BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A news item broadcast by National Radio at 6.00pm on 5 November 1998 concerned an appeal against life imprisonment by one of Britain’s "Moors" murderers, Myra Hindley.

In his letter of complaint to the broadcaster, Radio New Zealand Ltd, Mr Butler wrote that the item appeared to have been selected for broadcast because of its prurient nature and, as the murders were committed 30 years ago in England, he contended that they were no longer of any interest to New Zealanders. He expressed particular concern about what he believed to be gratuitous detail about the murders at the conclusion of the item. The concluding statement, he reported, had included the words "they tortured some of their victims and recorded their screams".

RNZ advised that it did not consider Mr Butler’s letter of complaint to be a formal one. It reached this conclusion, first, because the complaint had not used the term "formal" and, secondly, because the broadcaster considered it to be a criticism of its policy for the selection of news. RNZ asserted that this did not fall within the ambit of programme standards.

Dissatisfied with RNZ’s decision, Mr Butler 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 listened to a tape of the item complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix. In this instance, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A news item broadcast on National Radio at 6.00pm on 5 November 1998, referred to Myra Hindley’s appeal against her life sentence for the murders she committed with a male associate more than 30 years ago in England. After reporting factors concerning the appeal, the item explained that Ms Hindley and her boyfriend Ian Brady had murdered five people (most of them children) and buried them on the Moors in the Peak District.

Mr Peter Butler complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was of limited relevance or interest to New Zealanders, and appeared to have been selected for its prurient nature. He referred to the "abysmal" standard of news reporting in general but stated that he was specifically objecting to the item’s final sentence which had included the words "they tortured some of their victims and recorded their screams". Mr Butler contended that this concluding statement was gratuitous.

Mr Butler advised the Authority on 2 December that he had not received a response from RNZ. He enclosed a letter which he described as an adaptation of his original letter of complaint sent to the broadcaster on 5 November. The Authority forwarded a copy of Mr Butler’s adapted letter to RNZ and requested that action be taken on the referral.

RNZ advised the Authority that the initial letter of complaint had been received by it, but had not been identified as a formal complaint. Having considered the letter of complaint which had been drawn to its attention by the Authority, RNZ submitted that it could not be regarded as a formal complaint as the word "formal" had not appeared in the letter. Further, a breach of a particular standard, or standards, had not been cited. It considered that there was no applicable standard under which to assess the complaint as the complainant appeared to be criticising RNZ’s editorial policy for its selection of news. RNZ stated:

… questions of editorial selection or news value arising from a listener’s personal programme preferences, while possibly significant in audience research projects, are outside the Authority’s usual concerns.

RNZ’s Editorial Policy Manager, the broadcaster advised, had been made aware of the complainant’s views.

In response, Mr Butler argued that his letter had made it clear that he wished his complaint be dealt with formally. He disputed RNZ’s contention that the complaint was a criticism of the broadcaster’s editorial policy for the selection of news and thus excluded from the formal complaints process. While accepting that he had criticised the standard of news in general, Mr Butler maintained that he objected distinctly and specifically to the gratuitous statement at the end of the item which he described as a "sick little piece" added by the editors. His complaint, he wrote, did not relate to the selection of the Ms Hindley story itself. He requested the Authority to pursue his complaint "vigorously".

RNZ advised the Authority that it had very little to add to its earlier response and repeated that it was unable to nominate a particular standard under which it considered the complaint could be appropriately assessed. In addressing Mr Butler’s contention that the comment at the end of the item was gratuitous, the broadcaster reiterated that it still believed the complaint to be a criticism of the news value of the particular item. It concluded:

As we have already observed, the basis of this particular complaint does not seem to fall within the ambit of Programme Standards.

The Authority’s Findings

The first issue for the Authority to decide is whether Mr Butler’s complaint should have been accepted by the broadcaster as a formal one and dealt with accordingly. The Authority acknowledges that much of the complaint could be regarded as criticism of editorial policy which RNZ points out, correctly, is not a standards issue. However, it considers that as the complaint also referred to the gratuitous nature of the final sentence of the broadcast, it should have been accepted as a formal complaint under s.6(1)(a) of the Act.

As the complainant did not specify, and the broadcaster declined to nominate, standards under which to assess the complaint, the Authority now does so. Giving consideration to the complainant’s argument, the Authority nominates standards R2, R18 and R26 of the Radio Codes of Broadcasting Practice. Standard R2 requires a broadcaster:

R2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and good taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which any language or behaviour occurs.

The other two standards state:

R18  News should not be presented in such a way as to cause panic or unnecessary alarm or distress.

R26  The representation of violence in news and information programmes should be strictly in accordance with the importance of the event and to the degree essential to the integrity and completeness of the item.

With regard to the standard R2 aspect of the complaint, the Authority must determine whether currently accepted norms of good taste and decency were breached by the broadcast. The Authority does not consider this to be the case. In examining the context of the broadcast, it notes that the item was very brief and dealt, in the main, with details of the appeal by Ms Hindley against her life sentence for the murder of five people. It believes that the final statement added by the broadcaster, rather than being gratuitous as claimed by Mr Butler, recalled for listeners, as context for the matters being reported, highly relevant details of the crimes. The Authority considers that the statement objected to did not threaten standard R2.

In its assessment of the complaint under standard R18, the Authority takes the same view. It does not consider that the brief item, and in particular its final statement, was explicit or disturbing enough to cause panic or unnecessary alarm.

In relation to standard R26, the Authority considers it was appropriate for the broadcaster to include in the news item some detail regarding the murders which provided listeners with a context for Ms Hindley’s life sentence without eligibility for parole.

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

Signed for and on behalf the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
25 February 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was considered by the Authority in determining this complaint.

1. Peter Butler’s Letter of Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd – 5 November 1998

2. Mr Butler’s follow-up letter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 2 December 1998

3. RNZ’s Response to the Authority regarding Mr Butler’s letter of Complaint – 8 December 1998

4. Mr Butler’s Final Comment to the Authority – 6 January 1999

5. RNZ’s Final Comment to the Authority – 14 January 1999