BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The death of a toddler in a house fire was the subject of an item on 3 National News

on 21 November 1997 between 6.00–7.00pm. A distraught woman, possibly a

relative of the child, was shown being comforted outside the house at the end of the

item.

Ms Barton complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

footage of the grieving woman was an unnecessary intrusion into her grief and distress

and also an invasion of the woman's privacy. She objected, she said, to seeing

pictures which exploited the grief of others.

In declining to uphold the complaints, TV3 noted that the pictures were taken from a

public place, that the woman appeared to be unaware they were being taken and that

there was public interest in the story. It considered the image of the woman

effectively summed up the tragedy of the situation for viewers.

Dissatisfied with that decision, Ms Barton referred the complaints 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 complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the item complained about and

have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the

Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

An item on 3 National News on TV3 on 21 November, shown between 6.00–7.00pm,

reported on a house fire in which a toddler died. The item featured footage of the

house, and of a distressed woman being comforted by other people.

Ms Barton complained to the broadcaster that the footage of the woman was a totally

unnecessary intrusion into the grief and distress of the family or friends of the victim,

and a violation of standard G17 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. She

wrote that it was invasive of the privacy of the person concerned, and that she did not

wish to see pictures which exploited the grief of others.

TV3 advised Ms Barton that the item was presented in the form of a reader voiceover

of approximately 20 seconds total duration with the footage that was the subject of

her complaint taking up only 4 seconds of that time.

The broadcaster noted that it had been unable to establish the relationship between the

dead child and the woman in the film. It presumed that she was a relative, "possibly

even the mother".

TV3 stated that it had considered Ms Barton's complaints under the Authority's

Privacy Principles, and under standard G17 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice. The standard reads:

G17  Unnecessary intrusion in 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.

Pursuant to s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act, a broadcaster is required to maintain

standards consistent with the privacy of an individual. TV3 denied that a

contravention of standard G17 or s.4(1)(c) had occurred, noting that the woman in the

film seemed unaware of the presence of the camera, that the footage was taken from a

public place, that it was limited to 4 seconds in duration and did not linger on the

subject. TV3 also contended that there was a public interest in the story, and that the

image of the woman summed up the tragedy of the situation.

While acknowledging the complainant's concerns, the broadcaster emphasised that in

its view, standard G17 was not intended to prevent the use of such images when they

were handled sensitively. A contrary view, the broadcaster advocated, would prevent

the visual reporting of many disturbing events:

...from the distress of famine victims, to those suffering the consequences of

war, to the anguish of people in road accidents. The broadcaster's duty in

these cases is to handle the issues as carefully and sensitively as possible.

When referring her complaints to the Authority, Ms Barton commented that the

transgression was worsened because of the woman's lack of awareness of the camera,

and the fact that the footage was taken from a public footpath. She stated that it was

intrusive to fail to seek the woman's permission, as had apparently been the case. The

woman's inability to turn away from the camera, because she did not know of the

filming and therefore did not have that option open to her, was also intrusive, she

wrote.

The complainant noted that the total screened footage of the woman involved one-

fifth of the item's duration. That, she contended, was lingering on the subject, rather

than panning over the scene. Acknowledging that the image did sum up the tragedy

which had occurred, Ms Barton wrote that the standard required more than that; it

required, she said, that material added to public understanding. Public understanding,

she observed, would have emphasised the causes of the fire, and the defence that the

image summed up the tragedy would merely justify all kinds of intrusive reporting.

The Authority deals first with the Privacy Principles which it has developed to deal

with complaints alleging a breach of s.4(1)(c). It considers Privacy Principle iii) which

reads:

(iii) There is a separate ground for a complaint, in addition to a complaint for

the public disclosure of private and public facts, in factual situations

involving the intentional interference (in the nature of prying) with an

individual's interest in solitude or seclusion. The intrusion must be

offensive to the ordinary person but an individual's interest in solitude or

seclusion does not provide the basis for a privacy action for an individual

to complain about being observed or followed or photographed in a public

place.

In applying that principle to the item complained about, the Authority finds that no

information about the woman was revealed, that there was no intentional interference

in the nature of prying which would be offensive to the ordinary person, and, finally,

that she was filmed from a public place. The Authority therefore does not find any

breach of the privacy of the unidentified woman who was filmed.

Turning to standard G17, the Authority examines whether the footage was intrusive.

In that regard, the Authority notes that not all displays of grief which might be

depicted are intrusive. Here the footage was fleeting and served to emphasise the

tragedy which had occurred. In the Authority's view, the tone of the newsreader's

voiceover was neutral and served to downplay any suggestion of intrusion that might

conceivably have been given by the image. While the Authority feels sympathy for a

person filmed in such circumstances, and notes that the standard is principally for the

benefit of the family involved, it also does not accept that the filming was

unnecessarily intrusive. The footage was taken from a public place, it notes and was

used appropriately to illustrate the tragedy being described by the newsreader, that is,

the death of a two-year-old. At no time was the screen filled with the woman's image.

There were a number of elements in the images broadcast, the principal one being of

the woman being comforted. She was presented in tragic circumstances and, in the

Authority's opinion, that footage illustrated the event in a way that viewers could

relate to.

In all the circumstances, the Authority concludes that the brief footage did not involve

the "unnecessary intrusion" required for a breach of standard G17.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
26 March 1998

Appendix

Ruth Barton's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 29 November 1997

Ms Barton of Auckland complained about an item on 3 National News on 21

November 1997 broadcast between 6.00–7.00pm in which there was a report on a

house fire in which a child died.

Ms Barton objected to footage which showed a distressed and crying woman. She

noted that it was not clear whether the woman was the mother, another relative, or a

neighbour of the dead child. However, in her view, the picture was a totally

"unnecessary intrusion into the grief and distress" of the families and friends of the

victim. She believed it violated standard G17 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice and that it was invasive of the privacy of the person concerned. She said she

did not wish to see pictures which exploited the grief of others.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint – 15 December 1997

TV3 noted that the item, which dealt with the death of an Auckland toddler in a house

fire, also reported that quick thinking by a motorist who raised the alarm may have

saved some lives, as there were other people in the house.

It pointed out that the story was presented in the form of a reader voiceover of

approximately 20 seconds in duration:

It showed scenes of the fire damaged house, smoke coming from a window, and

a visibly upset woman being assisted from the scene by two people. The final

shot of 4 seconds duration is the subject of your complaint.

The Standards Committee has been unable to establish the relationship

between the woman and the dead child. However, it can be presumed that she

was a relative, possibly even the mother.

In reaching its decision, TV3 advised that it took into account the following points:

*The woman appeared to be unaware of the presence of the camera.

*The footage was shot from a public place (the footpath). This was

established with the camera operator.

*Footage of the woman was limited to 4 seconds which, in the Committee's

view, did not amount to an instance of lingering on the subject.

*There was public interest in the story – a toddler had died and others may

have been lucky to escape.

*The image of the woman summed up the tragedy of the situation for viewers

more effectively than a smoking building.

For these reasons, TV3 did not consider standard G17 was breached, or that the

Privacy Principles were contravened.

TV3 acknowledged Ms Barton's concerns, but did not believe the intention of

standard G17 was to prevent the use of such images, provided that they were handled

sensitively. It argued:

If that were the case, it would become impossible to visually report any

number of disturbing events – from the distress of famine victims, to those

suffering the consequences of war, to the anguish of people in road accidents.

The broadcaster's duty in these cases is to handle the issues as carefully and

sensitively as possible.

Ms Barton's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 15 January

1998

Ms Barton repeated that her concern about the item was in its focus on the grieving

woman. She added that she did not know what the legal definition of privacy was, but

that if she were the woman photographed, she would feel that her privacy had been

invaded.

Ms Barton said that she found TV3's defence unpersuasive. She noted that it referred

to the woman as "possibly" being the mother, and that she was filmed from the

footpath. This, in Ms Barton's view, made the intrusion worse, for it suggested that

her permission was not asked, and that being unaware that she was being filmed, she

did not have the option of turning away.

To TV3's argument that 4 seconds was brief, Ms Barton responded that 4 seconds

out of 20 seconds was one fifth of the total item and, in addition, the camera lingered

over the subject, rather than surveying the scene.

To the defence that there was public interest in the story, Ms Barton responded that

that was insufficient. The code required that material add to public understanding.

She suggested that concern about public understanding would have emphasised the

causes of the fire. She agreed that the image of the woman summed up the tragedy,

but considered that defence would permit all kinds of intrusive reporting.

She concluded by stating that she had seen this kind of intrusive reporting before, and

that she hoped the Broadcasting Code would restrict it.

TV3's Comments to the Authority – 23 February 1998

The broadcaster advised that it had no further comment to make regarding Ms

Barton's complaint.