated that she had been well aware the footage would probably screen in the 14 July programme, TV3 claimed. In response to her questioning how the coverage could be put on national television "without the person/s involved knowing anything about it", TV3 stated that again Ms Mansson had been aware of it and this had prompted her to contact the production company.

TV3 then turned to Ms Mansson’s questions about responsibility. The broadcaster stated that it was very unfortunate that her children were upset by the screening of the accident. Its Standards Committee, it wrote:

…believes Ms Mansson must accept responsibility for this by virtue of the fact that she was clearly watching television with her two young children (aged seven and nine years old) and chose to allow them to view the Real TV programme – commencing at 9.30pm and rated Adults Only (i.e.Programmes containing adult themes or those which, because of the way the material is handled, would be unsuitable for persons under 18 years of age), a programme which she had every reason to believe would contain footage of the accident in which her family was involved.

Responding to Ms Mansson’s question about how the overseas distributor of the footage had world-wide clearance for its use, TV3 stated that it had sighted a copy of the footage licence agreement between Real Television U.S.A. and TVNZ. That, it wrote, "confirms Real TV had worldwide clearance for use of the speedway accident footage". Whether Ms Mansson had given any specific release to TVNZ for the use of the footage outside news broadcasts was not known to it, TV3 advised. The producers of Real TV obviously believed they had complied with all requirements, and that they had every right to broadcast to footage, it concluded.

Ms Mansson’s Final Comment

When invited to make a final comment, Ms Mansson did not respond.