BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

A psychiatrist and the mother of a young person suffering from a mental illness were interviewed by Kim Hill on Nine to Noon broadcast on National Radio on 4 August 1999 beginning at 9.40am.

Mr Boyce complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the interview lacked balance because it did not include the point of view of anyone who had been diagnosed as suffering a mental illness. He also complained that, because the mother was identified, her son would also have been identifiable, and it was a breach of the Privacy Act to release his medical details. Mr Boyce argued that the interviewer perpetuated myths and stereotypes about those with mental illness.

In its response, RNZ emphasised that the focus of the interview was the availability of treatment for young people suffering mental illness. It emphasised that the young man would not have been identifiable, and that suitable precautions had been taken to ensure his anonymity. With reference to the complaint that the interview had encouraged denigration against those suffering from a mental illness, RNZ responded that nothing in the interview denigrated a particular group.

Dissatisfied with RNZ’s decision, Mr Boyce referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

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

Decision

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

A psychiatrist and the mother of a teenager diagnosed with bi-polar disorder were guests on Nine to Noon on 4 August 1999 beginning at 9.40am. The topic of the interview was teenage mental health issues. In the introduction to the programme, the host quoted a number of statistics which indicated the lack of provision for young people suffering from various kinds of mental illness, ranging from depression to schizophrenia. The mother of the teenager described the inadequacy of the treatment her son received when he was hospitalised and was critical of the Auckland Health Authority’s provision for young people requiring intensive care facilities.

Mr Boyce complained that the interview lacked impartiality because it omitted the viewpoint of a client of the system and had simply assumed that the mother of the teenager was an appropriate person to express an opinion. He also complained that the identity of the teenager and personal details about him had been divulged by the broadcast. In his view, the introduction to the item revealed the prejudices of the programme’s host, including what he described as her belief that medication provided a cure for those suffering from mental illness.

As requested, RNZ dealt with the complaint under standards R4, R5, R9, R11, R14 and R15 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. Standards R4, R5, R9, R11 and R14 require broadcasters:

R4  To acknowledge the right of individuals to express their own opinions.

R5  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any programme.

R9  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature, making reasonable efforts to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

R11  To respect the privacy of the individual.

R14 To avoid portraying people in a manner that encourages denigration of or discrimination against any section of the community on account of gender, race, age, disability, occupational status, sexual orientation or as the consequence of legitimate expression of religious, cultural or political beliefs. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material which is

i)    factual, or

ii)   the expression of serious opinion, or

iii)  in the legitimate use of humour or satire.

The other standard reads:

R15  Listeners should always be able to distinguish clearly and easily between factual reporting on the one hand, and comment, opinion and analysis on the other.

RNZ responded that the focus of the interview was the resourcing and availability of treatment resources for young people suffering mental illness. It emphasised that as significant points of view were represented in the programme, no breach of standards R4 or R9 occurred.

With respect to the contention that standards R5 and R11 were breached, RNZ advised that it could confirm that it would not be possible to have identified the young man from the broadcast. It noted that suitable precautions had been taken to protect his privacy.

Referring to standard R14, RNZ responded that there was nothing in the interview which could be contrived as a denigration of a particular group. As for the complaint under standard R15, it noted that the presenter had been very careful to present information as it was stated, ascribing it to its source. Accordingly, it found no breach of these standards.

When he referred the matter to the Authority, Mr Boyce contended that in the context of a discussion about available resources, it was only necessary to have interviewed the clinical director of the service in question. He objected to the fact that a parent was invited to appear and make an example of her child who had been diagnosed with a psychotic illness. In his view, RNZ’s reply concerning standards R5 and R11 had been "nothing short of dishonest" since the mother had used her real name and had referred to her son by his first name. He said he could not see how RNZ had taken suitable precautions to avoid his being identified.

Next Mr Boyce complained about the introduction to the interview which, he said, began in an alarmist fashion when the presenter cited a figure of 19,500 teenagers in the Auckland area who needed treatment. That figure, he emphasised, was misleading as no such number needed to be assessed for treatment.

In its report to the Authority, RNZ noted that the referral had raised a number of issues which were both out of time and irrelevant to the original item. As for the alleged breach of privacy, it responded that the references to the woman’s son were made with his permission and in the knowledge that he used a different family name and was therefore unlikely to have been identified.

In his final comment to the Authority Mr Boyce took issue with RNZ’s reference in its correspondence to the complaint as relating to "Kim Hill interview on manic depression". The interview, he said, did not concern "manic depression". The subject was the campaign to raise money for the Starship Foundation and the Auckland University School of Medicine.

He questioned why an individual’s case was referred to, particularly as he was already subject to in-patient care. Referring to RNZ’s argument that he was not identified, Mr Boyce responded that even if that were so, it did not make it appropriate for his mother to air information about his illness.

Mr Boyce argued that disclosure of information about those with mental illness contributed to the problems they faced.

The Authority’s Findings

The focus of the interview, the Authority notes, was the availability of resources to provide specialist in-patient services for young people with psychiatric illnesses. The context was the announcement of a campaign which aimed to raise funds to provide such services. The topic was discussed from the point of view of the health provider (the Clinical Director of Starship Hospital’s Child and Family Unit) and that of a consumer (the mother of a teenager with bi-polar disorder). The mother described the unsatisfactory conditions experienced when her son, at the age of 15, was committed to an adult unit for in-patient care. The Hospital’s Clinical Director agreed that the lack of facilities was a major problem, and that young people required their own specialist care facilities.

The Authority considers that both standards R4 and R9 were complied with in this item. In its view, the only controversial matter was the question of funding. Both interviewees were in agreement as to the necessity and urgency of providing specialist in-patient care. It does not consider other views should have been sought or were necessary for the discussion. It declines to uphold the complaint under these standards.

Next it turns to the complaint that the identity of the teenager was revealed when his mother was addressed by her full name, and she referred to him by his first name. The complainant alleges that this was unfair to the young man, and breached his privacy. RNZ maintained that as he does not have the same last name as his mother he would not have been identified.

The Authority is not so persuaded. It considers that people beyond close friends and family would have been able to identify the teenager because his first name was given, as was his mother’s full name. Although the mother and son do not share the same last name, the Authority’s view is that this information would have sufficed to identify him.

Having reached the conclusion that he was identifiable, the Authority then applies its privacy principles to establish whether the disclosure made breached the young man’s privacy. The Authority accordingly applies the test under Privacy Principle (i). That principle reads:

(i) The protection of privacy includes protection against the public disclosure of private facts where the facts disclosed are highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

The first matter for the Authority is whether private facts were disclosed. It concludes that the information given about the teenager’s medical condition did disclose some private facts. These included that he had been diagnosed as bi-polar at the age of 14, that he had been committed for care, and that he had recently received further treatment and was now making good progress. A breach of privacy occurs where the private facts thus disclosed "are highly offensive and objectionable" to a reasonable person. The Authority is not persuaded that the facts disclosed about the young man’s medical condition were highly offensive and objectionable. Furthermore, it notes, it could not be assumed that he had not given consent for those facts to be broadcast. It is reinforced in this view when it notes the transcript, provided by the complainant, of a television news item in which the mother, who was identified, discussed her son’s case on another occasion.

The Authority concludes that the teenager’s privacy was not breached.

In considering whether the broadcast was fair to him, the Authority concludes that there was nothing inherently unfair in the teenager’s mother using his case to illustrate the necessity for further beds for adolescents with psychiatric illnesses and to encourage listeners to support the fundraising appeal. The Authority finds no breach of standard R5.

Next, turning to the complaint that standard R14 was breached, the Authority notes that the item had highlighted a serious need for more facilities in the Auckland area. It finds no evidence to support a view that the item denigrated those with mental illness, or encouraged discrimination against them, and declines to uphold this aspect.

Finally, the Authority turns to the standard R15 aspect of the complaint. It notes that the statistics read out by the presenter, which suggested – among other things – that 1 in 4 children would suffer a mental illness before the age of 18, were ascribed to their source and were challenged by the clinical director. It does not find the references to the facts threatened the standard and declines to uphold this aspect.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
18 November 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence has been received and considered by the Authority in the determination of this complaint.

1. Simon Boyce’s Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd – 4 August 1999

2. RNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 23 August 1999

3. Mr Boyce’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 28 August 1999

4. RNZ’s Response to the Authority – 29 September 1999

5.    Mr Boyce’s Final Comment – 2 October 1999

6. Mr Boyce’s Further Submissions – 28 October 1999