BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Pictures of a road accident where two motorcycle riders were killed featured in an item

on Police Stop! broadcast on TV3 on 24 June 1997 at 7.30pm. Footage of one of the

motorcycle riders receiving a speeding ticket at an earlier date was also shown,

together with a comment about the Hell's Angels motorcycle club. A promo for the

programme broadcast before the item was screened, included part of the speeding

incident and footage of the scene of the fatal accident.

Lynn Phease and Margaret Mitchell complained separately to TV3 Network Services

Limited that the footage of film of the accident site was insensitive to the families of

the deceased, and the representation of one of the motorcyclists involved in the crash

as a reckless driver was inaccurate and unfair to him. Ms Mitchell also complained

that the programme was in bad taste given that the family of one of the victims had

not been warned of its content. Ms Phease complained that the programme linked the

speeding incident with the cause of the fatal accident incorrectly, as speed was not

established as a cause of the accident. She also argued that the programme

discriminated against patch members of bike clubs, and that the promo was insensitive

to her four-year-old child, a relative of one of the victims.

TV3 pointed out that the victims were not identified in the programme and blame had

not been directed at any individual or group. The intention of the item it said, was to

raise community awareness about the role of speed and attitude on accidents, and the

item used the term "recklessness" on the basis of information supplied by the Police.

Because no bodies or human remains were shown, it did not consider there was

unnecessary intrusion on the grief or distress of the families of the victims. The

promos, it added, did not contain any detail of the tragedy that could disturb a child

viewer, and it declined to uphold the complaints.

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, both complainants referred their complaints to the

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints in respect

of the item broadcast on Police Stop!. It upholds the complaints that the promo

broadcast was in breach of standard G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting

Practice.

Decision

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

and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendices). In this case, the

Authority has determined the complaints without a formal hearing.

An item on Police Stop!, broadcast on TV3 on 24 June 1997 at 7.30pm, showed the

scene following an accident where a motorcyclist had crossed the centre line, and hit a

car which had then hit another motorcyclist. Both motorcyclists had been killed. It

referred to the motorcyclists as members of the Hell's Angels motorcycle club. Earlier

in the item there was footage of a motorcyclist, whose face was not shown, being

pulled over for speeding. He was shown arguing with the traffic officer about the

speeding ticket he was given. The item reported that this motorcyclist was one of the

deceased in the subsequent fatal road crash. The item also acknowledged that the

motorcyclist who received the ticket had not caused the fatal crash. However, a

promo for the programme featured a shortened version of events which showed the

man receiving the speeding ticket, together with a photo of his bike, and following

this, footage of the fatal crash. The voice-over stated: "A prophetic warning goes

unheeded with tragic consequences."

Lynn Phease complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the programme's

reference to one of the deceased as reckless was incorrect and unfair to him. She

believed that viewers had been misled by the programme as it inaccurately connected a

bike rider getting a speeding ticket with a fatal motorcycle crash. Speed, she added,

had not been mentioned in the police report on the accident. She thought that the item

discriminated against patch members. Moreover, she felt that the programme was an

unnecessary intrusion into her grieving, particularly since her concerns about the

broadcast had been communicated to TV3 prior to broadcast. She was concerned that

the promo was shown at a time when her child, a relation of one of the deceased, had

been watching television.

Margaret Mitchell also complained to TV3 reiterating some of the concerns held by

Ms Phease. She also considered the broadcast of the footage of the accident to have

been in bad taste.

TV3 assessed the complaints under standards G1, G2, G4, G12, G13, G17, G19, and

G24 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The first five require

broadcasters:

G1   To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

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.

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

any programme.

G12  To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children

during their normally accepted viewing times.

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.

Standards G17 and G19 relate to news current affairs and documentaries. They

provide:

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 public

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

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

Standard G24 refers to promos and records:

G24  Broadcasters must be mindful that scenes containing incidents of

violence or other explicit material may be acceptable when seen in the

total context of a programme, but when extracted for promotion

purposes such incidents will be seen out of context and may thereby be

unacceptable, not only in terms of the codes but also for the time band

during which the trailer is placed.

The programme, TV3 emphasised, was to serve as a caution so that other

motorcyclists would take care on the road. No blame or fault was intended to be

apportioned.

TV3 pointed out that the people involved in the accident were not identified, and that

the Police had provided TV3 with information which indicated that the term

"reckless" was appropriate. It considered that the footage of the person being issued

a speeding ticket was relevant to the accident because the same person was involved,

and contended that the extracts used in the programme were a true reflection of the

events. The comment "Some motorcyclists think they are a law unto themselves.

That can be a fatal flaw, and on Anzac day this year it was fatal when members of a

Hell's Angels celebration were involved in an accident", was not intended, TV3 said,

to discriminate against patch members, but to indicate that "attitude can play a part in

accidents".

As no bodies or human remains were shown, TV3 did not consider that there was

unnecessary intrusion into the grief of the families of the dead motorcyclists. It

maintained that the promos screened were suitable for their time slots and it did not

consider that they would have caused disturbance to child viewers.

In referring their complaints to the Authority, both complainants stressed that the

motorcyclists were identifiable to others in the community in which they lived, and

that it was inaccurate to link the speeding ticket with the accident. The implication,

they argued, was that somehow the man caught speeding caused the crash.

The Authority measures the complaints about the item and the promo against the

standards referred to by TV3, as it considers they accurately encompass both Ms

Mitchell's and Ms Phease's concerns. However it does consider that the concerns

expressed by Ms Phease, assessed by TV3 as being relevant to standard G12, to be

more relevant to standard G17. Furthermore, it does not consider that standard G24

applies to the complaints, given the lack of any violent or explicit material in the

promo or programme.

Standard G1 – truth and accuracy of facts

The Authority's view is that the programme and promo were broadly accurate on the

facts. The complainants considered the term "reckless" given to the driver of one of

the motorcycles to have been inaccurate. The Authority notes that the motorcyclist

did indeed cross the middle line in the road, and it also notes from the information

supplied by the police to TV3, that the rider concerned "was still swinging wide at the

time of the impact". In those circumstances the Authority is not prepared to hold

that the use of the description "reckless" was either inappropriate or inaccurate.

Standard G2 – norms of decency and taste

The Authority is not prepared to uphold a breach of this standard. The footage was

reasonably restrained given the context of the programme, with no undue attention to

depicting the victims.

Standard G4 – deal justly and fairly with persons referred to

The Authority does not consider that the deceased motorcyclist who had hit the car

was dealt with unjustly or unfairly. As noted above, it does not consider TV3's use

of the term "reckless" was unsuitable in the circumstances. In respect of the second

motorcyclist, it was made clear in the programme that his earlier speeding was not

linked to the cause of the fatal crash. The statement in the promo that the warning had

gone unheeded – with tragic consequences – is considered separately under standard

G19, which is discussed below.

Standard G13 – discrimination against certain groups

The complaint was that the Hell's Angels motorcycle club had been discriminated

against by singling out a member receiving a speeding ticket, and by the statement;

"Some people who ride bikes think they are a law unto themselves".

The Authority finds that Standard G13 has not been breached. It is dubious whether

the motorcycle club represents a section of the community contemplated by the

standard, but even if it did, there has been no discrimination here which would warrant

the Authority's attention.

Standard G17 – intrusion in the grief and distress of victims and their families

The Authority understands that some of the pictures of the motorcycle of one of the

deceased, and the footage relating to the speeding ticket, may have been disturbing to

the families involved. But it is not prepared to hold that there has been an intrusion

into their grief or distress as contemplated by the standard. In any event, it is

satisfied that there was a public interest purpose in the broadcast of the item which

justified the material shown. Given the content of the programme, the Authority is

not prepared to uphold any breach on this aspect. For the same reasons, the

Authority does not consider that the broadcast of the promo breached the standard

Standard G19 – extracts must be a true reflection.

The Authority considers that the promo complained about was in breach of this

standard. It included footage of the man receiving the speeding ticket, followed by

footage of the scene of the fatal accident, and the voice-over which stated: "A

prophetic warning goes unheeded with tragic consequences". This comment was not a

true reflection of the original events and was a distortion of the facts given about the

accident, in which speed was not cited as a contributing factor. The full item correctly

explained that the man receiving the speeding ticket was not implicated in the fatal

crash, and thus avoided being similarly in breach of the codes.

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

that an item in the programme Police Stop!, broadcast by TV3 Network Services

Ltd on 24 June 1997, breached the nominated standards in Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. It upholds the complaints that the broadcast of a promo

for the programme breached standard G19 of the Code.

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

Broadcasting Act 1989. In this case the Authority does not consider that the breach

was serious enough to warrant an order.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
13 November 1997

Appendix I

Lynn Phease's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 29 June 1997

Lynn Phease of Putaruru complained to TV3 Network Services Limited about a

programme in the series Police Stop! broadcast on TV3 on 24 June 1997 at 7.30pm and

about the promos broadcast for the programme.

Ms Phease complained that the programme breached standards G4, G19, G13, G14,

G17, G12, G18 and G24 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, and that the

promo breached standard G12, G18 and G24 of the Code.

Ms Phease felt that the programme's reference to one of the victims of the accident as

a reckless driver was incorrect, and was unfair to him. She believed that viewers were

misled by the programme when it inaccurately connected a bike rider getting a

speeding ticket with a fatal car crash, since speed was not mentioned in the police

report on the accident. She considered that the programme discriminated against patch

members of bike clubs, by including footage of a patch member getting a speeding

ticket and the statement: "Some people who ride bikes think they are a law unto

themselves." She considered the programme was an unnecessary intrusion into her

grieving, particularly given that she had communicated with TV3 prior to the

broadcast expressing her concerns about the broadcast.

In relation to the promo she was concerned that the pictures of one of the victim's

bikes and the wrecked car were shown at a time when her four-year-old was watching

a children's programme. She said that the child was very affected by the pictures.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint – 30 July 1997

TV3 considered the complaint under standards G4, G19, G13, G17, G12 and G24 of

the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, as nominated by Ms Phease, having

earlier advised her that standards G14 and G18 applied only to News, Current Affairs

and Documentary programmes.

It advised first, that the sole purpose of the accident shown in Police Stop was to

serve as a caution so other motorbike riders would take care on the road. The point of

the item, it said, was not to place blame or fault on any individual.

In reference to the need to deal justly and fairly with any person taking part in the

programme (standard G4), TV3 advised that no-one in the item was identified in any

way. The term "recklessness" was used, TV3 continued, because information was

supplied by the police, which indicated that the term was appropriate.

It noted that the footage of the person being issued a speeding ticket was relevant to

the accident because the same person was involved in the fatal accident, although it

was made clear on the programme that he was not responsible for the accident. It also

pointed out that the man was not identified.

TV3 explained that the items were shown to raise awareness in the motorbike

community that accidents were occurring, and that care needed to be exercised so

people did not get hurt. It considered that the extracts used in the programme were a

true reflection of the events (standard G19).

TV3 commented that the introduction to a segment of the programme stated: "Some

motorcyclists think they are a law unto themselves, that can be a fatal flaw, and on

Anzac day this year it was fatal when members of a Hell's Angels celebration were

involved in an accident". TV3 stated that this was meant to indicate that "attitude"

can play a part in accidents and that care must be taken on the roads. It was not

intended as discrimination against patch members (standard G13).

As no bodies or human remains were shown TV3 did not consider that there was

unnecessary intrusion in the grief or distress of the families of the victims (standard

G17).

In relation to the promos and standard G12 (the effect of any programme on children

during their normally accepted viewing times) and G24 (editing), TV3 advised that

there were two versions of the promo for Police Stop. The 30 second version was

rated "hard G" and aired mainly in PGR time, and was shown once during the News.

The other version was for 10 seconds and was rated G. This was aired once at

10.45am and twice during the News. It maintained that the promos did not contain

any detail of the tragedy which could identify those involved. TV3 considered that a

child viewer would not be disturbed by the brief scenes shown, and that the footage of

the accident and the bike was brief and nondescript.

TV3 declined to uphold the complaint.

Ms Phease's Referral to the Authority – 12 August 1997

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Lynn Phease referred the complaint to the

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

Ms Phease said that the fact that the rider's face and number plates were blurred and

that no names were mentioned did nothing to stop members of the public knowing

exactly who was involved in the accident, particularly as the item was screened within

two months of the accident. She advised that everyone in her small town and

neighbouring towns knew. She did not consider that TV3 was entitled to give the label

"reckless" to the driver, given the circumstances of the crash as she understood them.

Ms Phease commented that the only link between the ticket and the accident could

have been speed, but that speed was not mentioned in the police report as a cause of

the accident. She asked: "Just what was the definite safety message mentioned in

their letter of 24 June?"

In reference to the depiction of patched members, she said that while one of the

victims was a member of the Hells Angels, the other was not. She objected to the

presumption being made that the riders were members of a Hells Angels celebration,

and to the assumptions made that such riders think they were a law unto themselves.

Ms Phease emphasised that even though her relative was not identified, it was still

extremely distressing for the family to be confronted with the accident scene where he

died, and it was no less distressing just because there were no bodies. She said that a

victim's bike was shown in the promo as well as the programme, and friends of the

victims were shown standing by the ambulance and walking away, obviously hurting.

She repeated that her child was visibly disturbed having watched the promo,

especially as he had recognised the bike. She objected to the programme's insinuation

that speed was a factor in the accident, and repeated that it was not true. There was

no link between the earlier speeding offence and the accident.

Ms Phease concluded stating:

It is time TV companies realised the level of distress they cause to innocent

people. They do have other options and I feel they need to be forced to use

mock accidents or overseas footage.

TV3's Response to the Authority – 17 September 1997

TV3 commented first on the use of the term "recklessness" which was used to

describe an unidentified driver's part in the accident. It was, TV3 said, based on

information supplied to the programme by the police that:

"[the rider] hit the centre door pillar [of the car] which indicated [he] was still

swinging wide at the time of impact (this denoted [he] was on the wrong side

of the road). The accident knocked the car off course and as a result [the other

rider] was struck and killed."

TV3 noted that these facts were confirmed in the police report sent by Ms Mitchell,

who also complained about the item. That report stated that the reason for the

accident appeared to be that one of the riders was on the wrong side of the road. Road

factors in the report showed that although the day was overcast, the road was sealed,

the surface dry, the weather fine and that there was a "no passing" line marked at the

point of the accident.

TV3 advised that the police had indicated to the programme makers that earlier that

day they had received reports of about 60 motorcyclists riding 5 abreast along the

road.

TV3 considered that the detail of why the accident occurred was not important, as the

focus of the item was to motivate motorists, particularly bike riders, to be more

careful on the road. Speed and recklessness were pointed to as general factors in

accidents. It added:

The producer of Police Stop! also felt that to go into any more depth about the

accident on Police Stop! would cause further pain to the families of the men

involved. The possible cause of the accident was therefore termed merely

"recklessness" of an unnamed motorbike rider.

Turning to the complaint that it was insensitive to screen footage of the accident in

Police Stop! TV3 noted that a broadcaster may screen accident footage in the news on

the day of the accident. In that case, members of the victim's families will have only

just been informed. In the case of Police Stop!, TV3 noted that some two months had

passed, and all family members would have had time to be told about the accident. It

also pointed out that the face and license plate of the rider caught speeding earlier was

not shown, and the other rider was never identified.

Ms Phease's Final Comments – 29 September 1997

Ms Phease wished to point out that the motorcyclist who had hit the car, had gone

over the center line but he was not overtaking. Contrary to the reports on the

programme, at the coroner's hearing it was reported that he had hit the rear of the car

not the center door pillar. She also explained why she considered that "reckless" was

an unsuitable term to be used in the context of the accident.

Ms Phease considered that TV3 could have at least advised one member of the family

that the scene of the accident would be screened. This would have allowed her and

others to avoid the programme.

Appendix II

Margaret Mitchell's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 26 June 1997

Ms Mitchell complained to TV3 that about the programme Police Stop! broadcast on

Tuesday 24 June 1997 at 7.30pm.

Ms Mitchell advised that prior to its broadcast she and other members of her family

viewed a promo for the programme, which showed the scene of an accident where a

family member was killed. They immediately contacted TV3 to ask if that section of

the programme could be deleted because of the trauma it was likely to cause family

members. This was refused. Apparently they were advised that the footage was only

a small part of the programme, and that the family of the other person killed had been

contacted. She complained that this action disregarded her family's feelings in the

interests of a couple of minutes of film footage.

Ms Mitchell considered that the broadcast of the footage was in bad taste given the

request for it not to be aired. She also complained that the programme contained

inaccuracies, including the statement that one of the victims was at fault for driving

recklessly and crossing the middle line. According to Ms Mitchell, the Police had not

reached this conclusion. She considered this reporting to have been unfair to one of

the victims.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint – 30 July 1997

The complaint was considered under standards G1 and G2 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice relating to truthfulness and accuracy, and norms of decency and

taste.

TV3 made the following comment:

The sole purpose the accident being shown on Police Stop! was to serve as a

caution so other motorbike riders would take care on the road. The point of

the item was not to place blame or fault on any individual. Human error is a

fact of life, however it is becoming apparent that extra care must be taken by

all drivers to prevent further accidents. It was the intention that the item

would help portray this message.

In relation to standard G1, TV3 advised that the term "recklessness" was used on the

basis of information supplied by the Police, which indicated that its use was

appropriate. It also pointed out that the victim it referred to was never identified.

Ms Mitchell's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 26 August

1997

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Ms Mitchell referred the complaint to the

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

First, she repeated her complaint that the programme was inaccurate. Next, referring

to standard G2, she emphasised that it was beyond the bounds of good taste to her

and her family to screen the item so soon after her brother's death. The fact that it

was screened many times as a promo also added to their distress. Ms Mitchell

attached a copy of the Police report of the accident, which showed that it was not

stated that recklessness was a contributing factor.

To TV3's argument that the riders were not identified, Ms Mitchell responded that

there were thousands of motor cyclists who knew that the other rider was her brother,

and that as a result of the programme, many believed that it was his recklessness

which caused the accident. Ms Mitchell stressed that was not the case and asked for

the inaccuracies to be rectified.

Discussing whether it was decent to air the programme, and in particular, the promo,

without informing the bereaved family, Ms Mitchell asked that the Authority be the

judge of that.

TV3's Response to the Authority – 17 September 1997

TV3's response is summarised in Appendix I.

Ms Mitchell's Final Comment – 24 September 1997

Ms Mitchell commented on the lack of remorse shown by TV3 over its actions in

screening the item complained about. She advised:

We ask simply that TV3 send us a written apology and confirm they will

review their procedures to ensure there is no repeat performance. Failure to do

so will result in this matter being taken up through our local MP.