BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An item about a just released psychiatric patient who gave birth to a baby on a Porirua

Street very early in the morning was broadcast on One Network News between 

6.00–7.00pm on 25 October 1995.

The Minister of Health (Hon Jenny Shipley) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd

that the item was inaccurate as the woman was not "just released" but had discharged

herself from hospital some five weeks before the birth. Further, the birth had happened

some two weeks before the news item. As a result of the inaccuracy about the time of

the mother's discharge from hospital, the Minister said that the item caused unnecessary

alarm and encouraged discrimination against psychiatric patients. She also complained

about the item's editing.

Arguing that the complaint had to be assessed in light of the information contained in

follow-up broadcasts on 26 and 27 October, TVNZ maintained that it reported the facts

as ascertained on 25 October. The full information about the discharge date, it stated,

was reported when it came to hand on 27 October and it denied that the standards had

been breached. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, the Minister referred the complaint

to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority upholds the complaint that the item was

inaccurate.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the

correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The item

TVNZ's One Network News on 25 October 1995 included the presenter's introduction

to an item about a person "released from hospital only to give birth on the street soon

after". During the story, the reporter stated that soon after 4.00 in the morning, the

woman "just released from hospital gave birth to a baby". An interview with a taxi

driver who was called to the incident followed and the item proceeded to report

discontent felt about psychiatric services throughout the country.

The complaint

The Minister of Health (Hon Jenny Shipley) complained to TVNZ that the item was

inaccurate, had been distortingly edited, caused unnecessary public alarm over the

treatment of psychiatric patients, and encouraged discrimination against such patients.

The Minister's principal concern was the item's inaccuracy and, she said, the item had

not reported that the woman was a voluntary patient who had discharged herself from

hospital "some five weeks before she gave birth".

Although the item noted that Capital Coast Health had declined on privacy grounds to

give the media any details, the Minister maintained that the media should have checked

when the woman left the hospital:

It makes a huge difference to the story. I, along with everyone else, was

horrified at the report that a woman should have been released from a psychiatric

hospital to give birth alone a short time later, in the wee small hours, beside the

road.

The aspect of the complaint which dealt with editing argued that the juxtaposed images

of the psychiatric unit at Porirua Hospital with the shots of the roadside where the

woman gave birth reinforced the above inaccuracy. It suggested that the woman had

walked from one to the other during the night.

The item also implied that the hospital was grossly negligent and, the Minister wrote, it

would have caused widespread public alarm and reinforced the stereotype of former

psychiatric patients.

The Minister concluded:

In summary, while it was tragic that the woman gave birth alone by the

roadside, and the community had a right to be aware of that and be concerned

about the circumstances of the situation, the report on TV One that night failed to

present the facts to allow the community to form a view of how and why that

had happened.

The standards

TVNZ assessed the complaint under the nominated standards. The first one requires

broadcasters:

G13 To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently inferior,

or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of the

community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupational status,

sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or political belief.

This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material which

is:

i) factual, or

ii) the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current affairs

programme, or

iii) in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work

The others read:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

G16 News, current affairs and documentaries should not be presented in such a

way as to cause unnecessary panic, alarm or distress.

G19 Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure that the

extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original event or

the overall views expressed.

The broadcaster's response

TVNZ argued that it was unreasonable to assess the complaint about the item on 25

October in isolation from the news items about the story included in One Network

News on 26 and 27 October. The story broke, TVNZ recalled, following the

publication of a front page story in the "Evening Post" on the afternoon of 25 October

when it was reported that a patient gave birth "soon after" her release from Porirua

Hospital.

Although it was difficult to confirm the facts contained in the newspaper article, it was

TVNZ's policy never to "lift" facts from other sources and, accordingly, TVNZ stated,

the reporter attempted to confirm as many facts as she could. That had involved an

interview with the taxi driver and TVNZ described the reporter's other actions:

She traced the sister-in-law of the Cambodian mother who was, apparently, the

only member of the Cambodian family who could speak English. The reporter

said the interviewee seemed upset, and somewhat stressed. It was she who told

us that the woman had "just" been released from hospital. Although you argue

that this fact could and should have been checked, we suggest with respect, that is

with the benefit of hindsight. Our reporter had no reason to query the description

of events from this close source.

In addition:

Our reporter felt it was important to "second source" the immediate facts. She

wanted, in particular, to confirm the basic facts of the birth. Despite her repeated

and concerted effort the Capital Coast Health spokespersons refused all comment.

We could only publish one fact that "The person concerned had been known to

them for some time".

Although Capital Coast Health as a Crown health Enterprise (CHE) knew that the

information contained in the broadcast on 25 October was incorrect, it again refused to

provide the reporter with any comment when spoken to on the 26th. On the next day,

the 27th, the Prime Minister in an off-the-record briefing told reporters that the woman

had left the hospital in August. Finally, the CHE produced that information and a news

item that evening reported:

And today Capital Coast Health revealed more details about the Cambodian

woman who gave birth on the street at four in the morning earlier this month.

It (the CHE) says the woman was released from hospital in August, and since

then had several visits from community health workers.

TVNZ declined to uphold any aspects of the complaint. It believed that the use of the

word "just" on the 25th was not unreasonable given the information supplied by the

former patient's family and CHE's refusal to comment on a story which was clearly in

the public interest. The visuals had consisted of a "straightforward compilation of

relevant shots" and, rather than cause alarm, the story noted that there had been

independent public concern about the psychiatric services before the item was screened.

Further, the discrimination standard (G13) did not apply to factual material and,

anyway, the item would have encouraged sympathy for rather than discrimination

against former psychiatric patients.

TVNZ concluded:

To sum up, this was an ongoing issue which the TVNZ Committee felt had to be

judged by the overall coverage of TVNZ news and the issues as they developed.

In doing so, they carefully considered the claims you made over the original item.

At the time of the first story, they felt there was no reason to question the family

source and that person's description of events. Similar information went to air

that night in other media outlets.

Further correspondence

When she referred the complaint to the Authority, the Minister included a transcript of

the item as it was reported by TV3. The woman was there described as "only recently

released from hospital". The Minister was not satisfied that TVNZ had checked the

facts sufficiently before broadcasting the story. While "just" might have meant five

weeks for the family, the Minister maintained that for most others it had a more

immediate connotation. She maintained that it was inaccurate and that the alleged breach

of standard G14 should be upheld.

Observing also that TVNZ seemed to confuse her role as Minister of Health with that of

the Minister of Crown Health Enterprises, she commented on the media's task in view

of the CHE's attitude:

Capital Coast Health has specific requirements regarding confidentiality. The

media is not bound by the same Privacy Act constraints. This does not exempt

them from seeking to get the facts right, but rather means that they must be more

diligent in getting to the truth of the story.

The Minister acknowledged that TVNZ corrected the story two days after the first item,

but she wrote:

The clear impression had already been given that this woman had been badly

mistreated. The public does not watch every item TVNZ News broadcasts, and

the impact of that first, inaccurate, story remains.

She also complained that an inaccurate story unnecessarily added to widespread public

concern about mental health services. Similarly, she insisted that standard G13

(encouraging discrimination) was breached as it was suggested that people like the

woman involved should not be allowed out of institutions.

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ reiterated the point:

It seems to us that the Minister is pinning her case, at least in part, on asking the

Authority to make its judgements purely and simply on the initial report of the

baby being born in the street – the report broadcast on 25 October. We believe

this approach to be both unfair and unjust. News stories are constantly altered

and modified as new facts emerge – that is often the nature of daily news as

journalists in all branches of the media will attest.

Urging the Authority to consider the story as a whole, TVNZ repeated that the word

"just" was used by a family member who spoke only a little English. It also enclosed a

copy of the article in the Evening Post which, it said, had used "the very similar phrase

'soon after'". It argued:

We do not believe that the Minister would seriously expect TVNZ (or any other

branch of the news media) to ignore an event such as a former psychiatric patient

giving birth in the street. We believe "One Network News" acted responsibly in

relaying that story to the public based on the best information then available. As

perusal of the subsequent stories will show, the position was clarified over the

following days as more official information was gradually divulged.

In her formal comment, the Minister referred to the impact on viewers of the initial

report and wrote:

In conclusion, I reiterate my concerns over the accuracy of the item and the clear

impression that the mental health services had failed this woman. This type of

reporting causes immeasurable harm to those who have used or are using mental

health services and to their families.

People suffering psychiatric problems or who have done in the past face

considerable barriers to resuming a normal life because of society's attitude

toward them. The media in general, and television in particular, are a potent

influence on that attitude and must be extremely careful in their reporting of

incidents surrounding mental health.

The Authority's findings

The Authority agrees with TVNZ that the story dealt with a matter of considerable

public interest which it was appropriate to report as an item of news. It deals first with

the complaint that the broadcast on 25 October 1995 was inaccurate and in contravention

of standard G14.

If that was the only issue to decide – ie the item on 25 October, the Authority would

have no doubt in upholding the complaint. Indeed, TVNZ seems to accept that it was

incorrect to report that the woman who gave birth had just been released from hospital.

In confirmation of TVNZ's apparent acceptance of the inaccuracy, the Authority

specifically clarifies the point – the phrase "just released" does not mean or infer a period

such as five weeks.

The issue for the Authority is whether the action taken in the checking of the story

before broadcast on 25 October was sufficient or, if sufficient, whether reporting the

correct information when it came to hand outweighed the initial inaccuracy.

In reaching the decision on these issues, the Authority notes the CHE's concern for its

obligations under the Privacy Act 1993. While its attitude unquestioningly makes the

broadcaster's task more difficult, the Authority does not accept that this exonerates

TVNZ for its initial mistake.

In the Authority's view, if a CHE or similar organisation will not release essential facts,

the news organisations will have to be very careful how the information is presented or,

in extreme cases, may have to defer broadcasting a report until the information is

confirmed some other way.

Having watched the items on 25, 26 and 27 October and having examined the

contentions advanced by the complainant and the broadcaster, the Authority comes to

the conclusion that TVNZ's effort to ascertain the date of the former patient's release

was insufficient. Although the item did not specify a date of release, it was suggested

that it had occurred in the immediate past. That suggestion followed from not only the

reporter's use of the phrase "just released" but also the presenter's introduction when,

he said, the birth occurred "soon after" the release.

As the point was a prominent feature in the item, the Authority considers that it is

important that it was accurate. Having reported the fact in an inaccurate way, the

Authority concludes that TVNZ contravened the requirement in standard G14. Further,

because of the central importance of the issue to the story, it does not accept that the

broadcast of the correct information, when it came to hand 48 hours later, excused the

breach. As the Minister argued, the impression given by an initial item is usually the

one which lasts the longest. The promptness with which the correct information is

ascertained and broadcast is a matter to be taken into account when considering whether

to impose an order rather than in deciding adherence to the standard.

The Authority also believes that the item breached the requirement in standard G16 not

to cause unnecessary panic or alarm. While it agrees with TVNZ that there was

widespread concern about the country's mental health services before the broadcast, it

considers that the item's emphasis on the immediacy of the release before the birth,

added to that concern in an exponential way. In other words, it would have increased

substantially the public's dissatisfaction with, and alarm and panic about, deficiencies in

psychiatric services provided by the CHEs.

The complaint also alleges breaches of standards G19 and G13. The Authority finds

that the item was put together, both visually and verbally, to stress the impression that

the woman gave birth on the roadside a short time after being released. That is a matter

which the Authority finds to be a breach of the accuracy requirement in standard G14.

While the editing techniques used contributed to the impression, the item was not

distorted solely because of the editing. Accordingly, the Authority does not uphold the

alleged breach of standard G19.

Under standard G13, discrimination against specific sections of the community is not to

be encouraged. On this matter, the Authority concurs with TVNZ that the item, rather

than encouraging discrimination against former psychiatric patients, evoked sympathy

for this group. Consequently, the alleged breach of that standard is not upheld.

For the above reasons, the Authority upholds the complaint that the

broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd of an item on One Network

News on 28 October 1995 breaches standards G14 and G16 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose an order under s.13(1) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

As reported in the decision, the Authority acknowledges that the immediacy with which

TVNZ reported the correct facts when ascertained, is a matter to be taken into account in

deciding whether or not to impose an order. As the correct information was included on

One Network News at the first opportunity, the Authority considers that the imposition

of an order is not appropriate.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
7 March 1996

Appendix

Minister of Health's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 10

November 1995

The Minister of Health (Hon Jenny Shipley) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd

about a news item broadcast on One Network News between 6.00 - 7.00pm on 25

October 1995 which she alleged, breached standards G14, G19, G16 and G13 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The complaint then elaborated on the alleged contravention of each standard.

The item it was said, was inaccurate (and in breach of standard G14) when it reported

that the woman had been "just released" from hospital. In fact, the Minister continued,

the woman, a voluntary patient, had discharged herself from hospital some five weeks

before the birth. Because of the Capital Health's concern about the woman's privacy,

the Minister assumed that TVNZ's information about the birth was obtained from the

woman, her family or friends. Whatever the source, the Minister remarked, the reporter

should have checked the date on which the woman left the hospital. She commented:

It makes a huge difference to the story. I, along with everyone else, was horrified

at the report that a woman should have been released from a psychiatric hospital to

give birth alone a short time later, in the wee small hours, beside the road.

She added:

The Privacy Act and the need for patient confidentiality has made CHEs extremely

cautious about what they tell the media about the people they treat. This doesn't

mean that the media is exempt from getting the facts right - it just means they have

to work harder to get them right.

Clearly your reporter had sources she could use to do just that - and didn't, thus

leading to a very inaccurate story which misled the public concerning the facts of

the case.

I would point out, too, that the birth actually happened a fortnight before TV One

ran the story, not that morning as the piece implies, ie seven weeks after the

woman left hospital.

Editing - in breach of standard G19 - was the next matter raised and, the Minister

complained:

The editing of the item, juxtaposing images of the psychiatric unit at Porirua

Hospital with shots of the roadside where the woman had given birth, reinforced

and underlined the inaccurate statements made about when the woman left the

hospital in relation to the birth.

Any reasonable viewer would make a connection between the proximity of the

hospital and the road and draw the conclusion that the woman had walked from

one to the other during the night.

Standard G16 prohibits broadcasts which cause unnecessary alarm which, the Minister

wrote, was transgressed by the item's inaccuracy and the implication about the

hospital's gross negligence. Had the correct facts been reported, she maintained, there

would have been a lower level of alarm within the community and less of a loss of

confidence in the system.

Standard G13 prohibits the broadcast of material which encourages discrimination of

various community groups. The item on 25 October, the Minister argued, encouraged

discrimination against former psychiatric patients. She wrote:

The inaccuracy reinforces the stereotype that many in our community are only too

willing to believe about people who have suffered or are suffering from a mental

illness. It implies that the only solution is to institutionalise them even though this

woman had never been committed to an institution on a long term basis.

The Minister concluded:

In summary, while it was tragic that the woman gave birth alone by the roadside,

and the community had a right to be aware of that and be concerned about the

circumstances of the situation, the report on TV One that night failed to present the

facts to allow the community to form a view of how and why that had happened.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 27 November 1995

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, TVNZ argued that a thorough

evaluation of the complaint involved examining news items about the matter screened on

26 and 27 October, together with a news feature on 26 October which looked at the

privacy issues surrounding the story.

TVNZ explained that after the story was reported in the "Evening Post" on 25 October,

reporters checked out the story and interviewed the woman taxi driver (called to the

scene) at the exact location of the birth. TVNZ said that its policy was never to "lift"

stories from other sources. On this occasion, it added, confirming the facts had been

difficult and it commented:

[The reporter] traced the sister-in-law of the Cambodian mother who was,

apparently, the only member of the Cambodian family who could speak English.

The reporter said the interviewee seemed upset, and somewhat stressed. It was

she who told us the woman had "just" been released from hospital. Although you

argue that this fact could and should have been checked, we suggest with respect,

that is the benefit of hindsight. Our reporter had no reason to query the

description of events from this close source.

Although the sister-in-law was forthcoming, TVNZ said that the reporter felt another

factual source of the facts was important. It added:

She wanted, in particular to confirm the basic facts of the birth. Despite her

repeated and concerned effort the Capital Coast Health spokespersons refused all

comment. We could only publish one fact that "The person concerned had been

known to them for some time".

TVNZ continued:

It is clear to TVNZ, from information supplied two days later, that the CHE was

aware of the time scale of the birth. It is also the view of TVNZ that, without

breaching the Privacy Act, the CHE could have assisted our reporter by

confirming our facts pointing out that our facts were wrong, even in an "off the

record" manner.

The reporter assures us that she pressed your CHE employees hard, urging that

they present details of the event as it was critical in terms of proper balance to

have their side of the story. The CHE refused.

You will recall that this is the day you agreed to be interviewed by a TVNZ

reporter. It is also interesting to note that your press secretary, Ms Sarah Lockie,

told our reporter that the treatment of the story on the previous evening (the

subject of this complaint) was fair and "the office" was pleased with it.

On 27 October, at an off-the-record briefing, the Prime Minister told reporters that the

woman had left the hospital in August but privacy concerns had stopped the media

obtaining the correct information. "He emphasised", TVNZ wrote, "he was NOT

critical of the media but of the law".

With that knowledge, the reporter "hounded" the CHE which finally produced the

information which was included in One Network News on 27 October. That

clarification, TVNZ emphasised, was broadcast at the first possible opportunity.

TVNZ then assessed the complaint under each of the nominated standards.

It began its response to the accuracy (G14) complaint:

The use of the word "just" was, the [Complaints] Committee felt, not

unreasonable, in view of the approach made to an authoritative and apparently

reliable source ie a close member of the Mother's family. The Committee accepts

that the reporter had no reason under the circumstances to examine the relative

over the word "just" and reported all the facts obtained that evening in good faith.

Noting that the CHE "chose not to assist", TVNZ denied that the partial story was used

to criticise the government. The item was a matter of public interest and was reported to

the extent possible initially and the more accurate information was broadcast as soon as

it became available two days later.

As the relevant pictures were married to the script, TVNZ did not regard the editing

(standard G19) as inaccurate or misleading.

Similarly, and maintaining that there had been wide-spread concern about psychiatric

services before the item complained about, TVNZ did not accept that the item caused

unnecessary alarm in breach of standard G16.

The standard dealing with discrimination (G13) allows the broadcast of factual material

and TVNZ wrote:

The [Complaints] Committee decided that the report stated what had happened,

and over the following days had expanded on the concern for this particular

woman's circumstances to the wider concerns of psychiatric illness which it had

engendered.

Far from "encouraging discrimination" the Committee considered that the report

tried to show the problems of a patient, and those who care for them. Given the

public interest in this matter, they could not accept your view that the story

"reinforced the stereotype of those suffering from mental illness" or that the story

implied that the only solution was to institutionalise such people.

While acknowledging the complainant's disappointment, TVNZ declined to uphold the

complaint and concluded:

To sum up, this was an ongoing issue which the TVNZ Committee felt had to be

judged by the overall coverage of TVNZ news and the issues as they developed.

In doing so, they carefully considered the claims you made over the original item.

At the time of the first story, they felt there was no reason to question the family

source and that person's description of events. Similar information went to air

that night in other media outlets.

The Minister's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 18

December 1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response to the complaint about the item on One Network

News on 25 October, the Minister referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. She enclosed a transcript of the item as

reported by TV3 which had said that the patient had been "recently released".

Rather than repeat the complaint in full, the Minister made two comments on TVNZ's

response. First, having tracked down a close relative of the woman, why had the

reporter not asked what was meant by the phrase "just" discharged. As that had not

occurred, the Minister maintained the accuracy requirement in standard G14 was

contravened.

Secondly, in its use of the phrases in its letter to her such as "your CHE employees"

and "your Department" when referring to CHE employees, TVNZ was obviously

confused about her role as Minister. Through that confusion, it had implied that she, as

Minister, was author of her own misfortune. The Minister explained:

In fact, I am the Minister of Health, not the Minister of Crown Health Enterprises.

I am not a shareholding Minister in those enterprises. This is important because it

shows the [TVNZ's Complaints] Committee is unaware of the processes of the

health system and the pressures on it, particularly the pressures involved in

balancing preserving privacy on the one hand and public interest on the other.

As for the privacy requirements, she explained:

Capital Coast Health has specific requirements regarding confidentiality. The

media is not bound by the same Privacy Act constraints. This does not exempt

them from seeking to get the facts right, but rather means that they must be more

diligent in getting to the truth of the story.

With regard to some other comments in TVNZ's letter, the Minister accepted that TVNZ

sought later to amend the inaccurate story but that did not excuse the item:

The clear impression had already been given that this woman had been badly

mistreated. The public does not watch every item TVNZ News broadcasts, and

the impact of that first, inaccurate, story remains.

Her press secretary's comment, the Minister reported, referred to TVNZ's effort in not

linking this tragedy with the recent incident in Invercargill involving Eric Gellaty.

The Minister concluded:

In summary, I stand by my complaints about the item. The root cause of the

problem was that the timing of the incident was never established. Without that,

the piece was misleading in every sense.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 19 January 1996

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ emphasised a number of points. It began:

It seems to us that the minister is pinning her case, at least in part, on asking the

Authority to make its judgements purely and simply on the initial report of the

baby being born in the street - the report broadcast on 25 October. We believe

this approach to be both unfair and unjust. News stories are constantly altered

and modified as new facts emerge - that is often the nature of daily news as

journalists in all branches of the media will attest.

This was a major news story - which developed over a number of days, with

fresh facts emerging only slowly.

Expressing a preference for the situation in which all the relevant information was

available from the beginning, TVNZ said that had not occurred on this occasion as the

CHE had failed to produce information which was clearly in the public interest. It

continued:

We urge the Broadcasting Standards Authority to consider the story as a whole,

and not to confine its deliberations to the single item nominated by the minister.

We are attaching a copy of "The Evening Post" description of the same story,

published a few hours before ours, and note that while we used the words "just

after" to describe the time between the woman's departure from psychiatric care

and her giving birth, the newspaper used the very similar phrase "soon after".

TVNZ reported that the Cambodian family member tracked down - who spoke only a

little English - used the word "just" in her description of events.

Pointing out that it had had to rely on this source of information initially, TVNZ argued:

We do not believe that the minister would seriously expect TVNZ (or any other

branch of the news media) to ignore an event such as former psychiatric patient

giving birth in the street. We believe "One Network News" acted responsibly in

relaying that story to the public based on the best information then available. As

perusal of the subsequent stories will show, the position was clarified over the

following days as more official information was gradually divulged.

TVNZ also said that its staff were well aware of the respective powers of the Minister of

Health and the Minister of Crown Health Enterprises and repeated the point that the

Minister's press secretary had told TVNZ's reporters that the Minister's office was

pleased with the item broadcast on 25 October.

The Minister's Final Comment - 7 February 1996

The Minister made four points in her final comment. She began:

TVNZ suggests that I am primarily concerned about the accuracy of the report

regarding a baby being born in the street. My complaint is not about the report of

the baby being born, but that it was a story told in the context of the adequacy of

mental health services and the mental health status of the mother, and that that

story was inaccurate, despite, as we know now, TVNZ having had the

opportunity to establish the timing of the birth.

While other reports may have sought to make amends for the initial impression,

the impact of that first inaccurate item remains:

As the second point, the Minister maintained that the failure by the CHE to produce the

information did not exonerate the media from broadcasting an inaccurate and misleading

story. Her office had taken up aspects of the Evening Post story with the Evening Post

journalist involved and two incorrect media reports did not make either right. She

repeated that her office did not know of the details of the case until the day of the

broadcast complained about.

The Minister summarised her complaint.

In conclusion, I reiterate my concerns over the accuracy of the item and the clear

impression that the mental health services had failed this woman. This type of

reporting caused immeasurable harm to those who have used or are using mental

health services and to their families.

People suffering psychiatric problems or who have done in the past face

considerable barriers to resuming a normal life because of society's attitude

towards them. The media in general, and television in particular, are a potent

influence on that attitude and must be extremely careful in their reporting of

incidents surrounding mental health.