BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The search for a three year-old boy swept away in a flooded stream was dealt with in

an item broadcast on One Network News between 6.00–7.00pm on 5 September

1996. The item showed the boy's father participating in the search and being asked

about the search's progress.

Mr Bauer complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the reporter was rude and

callous in asking the question, and the father's pain at the way the question was asked

was apparent in his response. Mr Bauer also complained about the way the other

members of the family were pestered by the reporter.

Maintaining that the reporter had spoken to the father sensitively and that the other

family members had not been pestered, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's responses, Mr Bauer referred the 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 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 unsuccessful search for a three year-old boy swept away in a flooded stream was

covered in an item on One Network News on 5 September 1996. The boy's father

joined the search and at one point, as he was walked past the camera crew, he was

asked "How is the search going?". Another shot showed some members of the boy's

family sitting in a car and declining to comment.

Mr Bauer complained to TVNZ that the reporter "yelled" an unnecessary question at

the father "in a sensation-hunting voice" and had pestered the family members in the

car.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G4 and G17 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. The first requires broadcasters:

G4 To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in any

programme.

The second one 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.

Explaining the situation covered by the item, TVNZ maintained that the father was

asked quietly, as he walked by, whether he wished to comment. It continued:

The father walked on and then looked back at the camera. He was not

surprisingly, deeply upset. But not at the question. He shook his head and

quietly answered "no". But he was certainly not angry and showed no gesture

of annoyance. It was a sad, but dignified moment in our view.

TVNZ also maintained that it had not "pestered" the family members sitting in the car

who had been filmed shortly after the accident occurred.

TVNZ said that the tragedy was a news story which it had an obligation to report, and

that it had done so sensitively.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Bauer disputed TVNZ's

description of the reporter's question as quiet and sympathetic. He maintained that

she had "yelled" and that this opinion was shared by others he had spoken to about

the item.

The Authority appreciates TVNZ's point that it has an obligation to report events

such as the tragic one that occurred on this occasion. The Authority wishes to

emphasise the opening sentence of standard G17 that: "Unnecessary intrusion in the

grief and distress of victims and their families or friends must be avoided". Any

involvement by the media in such situations is potentially intrusive and the standard

requires broadcasters to minimise any apparent insensitivity which seems almost

inevitably to arise in these situations.

Having viewed a tape of the item, the Authority acknowledges that the boy's father

was asked a question as he walked past the reporter who was apparently standing in a

public place. It accepts that the question was not asked in a sensational manner and

that the father was not badgered or an unseemly approach adopted. After he

answered the question, he was not followed or harangued in any way. It was a

difficult situation for the reporter and the item which was broadcast did not disclose

any behaviour which contravened the standards. The questions to the family members

in the car were, it would seem, unwelcome but again it would appear that they were

not pursued in a manner which transgresses the standards.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
21 November 1996

Appendix

Mr Bauer's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 6 September 1996

Siegfried Bauer of Raetihi complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the

lengthy news item broadcast on One Network News between 6.00 - 7.00pm on 5

September 1996. The item concerned the search for a three year-old swept away in

floodwaters and feared to be drowned.

Mr Bauer complained about the manner in which a reporter "yelled" (in a "sensation-

hunting voice") to the father who was helping in the search. He wrote:

The father's hurt expression hurt me very much and I was offended by the

manner in which your female reporter gathered her "scoop".

The question, Mr Bauer added, "How is the search going" was unnecessary and stupid

as it was obvious that the search was in progress.

Mr Bauer also complained about the way the reporter pestered family members sitting

in a car. He believed that the reporter should be summarily dismissed.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 18 September 1996

Assessing the complaint under standards G4 and G17 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, TVNZ said the item was a report of a toddler swept away in

floodwater. Both parents were out when the boy fell into the water and, when he

arrived, the father insisted on helping despite the dangerous conditions. TVNZ

continued:

The media on the river bank were able to photograph and film the father's

desperate attempts to find his son. The print media took photos and one was

on the front page of the Dominion, in colour, the following day. You may have

seen it. In case you did not, we enclose a copy.

The father eventually scrambled ashore at a point where our crew was standing.

As he climbed up and away from the scene he passed within a few feet of our

cameraman and our reporter.

At that point, TVNZ said, he was quietly asked if he wanted to make any comment.

Not surprisingly, TVNZ added, he was upset and:

He shook his head and quietly answered "no". But he was certainly not angry

and showed no gesture of annoyance. It was a sad, but dignified moment in our

view.

Explaining that tragedy was news and that it was the media's job to report it, TVNZ

said that the media was required nevertheless to act in a sensitive way. It continued:

On this occasion, the father's actions removed him from the role of a sideline

spectator. By insisting on taking part in the search, he made himself a focal

point in news terms. Our reporter, faced with the father taking part in the

search at personal risk, was in our view, equally justified in putting a question to

him as he passed. Neither she nor any other member of our crew placed

themselves in the father's way nor pursued him. They remained stationery in

the one location throughout. We reject that the reporter when asking a question

of the father "yelled" or used a "sensation-hunting voice".

TVNZ reported that the shots in the carpark had been taken shortly after the accident

occurred and had not involved pestering. Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ

concluded:

Although we have every sympathy and respect for why you put pen to paper,

we strongly believe that our reporter carried out the difficult assignment given to

her that morning, in a sensitive, careful and proper way.

Mr Bauer's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 5 October 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Bauer referred the complaint to the

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

Maintaining that the reporter "yelled" and had not "enquired quietly and

sympathetically", Mr Bauer said his conclusion was similar to that reached by other

viewers he had spoken to. Mr Bauer questioned TVNZ's approach to his complaint,

maintaining that it was entirely expected that the father would join the search and, he

concluded:

Does the father's involvement in the search serve him the right to be "meat" for

the media? Should he perhaps have gone home and watched TV instead?

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 15 October 1996

TVNZ advised the Authority that it had nothing to add.