BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

False Memories was the title of a British documentary broadcast on TV One at

10.00pm on 2 September 1996. It examined a number of cases in which, through the

technique of "recovered memory", people believed that they had been sexually abused

as a child where the evidence suggested strongly that they had not been abused.

Dr Read and the New Zealand Psychological Society Inc complained to Television

New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme gave the impression that false

allegations were more common than they were. Further, by suggesting that a large

proportion of allegations were false, they complained that the programme would add

to the fear felt by genuine victims that their complaint would not be believed. They

also questioned the suitability of the person whose telephone number was broadcast

at the end of the programme who, the item said, could assist people who were

wrongly accused of sexual abuse.

Denying that the programme suggested that false allegations were a major problem in

the numerical sense, but arguing that it was the media's responsibility to report on

issues which seriously questioned accepted opinion, TVNZ declined to uphold the

complaints. It also said that the person whose phone number was screened had the

appropriate expertise to deal with people who were falsely accused of sexual abuse.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, each complainant referred their 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 complaints.

Decision

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

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

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

The Programme

A British documentary screened by TVNZ, False Memories, explored a number of

cases where some people, through the "recovered memory" technique, believed that

they had been sexually abused. The programme, built around the work of clinical

psychologist Dr Michael Yapko, showed that the belief in those cases was very likely

wrong. At the end of the programme, TVNZ displayed the telephone number of a

person from whom it was said people who had been falsely accused of child abuse

could seek help.

The Complaints

Dr Read of the Psychology Department at Auckland University complained that the

programme gave the clear impression that the small number of false allegations was

more common than the tiny percentage which they actually represented. Citing

research which disclosed that, in 1993, an estimated 32% of girls in New Zealand aged

under 16 years were abused, Dr Read expressed deep concern that the broadcast

would make abuse victims even more frightened about coming forward because of their

fear that they would not be believed.

In addition, Dr Read complained that the programme's one-sided portrayal of

professionals working in the area would damage the reputation of all such

professionals. He also expressed concern about the quality of the research of the

person whose telephone number was broadcast, and her qualification for that reference

in view of her personal circumstances.

Those matters were also aspects of the complaint from Judith McDougall, President

of the New Zealand Psychological Society. She said that the programme, by not

indicating the incidence of false allegation, implied that it was a major problem,

whereas genuine sexual abuse was a more frequent and more important concern. She

also objected to the way the programme portrayed "professional" consultants, and to

the suitability of the person whose telephone number was displayed.

The Standards

TVNZ assessed the complaints under standards G1, G6, G16 and V17 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first ones require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

The other two read:

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

way as to cause unnecessary panic, alarm or distress.

V17 Scenes and themes dealing with disturbing social and domestic friction or

sequences in which people – especially children – or animals may be

humiliated or badly treated, should be handled with great care and

sensitivity. All gratuitous material of this nature must be avoided and any

scenes which are shown must pass the test of relevancy within the context

of the programme. If thought likely to disturb children, the programme

should be scheduled later in the evening.

TVNZ's Response to the Complaints

Pointing out that both complainants acknowledged that false allegations were in fact

made, TVNZ argued that it was the duty of the media to report on this aspect of the

recovered memory technique. TVNZ did not dispute the statistics relating to child

abuse quoted by Dr Read, but maintained to the complainants that the programme had

not suggested that false allegations were a major problem in the numerical sense. The

consequences of a false allegation, however, could well be major for the people

concerned and thus, TVNZ added, the public were entitled to know about the issue.

As for the aspect of the complaints that the item might undermine the credibility of

professionals, TVNZ said that the public disgrace of a small number of doctors each

year did not cause an upsurge in public concern. Turning to the complainants' concern

about the person whose phone number was displayed, TVNZ pointed to her

curriculum vitae – including her position as an Honorary Senior Lecturer and Research

Fellow at the Auckland University's School of Medicine – and said it was comfortable

with its choice.

The Referrals to the Authority

In its referral to the Authority, the Society focussed on two major concerns. The first

was the suitability of the person whose telephone number was displayed and the

second, the absence of a number for sexual abuse victims to call.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Dr Read expressed his concern at

"the arrogant and flippant nature" of TVNZ's reply and said that TVNZ seemed not

to appreciate the central issue:

Our whole point, that many abuse victims have still not come forward for fear

that they will not be believed and that this programme could only fuel their

fears, is completely ignored by their bizarre claim that abuse victims were

unlikely to be interested in their programme.

TVNZ's Reports to the Authority

In its report to the Authority on Dr Read's referral, TVNZ denied that its response

was either arrogant or flippant. In reply to his point quoted above, it wrote:

What we say is that the programme was not about victims of child abuse. It was

about people who were not victims of child abuse but who believe they were as

a result of the recovered memories procedure going wrong.

TVNZ continued:

In our view Dr Read has not provided any compelling evidence why the

information contained in this British made documentary should be denied to

New Zealand audiences. We believe it deals with a matter of considerable public

interest.

In its response to the Society's referral, TVNZ repeated the points made in its report

on Dr Read's referral. As there was no evidence advanced of unnecessary panic or

alarm which could suggest that standard G16 had been infringed, TVNZ said that it

considered that standard to be irrelevant.

TVNZ also provided the curriculum vitae of the person whose telephone number was

displayed at the end of the programme and argued that she was an appropriate expert

to help in cases where an allegation of sexual abuse was false.

It its final comment on this point, the Society accepted the nominated person's

competence but questioned whether her personal situation might influence her

judgment to the detriment of callers.

The Authority's Findings

The Authority's first task is to determine what the programme said about the

frequency of false allegations of sexual abuse. It decides that the programme advanced

the proposition that false allegations of sexual abuse do in fact occur. It also considers

that the programme was careful not to imply that false allegations amounted to more

than a small number – or a small minority – of the allegations of sexual abuse.

The Authority agrees with TVNZ that the question of false allegations, although not a

major issue numerically, is a matter of public interest and one which was canvassed

competently in the programme. Moreover, it does not believe that TVNZ's response

to the complaint showed either flippancy or arrogance. In addition, it accepts that

there was no evidence that the broadcast contravened standard G16.

A copy of the Bulletin for March 1995, published by the Society and containing a

section on Recovered Memory, was included when the Psychological Society referred

its complaint to the Authority, and the Authority appreciates its clear delineation of

the issues which appear to be at stake here. The papers printed in the Bulletin

expressed a concern that the publicity which surrounded false memory – especially

that arising from criminal trials – did not drown out either a concern about the sexual

abuse of children or the reality of recovered memory in some instances.

The magazine published a "consensus" statement from an American Psychological

Association Working Party on Investigation of Memories of Childhood Abuse. That

statement reads:

* Most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of

what happened to them.

* However, it is possible for memories of abuse that have been forgotten for

a long time to be remembered. The mechanism(s) by which such delayed

recall occur(s) is/are not currently well understood.

* It is also possible to construct convincing pseudomemories for events that

never occurred. The mechanism(s) by which these pseudomemories

occur(s) is/are not well understood.

* There are gaps in our knowledge about the processes that lead to accurate

or inaccurate recollection of childhood sexual abuse.

The programme complained about focussed on the third point and the "consensus"

statement itself illustrates that this is a difficult area for professionals to make

categorical statements about with absolute certainty. In emphasising the third point

here, the Authority is of the opinion that the programme neither exaggerated the

occurrence of false memories nor undermined the validity of the other conclusion

recorded above. Accordingly, the Authority does not consider that the programme

was unbalanced or inaccurate.

Because of the responsible and careful way the programme was put together, it also

does not accept the complainants' inference that it undermined all professionals by

examining deficiencies in the practice of a few. Neither does it accept that, in dealing

with the specific subject of false recovered memory, the programme undermined the

validity of genuine instances of abuse. While the Authority appreciates the genuine

concern expressed by the professionals who have laid the complaint that it might

conceivably prove distressing to some victims of genuine abuse, it does not consider

that such a possibility would be sufficient grounds to suppress the programme.

While the Authority accepts TVNZ's justification for displaying the contact

telephone number of the person it nominated as an expert in view of her curriculum

vitae, it is concerned about the adequacy of providing the telephone number of just

one individual. It believes that the name of an organisation, or the numbers of several

individuals, might have been more appropriate. It would expect that in such cases, the

persons nominated would be chosen after appropriate inquiry with peers.

The Authority accepts TVNZ's argument that, given the specificity of the

programme, it was not necessary to provide a contact number for genuine abuse

victims.

In view, first, of the careful way in which the important – if not substantial – question

of false allegations of sexual abuse was dealt with in the programme, secondly, the

avoidance of any gratuitous material, and thirdly, the hour at which the programme

was screened, the Authority concludes that the broadcast did not breach standards G1,

G6, G16 or V17.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
12 December 1996

Appendix I

Dr Read's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 3 September 1996

Dr John Read of the Psychology Department of Auckland University complained to

Television New Zealand Ltd about the documentary entitled False Memories

broadcast on TV One at 10.00pm on 2 September 1996.

Acknowledging that the documentary was not a local one but had been made for the

BBC, Dr Read wrote:

The problem with the programme was that it created a clear impression that the

admittedly distressing incidents of false allegations of sexual abuse were

something much more common than the tiny minority of cases which they

actually represent. No attempt was made to put their infrequency into

perspective.

As the extent of sexual abuse in New Zealand of girls under the age of 16 was

estimated, in 1993, to be 32%, Dr Read considered that the programme had done

considerable damage by promulgating the idea that a large proportion of allegations

were false. He wondered whether they might keep their memories hidden if they were

frightened nobody would believe them. He continued:

Furthermore, the programme's utterly one-sided portrayal of doctors and other

professionals may have seriously damaged the public's trust in those who have

the very difficult and emotionally draining task of helping people repair their

shattered lives. No attempt was made to draw any distinction between the

unethical practices of those depicted in this programme and the work of those

dedicated and skilled workers who deserve better than to be 'tarred with the

same brush'.

Dr Read sought the production and broadcast of a programme to correct the imbalance

occasioned by the screening of False Memories. He observed:

What TVNZ undoubtedly is responsible for is the decision, in keeping with the

bias of the programme itself, to announce at the end of the programme a contact

number only for those who feel they have been wrongly accused of sexual abuse.

There was no contact number for the infinitely greater number of viewers who

have actually been sexually abused.

He then provided details of the person whose telephone number was broadcast and

the use in her work of what he described as discredited "research". She was, he added,

married to a convicted sex offender and, he asked:

Did TVNZ check who, exactly, might be taking phone calls and counselling your

viewers as a result of your publicising their address and phone number. Did you

consider the possibility that paedophiles may take heart from the programme,

ring this number, at the recommendation of TVNZ, and receive support for their

claim that they have been falsely accused?

Dr Read proposed the wording of an apology which he believed was appropriate for

TVNZ to broadcast.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 8 October 1996

Assessing the complaint under standards G6 and V17 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, TVNZ advised:

The programme examined a number of cases in which the technique of

"recovered memory" to identify people who had been sexually abused as

children had led the individuals involved to believe they had been sexually

abused when there was compelling evidence to suggest they had not. The

programme was built around the work of clinical psychologist, Dr Michael

Yapko.

It summarised Dr Read's complaint:

It was your belief that the programme was misleading, that it was likely to

undermine public confidence in the work of health professionals, that it was

detrimental to those who genuinely had suffered sexual abused when young and

that the counselling advice offered at the end of the programme was

inappropriate.

TVNZ then expressed surprise at the complaint in view of Dr Read's acknowledgment

that false allegations were in fact made. It was the duty of the media, it said, to report

that the recovered memory technique was not foolproof.

Turning to the points raised in the complaint, TVNZ did not accept that the

programme suggested that false allegations were a major problem in the numerical

sense. It accepted the figures for child abuse supplied by Dr Read and, describing

those statistics as appalling, pointed out that the programme:

... dealt with those who by misuse (deliberate or otherwise) of the recovered

memory procedure have been left believing they were sexually abused when

there is very strong evidence that they were not.

It continued:

We do not share your apparent view that because the occurrence of the

implantation of false memories is small that it is of little consequence. Clearly to

those directly affected it is of great consequence, and it is a possible outcome

which the public is entitled to know about.

TVNZ disagreed that the programme would harm the trust held by the public towards

doctors and other professionals. The disgrace of a small number of doctors each year

did not, it believed, cause an upsurge in public concern.

As for the contact phone number shown at the end of the programme, TVNZ accepted

that the broadcast of a number for people to call who had been abused might have been

useful. In view of the curriculum vitae of the person whose number was shown -

which included being an Honorary Senior Lecturer and Research Fellow at Auckland

University's School of Medicine - TVNZ was comfortable with its choice.

Focussing on the standards, TVNZ maintained that standard G6 included the

provision "within the period of current interest" contained in s.4(1)(d) of the

Broadcasting Act. As the technique of recovered memory had been described in

various programmes over the years, TVNZ considered that it was appropriate to

broadcast an item which covered a new angle. Standard V17, it argued, was not

contravened as relevant material was broadcast and the complaint was not upheld.

Dr Read's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 15 October 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Dr Read referred the complaint to the

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

Reporting that he was referring the complaint on behalf of Emma Davies, Child Abuse

Researcher, and himself, he began:

I wish to formally add to our complaints the arrogant and flippant nature of

TVNZ's response to issues which are of a very serious nature.

Parts of their response, indeed, are so silly to make it difficult to ascertain

whether they have failed to grasp the issue in question or have indeed

understood it but are merely trying to pretend that they have not.

The point of the complaint, he explained, was to protest at a programme which could

discourage child abuse victims from coming forwards because of their fear that they

would not be believed.

Dr Read maintained that TVNZ had not addressed "in any acceptable way" the aspect

of the complaint that the telephone number provided was to the home of a convicted

sex offender and his wife. He was concerned to ensure that the issues he raised were

examined seriously and that a statement similar to the one suggested be broadcast.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 22 October 1996

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ disputed Dr Read's comment that its reply had

been either arrogant or flippant. The report, it said, had assessed the complaint

seriously against the standards.

TVNZ emphasised that its report had said that the program was not about the victims

of child abuse - but about people who were not the victims of child abuse. Its

response to the complaint did not state, as Dr Read recorded in the referral, that the

programme "would be of no interest to victims of child abuse". TVNZ wrote:

We have no argument with Dr Read about the incidence of child abuse in this

country. We have no argument with his belief that many people are fearful of

coming forward because they might not be believed. But that is not what this

programme is about.

In our view Dr Read has not provided any compelling evidence why the

information contained in this British made documentary should be denied to

New Zealand audiences. We believe it deals with a matter of considerable public

interest.

As for the expertise of the person whose telephone number was screened, TVNZ

explained that it had avoided commentary on those aspects of the complaint as it

considered that they verged on the defamatory. It enclosed a copy of the Ms Felicity

Goodyear-Smith's curriculum vitae and said that it believed she was an appropriate

expert to help in cases where people were accused of sexual abuse incorrectly.

TVNZ concluded:

We repeat again our view that the recovered memories debate is an on-going

issue, and that Section 4(1)(d) of the Act makes it clear that significant points of

view on such issues may be provided "within the period of current interest".

We submit that the issues raised in False Memories represent significant points

of view and help contribute to developing an informed public opinion on the

broader subject of recovered memory therapy.

Dr Read's Final Comment - 4 November 1996

In his final comment, Dr Read maintained that TVNZ had not addressed his complaint

satisfactorily.

The programme, he repeated, had shown foreign professionals engaged in unethical

conduct which must have undermined abuse victims confidence in New Zealand's

health professionals. It had not included a phone number for genuine sexual abuse

victims and, Dr Read argued, a suitable response was a programme about the

prevalence of sexual abuse, the pain it caused and the difficult work undertaken by

professionals in the field was appropriate.

As for the phone number displayed, Dr Read enclosed academic reviews of her work

which dismissed it as superficial and uninformed. He concluded:

The substantive issue, here, however, is whether the Board believes that

recommending the home phone number of a convicted sex offender as a number from

which viewers can receive advice or support regarding any aspect relating to child

sexual abuse is reasonable practice within the relevant Act and Codes.

Appendix II

New Zealand Psychological Society Inc's Complaint to Television New Zealand

Ltd - 6 September 1996

Judith McDougall, President, complained on behalf of the New Zealand Psychological

Society Inc to Television New Zealand Ltd about the documentary False Memories

broadcast on TV One on 2 September 1996.

As the programme, she said, did not indicate the incidence of false allegations of

sexual abuse, she said that this implied that it was a big problem. A far greater

problem, she continued, was the relatively large number of people who were sexually

abused as children - estimated as 30% in New Zealand by some researchers. She

commented:

Most perpetrators of sexual abuse deny the offence. A careful assessment of

each individual case is required to ascertain the probability of the occurrence of

abuse. This argument can never be proven by public debate, and our adversarial

legal system encourages a polarisation of the argument.

She also complained that the programme was likely to undermine the public's faith in

health professionals in view of the way some of the professionals dealt with in the

programme were portrayed. Because some people who were sexually abused were

frightened that they would not be believed, she stated, the programme could add to

their emotional distress as they maintained their silence.

At the end of the programme, Ms McDougall wrote, a telephone number was given

for those who believed that they had been wrongly accused. The Society was

concerned, first, that a number was not provided for the larger number who had been

abused, and secondly, that the number given was for a woman whose husband had

been convicted of child sexual abuse.

Ms McDougall concluded for the Society:

We consider these are serious public concerns and that the public media has a

responsibility not to increase the suffering of a large group of their viewers for

the benefit of a very small number who are legitimately experiencing the

considerable trauma of false allegations. The media has a responsibility to

provide accurate and balanced information to the public. In not doing so it is

colluding with the continuation of one of society's more serious problems as

well as increasing the distress of many of its viewers.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 8 October 1996

Pointing out that the programme examined a number of cases in which the technique of

"recovered memory" had identified people who it was alleged, incorrectly, had

sexually abused children, TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G1 and G6 of

the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The substance of TVNZ's reply is similar to that contained in its 8 October letter to

Dr Read summarised in Appendix I.

The Society's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 31 October

1996

Dr William Whittaker, Executive Director, referred the Society's complaint to the

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

Society was dissatisfied with TVNZ's response. He also referred to standard G16

which the Society had raised in a letter to TVNZ when listing the standards under

which it believed the complaint should be assessed.

He listed the Society's two main concerns:

1. That a phone number at the home of a convicted sex offender was

recommended to viewers.

2. That the content of the programme was potentially damaging to genuine

abuse victims who would have been attracted to this programme and who

were not given a phone number to ring.

He also enclosed for the Authority the New Zealand Psychological Society's Bulletin

for March 1995 (No. 84) which included a special feature on recovered memory.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 7 November 1996

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ said that it did not consider the standard G16

aspect of the complaint to be relevant as the complainant produced no evidence that

the broadcast caused unnecessary panic, alarm or distress. While acknowledging the

vulnerability of victims of sexual abuse, TVNZ also explained that the programme was

about those who did not suffer such abuse but believed that they did because of a

recovered memory procedure which went wrong.

Describing as mischievous the claim that the phone number of a convicted sex offender

was recommended to viewers, TVNZ said it was comfortable with Felicity Goodyear-

Smith's credentials to assist people wrongly accused of sexual abuse. TVNZ also

denied that the broadcast was potentially damaging to genuine abuse victims.

TVNZ concluded that the complainant had not provided compelling evidence to

justify a decision that the programme should have been denied to New Zealand

viewers.

The Society's Final Comment - 22 November 1996

In the Society's final comment, the President, Judith McDougall, emphasised two

points.

First, the Society, did not accept that sexual abuse fell neatly into two groups - those

who were abused, and those who because of an inappropriate therapeutic experience,

believed they were abused. The research, she wrote, disclosed how difficult it was to

distinguish between those with false and true memories. She wrote:

There will be people who were watching the programme whose memories have

been questioned, and possibly claimed to be false, but who in fact have

experienced abuse. It is a relatively common experience for people who have

been abused not to be believed. This programme exacerbates this vulnerability

and creates extreme distress for those in the former category.

Secondly, the Society continued to question the suitability of Felicity Goodyear-

Smith as the person whose telephone number was given for those with concerns raised

by the programme. While accepting her professional competency, the Society was

concerned about her personal situation which may:

... have led her to have a subjective bias on this topic which could be to the

detriment of viewers who responded in good faith by contacting a person

recommended by such a reliable source as TVNZ. Unfortunately disregarding

personal circumstances is not always in the best interests of the public as

personal circumstances influence a person's judgement. It is our position that

TVNZ had a responsibility to take such matters into consideration, which they

do not appear to have done, considering them irrelevant.