BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Ongoing reports from the scene of an air crash in Marlborough, broadcast on Holmes,

One Network News and the Midevening News on 29, 30 and 31 January 1996,

included footage of bodies being removed from the site in body bags.

Mr Newfield complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

footage breached ordinary standards of decent reporting and would have caused

needless distress to those connected with the victims.

Commenting first on Mr Newfield's concern for the relatives and friends of the victims,

TVNZ argued that it had an obligation to report accurately and objectively the news of

the air crash. It maintained that it was important to include the shots of the bodies since

it was concern for the human victims of the crash that was paramount in the story. It

denied that the coverage was in any way prurient or voyeuristic and declined to uphold

the complaint. Dissatisfied with that decision, Mr Newfield referred it 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 the items complained about and have read

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

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

Reports of a commuter plane crash in Marlborough were covered on TV One on 29, 30

and 31 January 1996 on One Network News, Holmes and the Midevening News.

Coverage included views of the crash site, recovery of the bodies by the ground crew,

and interviews with company executives, passengers and the pilot's family.

Mr Newfield complained to TVNZ that the scene showing the recovery of the bodies in

body bags breached standards of decent reporting and would have been harrowing

viewing for the friends and relatives of the victims. He also complained that the

justification for screening footage of the wreckage, included in the 31 January coverage,

was marginal, particularly as one shot appeared to show blood stains on the wreckage.

Referring to the coverage on 29 January, the evening on which the crash occurred, Mr

Newfield complained that it was tasteless and unnecessary to broadcast information that

the plane was missing, and later, to confirm the apparent loss of all but one life. He

suggested that the broadcast breached a number of standards because it was not

presented accurately or objectively, and would have caused distress and alarm to the

friends and families of the victims.

In considering the complaint, TVNZ advised that it had examined the programme under

standards G2, G14, G15, G16 and G17 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice, which were raised by the complainant. The first standard requires

broadcasters:

G2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency

and taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context

in which any language or behaviour occurs.

The others read:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

G15 The standards of integrity and reliability of information sources in

news, current affairs and documentaries should be monitored regularly.

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

such a way as to cause unnecessary panic, alarm or distress.

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 the understanding

of an issue which is in the public arena and interest.

TVNZ argued that the crash of a scheduled air service was a major news story which it

had an obligation to report accurately, objectively and with a minimum of delay. It

pointed out that news of a crash was already widely disseminated and therefore it was

important to quickly identify which flight was involved, its point of origin and its

destination.

Noting Mr Newfield's concern for the feelings of the relatives, TVNZ suggested that it

was no longer practical, in an age of instant communication, to suppress details of an

event such as this.

Turning to the footage of the bodies being recovered from the scene and being carried

out in body bags, TVNZ observed that it was the human victims who were a central part

of people's concern about the crash. It considered that it was important not to sanitise

the tragedy and concluded that it was legitimate to include shots of the bodies being

recovered. TVNZ suggested that if the coverage did not reflect that people died in the

accident it would be failing its responsibility to provide an accurate and impartial

account of the tragedy.

With respect to the suggestion by Mr Newfield that there appeared to be bloodstains on

the wreckage, TVNZ responded that its reporter at the scene did not recall seeing any

blood although there were shots showing water damage, or possible damage caused by

leaking fuel.

TVNZ concluded that the coverage of the crash was not in breach of standard G2 or

G14 because it was accurate and fair, and that it quite properly illustrated the horror of

the event without being voyeuristic or prurient. It considered that its news teams acted

responsibly in conveying the news, and stood by the integrity and reliability of its news

sources as required under standard G15. Because it believed the coverage took a

realistic and sympathetic stance towards the victims, it did not believe it would have

caused unnecessary alarm or distress in contravention of standard G16. Finally, it

examined the programme under standard G17 and concluded that there was no evidence

of intrusion into the distress of the families. It declined to uphold the complaint.

In the Authority's view, the crash was covered effectively and compassionately,

bringing viewers essential information as the story developed. It notes that the scene to

which Mr Newfield most objected, that of the bodies in body bags being recovered

from the scene, was relatively brief and was not repeated in subsequent coverage. The

Authority observes that the brief scene effectively conveyed the gravity of the crash

without being prurient.

With respect to the complaint that the item would have caused unnecessary alarm or

distress, the Authority believes it was important to notify viewers promptly of the facts

because by doing so, the needless fears of many who knew of the crash, but did not

know the exact details, would have been allayed. Acknowledging the grief and distress

of the families and friends involved, the Authority does not consider that the item would

have exacerbated that distress. It concludes that the coverage of the crash was

appropriate, given the fact that commercial airline crashes are a relatively infrequent

occurrence in New Zealand.

In its assessment of the items overall, the Authority concludes that the coverage of the

crash was fair and balanced. It notes that as the story unfolded, the emphasis moved

from the crash itself to questions which focused on the role of the pilot and the facts

which would be taken into account in the subsequent inquiry. The Authority is of the

view that the broadcasts did not breach the nominated standards.

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

complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
16 May 1996

Appendix

Mr Newfield's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 2 February

1996

In a letter addressed to the Authority, Peter Newfield of Auckland complained that

Television New Zealand Ltd's coverage of the air crash in Marlborough on Holmes on

29, 30 and 31 January 1996 was tasteless and would have caused needless distress to

the victims' families and friends.

He referred particularly to the footage of bodies being removed from the site in body

bags. In his view, the knowledge of the general public was not enhanced by the sight

of the bags and for the friends and relatives of the victims, the sight could have been

nothing less than harrowing.

Mr Newfield referred to a similar piece of footage many years ago about which he had

complained and had received the response that broadcasters had to strike a balance

between sensitivity and the need to convey information to the public. In Mr Newfield's

view, that balance had not been achieved. He wrote:

Nothing that the public needed to know about the accident was conveyed by the

sight of the body bags. Needless distress was caused to people connected with

the victims - and I hasten to say that I am in no way connected with any of them

or with the pilot or the airline concerned.

Mr Newfield referred to the mid-evening news coverage on 31 January of the crash as

being marginal, particularly as one shot appeared to show blood stains on the wreckage.

He added:

If I am right in saying this footage was marginal, then I submit that the footage

of the body bags fell a long way beyond that margin.

His complaint was referred to TVNZ, and in a second letter, dated 12 February, he

clarified the basis for his complaint. He also added a further element, noting that on the

evening of the crash, on a number of occasions during the Holmes programme,

information was broadcast that the plane was missing and then confirmation that all but

one had been killed. Mr Newfield noted:

That news was obviously broadcast prior to there being any opportunity for next

of kin to be informed of the crash, was therefore tasteless and unnecessary and

an even worse example than one has come to expect from Holmes of callous

sensationalism.

He repeated that the broadcast breached most of the standards relating to news and

current affairs programmes.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 13 February 1996

In its initial response, TVNZ advised that it was considering the complaint under

standards G2, G14, G15, G16 and G17 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice. It advised that standard G18, which refers to the broadcast of distressing

material, was not applicable, since it applies only to news flashes prepared for screening

outside regular news bulletins.

TVNZ responded fully in a letter dated 20 February. Its first comment was on Mr

Newfield's concern for the relatives and friends of the victims, both in hearing the news

from the television, and upon seeing the body bags taking the victims away from the

crash site.

TVNZ suggested that the first aspect raised the question of the nature of news and what

its viewers expected. It argued that a crash of a scheduled airline service was a major

news story which it was obliged to report accurately and without delay. Since news of

an air crash spreads quickly, it considered it had an obligation to identify the flight, its

point of origin and its destination, in part to alleviate the anxiety of other travellers'

relatives.

It emphasised that the updates on Holmes came from official sources and the

information was in the public interest. TVNZ argued that in the electronic age of instant

communication, it was not practical to delay the release of major news events. It

pointed to the example of the recent bombing in London, where news was broadcast

around the world within 12 minutes of the event occurring, and well before it was

known what the human cost was.

Turning to the question of the bodies, TVNZ observed that the bodies were a central

part of people's concern about an air crash and it considered it was important not to

sanitise the tragedy. It wrote:

We do not go as far as showing bodies lying in the wreckage, but believe that

we should include shots of them once they have been decently recovered and

placed in the canvas stretchers. If the coverage does not reflect that people died

in the accident it would be failing in its responsibility to provide an accurate and

impartial account of the tragedy.

Referring to the item on the 31 January news bulletin, TVNZ stated that there were no

shots of blood in the item. It advised that its reporter at the scene did not recall seeing

any blood, although there were shots showing water damage and a shot of a tree which

may have appeared to be bloodstained but was showing only the brown colour of the

de-barked trunk.

TVNZ concluded that standard G2 was not breached. It regarded the coverage as

accurate and fair and that it quite rightly indicated the horror of the occasion but not in

any voyeuristic or prurient manner. With regard to standard G14, it considered the

event was reported in an accurate, objective and impartial manner. It stood by the

integrity and reliability of its news sources and believed its news teams acted

responsibly in conveying the news. TVNZ considered its coverage took a realistic and

sympathetic stance towards its victims and recorded that it had no criticism of its reports

from any one associated with the victims.

As far as standard G17 was concerned, TVNZ advised that it did no more than was

necessary to provide a thorough and accurate account of the tragedy and it did not

intrude into the distress felt by the families.

Mr Newfield's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 13

March 1996

Responding first to TVNZ's 13 February letter, Mr Newfield advised that he did not

agree that standard G18 did not apply. He did not consider the Holmes programme to

be a "regular news bulletin", suggesting at best it could be considered as current affairs.

Turning to the 20 February letter, he made the following observations:

1. While accepting that TVNZ had an obligation to report the crash accurately and

speedily, he argued that the showing of the body bags added nothing to the

objective facts because viewers knew that people were dead. He described the

showing of the body bags as "macabre, insensitive and unfeeling."

2. Mr Newfield did not accept that because other news organisations conveyed

news in this manner, that TVNZ was entitled to do so also. He added that their

relatives' anxiety would not need to be alleviated if news services took a

responsible approach to incidents such as this.

3. To TVNZ's remark that the updates on Holmes provided "verifiable information

in the public interest", Mr Newfield maintained that the interests of the public

were not advanced by the unseemly haste with which the information was

broadcast. He did not deny that the information was of interest to the public,

but asserted that the interests of the public should have been subservient to the

individual interests and feelings of those directly involved.

4. Detecting a note of condescension in TVNZ's reference to yearning for the time

when news of this sort was conveyed in the newspaper, Mr Newfield asserted

that he did not argue for that. His proposition was that there were certain people

who had a prior right to know and that they had an additional right to have the

public informed in a way that did not cause them additional distress.

5. Acknowledging a parallel between the bus bombing in London and the air crash,

Mr Newfield nevertheless maintained there were significant differences,

including the fact that the bus bombing was a terrorist action and the right of the

public to know was therefore different.

6. In response to TVNZ's argument that it was no longer practical to delay the

release of major news stories, Mr Newfield declared that the crash itself was not

a major event and not remarkable in the context of road deaths and other

accidents. In Mr Newfield's view, the incident became more important when

questions about the pilot's actions arose.

7. Mr Newfield described as nonsense TVNZ's suggestion that bodies were a part

of an event such as a plane crash. He argued that the depiction of a body or the

manner of its recovery added nothing to the knowledge of the public. He

suggested that if the removal of the bodies had not been shown, the coverage

would have been no less accurate or impartial.

8. Mr Newfield accepted without reservation that no bloodstains were shown. He

suggested it was a matter for concern that that impression was given by the

footage shown.

9. Commenting on each of the standards, Mr Newfield wrote:

G2 - the accepted norms of decency and taste are higher in the community at

large than that of television broadcasters.

G14 - The broadcasts were accurate but were not objective. The Holmes

programme sought to excite sensationalism.

G15 - The word integrity embodies fairness and balance, and the balance of the

broadcast was upset by the depiction of the body bags.

G16 - It was offensive to commonsense to suggest that there was anything

"sympathetic" in the footage. It is fatuous for TVNZ to say it had no reaction

from any member of the family of the victims. In Mr Newfield's view, they

were the least likely people to feel able to voice a concern and he considered

their distress could not have been alleviated by what was shown. He wrote:

A balanced approach must surely have taken into account that fact and

set that against any perceived public benefit from showing the footage.

G17 - Mr Newfield rejected entirely TVNZ's argument and asked how could the

footage have done anything but intrude upon the distress of the families.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 12 April 1996

Responding to the points made by Mr Newfield in his referral, TVNZ advised that it

stood by its original comments. It added that it was a fact of the present age that

information sharing was now often immediate or close to it, adding:

It is and always has been an essential skills component of news gathering to get

the news quickly and to disseminate it as fully and accurately as possible.

TVNZ disagreed with the inference which it took from Mr Newfield's complaint that the

event was not of sufficient moment to require its broadcast at the earliest possible time.

It considered the crash to be a major story and in the public interest to report, however

large or small the plane. It maintained that the crash would have been significant even if

there was no controversy over the pilot's role. It suggested that the geographical

location of the crash was an irrelevant argument.

TVNZ believed its coverage of the event was both responsible and sensitive.

Mr Newfield's Final Comment

When asked to make a brief final comment, Mr Newfield remarked that he could not

usefully add to what he had already said. He suggested that TVNZ had missed the

points he had made and observed that the did not appear to be any point in reiterating

those points.

He concluded:

I should perhaps observe that the growing immediacy of news heightens rather

than diminishes the need for responsibility, sensitivity and taste. In some areas

of our lives growing speed results in diminishing standards. In my submission

that is seldom acceptable and is certainly not so in the context of this matter.