BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

A psychic involved in a private search for two missing Blenheim friends in the Marlborough Sounds expounded her theory on how they had died in an item on One Network News broadcast on TV One on 10 April 1998 between 6.00–7.00pm.

Ms Gendall complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was offensive and unnecessarily distressing to the families to have the psychic offer her "grisly conclusions" as to how they had died. She also considered that the credibility of the psychic should have been questioned. The comment, she observed, had not been included in the later evening news bulletin.

TVNZ responded that it was justified in reporting the psychic’s search, particularly as both of the families had been involved in the search. The psychic, it reported, was entitled to her opinion as to how the pair had died, and it was clear her comments were her opinion only. TVNZ advised that the later bulletin dropped the quote from the psychic because of time constraints.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Gendall referred the complaint 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 complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A psychic who was involved in a private search for two missing Blenheim friends in the Marlborough Sounds advanced her theory on how they had died. In an interview broadcast by TVNZ on One Network News on 10 April 1998 between 6.00 – 7.00pm, she suggested that one had been strangled and the other hit from behind.

The Complaint

Charlotte Gendall complained to TVNZ that it was offensive and unnecessarily distressing to the families of the young people to have someone speculate on how they had died. She considered it particularly telling that after a telephoned complaint to the Christchurch newsroom of TVNZ about the section of the interview in which the psychic offered her conclusions, it was omitted from the late evening news broadcast. Secondly, Ms Gendall argued, the psychic’s theory was her own "ghastly opinion" and was no more newsworthy than the opinion of any other person. Ms Gendall also questioned the reliability of a psychic as a source of information, and questioned how TVNZ was able to ascertain her reliability as a news source.

When it responded to the complaint, TVNZ advised that it had assessed it under standards G2, G14 and G17 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. 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 other standards read:

G14 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

G17 Unnecessary intrusion in the grief and distress of victims and their families and 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.

When asked by TVNZ if these were the relevant standards, Ms Gendall requested that it also consider standard G15. That standard reads:

G15 The standards of integrity and reliability of news sources should be kept under constant review.

TVNZ began its reply with the observation that Ms Gendall’s attitude to the story appeared to be based on her assumption that the word of a psychic was not worth listening to. Acknowledging that to many the usefulness or credibility of psychics was questionable, TVNZ countered that was not a reason to dismiss the matter of the psychic’s involvement in the search. The story, it continued, was dealt with objectively and was worth pursuing because a similar search had been undertaken earlier in the inquiry. Furthermore, it had the backing of at least one of the families.

As far as standard G2 was concerned, TVNZ maintained that the psychic’s comments were an accurate description of what she believed had happened, and appeared to correlate closely to reports from four other psychics who had been consulted. Far from being a breach of good taste and decency, TVNZ considered the item was a timely reminder that the case remained unsolved, and that it demonstrated the levels of desperation experienced by the families.

With reference to standard G14, TVNZ responded that the item was presented accurately and objectively. Viewers were told that the search was under the direction of a psychic, and the views expressed were seen to be her own. It also observed that a journalist could hardly prepare an item about a psychic search without providing information about what the psychic had concluded.

As for standard G17, TVNZ emphasised that the families had themselves cooperated in an earlier search involving a psychic. It advised that there had been no indication that the Easter search, or the news coverage of it, had caused them any additional grief and distress. It added that the head of the investigation had raised no objections to the item.

TVNZ then responded to Ms Gendall’s suggestion that the deletion from the late evening news of the psychic’s description of the manner in which the two young people died demonstrated that TVNZ itself considered the remark to be in breach of the codes of practice. TVNZ’s response was that Ms Gendall had engaged in pure supposition, and advised her that as far as could be ascertained, the psychic’s remark had been dropped from the later bulletin because of time constraints.

When Ms Gendall referred the complaint to the Authority, she emphasised that she had not objected to the whole item, but only to the inclusion of the specific words which related to the psychic’s opinion on how the pair had died. She considered that TVNZ had tried to divert attention from the specific complaint by its discussion of the merits of the item in general. She also complained that she was dissatisfied that TVNZ had failed to consider the complaint in terms of standard G15, which she had specified. She did not believe TVNZ’s interpretation of the standard – that "sources" for stories were reporters themselves – was correct. She argued it was common journalistic practice to refer to comments from sources. In this story, she maintained, the psychic was clearly the information source, and thus standard G15 was relevant.

Ms Gendall also repeated her complaint that the psychic’s thoughts were "her own ghastly opinion" and had no merit in a news item.

Regarding TVNZ’s assurance that the second item was cut because of time constraints, Ms Gendall responded that she had timed the two items, and that the item on the late evening news was only 5 seconds shorter than the One Network News item. She suggested that on Good Friday (a day on which there is no advertising and thus no commercial pressure) it appeared strange that an item would be cut to save 5 seconds.

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ emphasised that the psychic’s views were clearly her own opinion which, under standard G3, she was entitled to express. It added that viewers themselves would determine how much weight was to be given to the psychic’s speculation.

In TVNZ’s view, the psychic’s conclusions were an essential part of the story.

Ms Gendall’s final comment to the Authority elaborated on the reasons for her dissatisfaction with TVNZ’s responses. In particular, she objected to TVNZ’s failure to explain why material was deleted from the item when it was shown subsequently.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority advises first that it has viewed only the item broadcast on One Network News. It notes that TVNZ does not deny that the psychic’s words were omitted in the later broadcast.

The Authority deals first with the complaint that the inclusion of the psychic’s opinion about how the missing friends had died was a breach of the good taste standard. Although it accepts that the speculation about how the two young people might have been killed was unpleasant, it does not consider it was so offensive that it amounted to a breach of the standard. It was clear, as TVNZ pointed out, that the psychic was advancing her own opinion about their fate.

Next the Authority turns to the complaint that, as the psychic’s opinion was not factual news, the item did not comply with the requirements of standard G14. The Authority notes that the report concerned the search, the psychic’s role in it, and her conclusions. That information was, in the Authority’s view, portrayed accurately and objectively. It demonstrated that the families of the missing friends were willing to try unorthodox methods to attempt to glean information about the mystery disappearance. As for the probative value of the psychic’s conclusions, the Authority considers it is open to viewers to evaluate their relevance for themselves.

The next aspect of the complaint was that standard G17 was breached because the psychic’s conclusions would have wrought more anguish on the families. In considering this aspect, the Authority takes into account the intense public interest in every facet of the investigation, and notes that various theories had been advanced in other forums regarding what might have happened to the friends. It also notes that this was necessarily a very public investigation, and the degree of cooperation required from the families of the victims had in itself put them under intense media scrutiny. While the families would undoubtedly find the details distressing, the Authority does not consider this item would have exacerbated their grief. In reaching that conclusion, it also takes into account the apparent cooperation of the families with the search.

Finally, the Authority deals with the complaint that the psychic was not a reliable news source, and that standard G15 was therefore breached. In the Authority’s view, the psychic was the newsmaker, the subject of the item. The news story was that she had conducted a psychic search. Her efforts apparently were rewarded and although she was not able to locate the bodies, she had a vision which described how the two had died. This was the subject of the news story and the veracity or accuracy of the psychic’s predictions were not relevant.

As a final observation, the Authority notes that TVNZ’s decision to include the story as part of its news coverage was an editorial decision. While the idea that a psychic might be able to assist in a major police investigation could seem implausible to some viewers, the story did not transgress any broadcasting standards.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
9 July 1998

Appendix

Charlotte Gendall’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 11 April 1998

Ms Gendall of Eastbourne complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item on One Network News on 10 April 1998 broadcast between 6.00–7.00pm. The item concerned the investigation into the disappearance of two young Blenheim friends in the Marlborough Sounds. It revealed that a psychic had been involved in the search and claimed to know where their bodies were and how they had died.

Ms Gendall wrote:

Although I could express some personal incredulity at your choice of such extensive coverage of a psychic search, I reserve my formal objection for the following segment:

(reporter at sea) Birkin’s not just sure this is WHERE she’ll find Ben and Olivia: she claims to know HOW they died, visions she says they’ve sent to her.

(Margaret Birkin) Olivia was strangled (touches her own neck) and Ben was hit from behind and there was no warning with Ben.

Ms Gendall complained that it was offensive and unnecessarily distressing to the family and friends to have someone "with absolutely no credibility" offer her personal and graphic conclusions as to how they died. She noted that the words quoted were not used in a later edition of the news.

She also complained that the psychic’s thoughts were not factual "news". Ms Gendall suggested that the reporter might as well have gone to the local hotel where he would have found dozens of "psychics". She added that there were hundreds of people around the Marlborough region with their own theories about what happened. She noted that their opinions were not broadcast.

The two objections were related, Ms Gendall continued. She considered that in some cases, a news organisation could justify including offensive material on the basis that it was factual. However in this case, she argued, the offensive words could not be substantiated by any facts, as they were simply the psychic’s "own ghastly opinions". They were no more newsworthy, she contended, than hers or TVNZ’s.

Ms Gendall reported that when she telephoned the news room to voice her objection, she was told that the psychic had been used by other news organisations, specifically RNZ and the Sunday Star-Times. She asked for details of the dates and occasions on which the psychic’s opinions had been used in such "grisly detail".

Finally, Ms Gendall made clear that although she was a journalist by profession, her objection related to the general principles of news coverage, and that she was complaining as a private citizen.

When asked by TVNZ to clarify whether her concerns were met by considering the complaint under standards G14 and G17, Ms Gendall requested that it also consider standard G15. She considered that her original letter made it clear that she was questioning TVNZ’s use of a self-proclaimed psychic to comment in such a grisly way on the manner of death of the missing pair. She wrote:

Is she a "reliable" psychic under G15? How does TVNZ monitor its use of psychics in news broadcasts? What is their success rate? If they have no success rate at all, how can a person such as Ms Birkin qualify to appear on One Network News making such utterances?

She concluded:

I will be very interested to discover how TVNZ can establish Ms Birkin as a psychic news source possessing both integrity and reliability.

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 24 April 1998

TVNZ advised that it considered the complaint under standards G2, G14, and G17 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ addressed first the issue of the psychic. It noted that it appeared Ms Gendall’s attitude to the story was based on the assumption that the word of a psychic was not worth listening to. To her description of the psychic as "self-proclaimed" TVNZ responded that all psychics were self proclaimed, and noted that theirs was not a registered profession. It acknowledged that many would dismiss their credibility, but pointed out that there were many cases where the police or family members used psychics in the search for missing people.

TVNZ pointed out that the psychic was well known in the area, and had also appeared in other branches of the media. It was TVNZ’s view that the fact that the search involved a psychic did not mean it should be dismissed out of hand. It added:

As with all "experts" we set aside any personal views we may have about the credibility of such people and approach the story objectively.

It considered the story was worth pursuing because a similar search had been undertaken on Waitangi Day. This search, it reported, had been requested by the Smart family. As a further indication that the families did not consider a search by a psychic as being an intrusion, TVNZ advised that both sets of parents cooperated with the psychic by supplying her with unwashed clothing worn by the missing friends the previous Christmas day.

TVNZ advised that the reporter also spoke to the head of the Police investigation about its decision to cover the psychic search, and he confirmed that any information supplied by the psychic would be treated equally with any other information.

Turning to the comments to which Ms Gendall objected, TVNZ responded that a journalist could hardly do an item on a search involving a psychic without providing information about what the psychic came up with. It added:

The comments may be uncomfortable to listen to – but they reflect what Ms Birkin concluded. Because something is uncomfortable to listen to does not make it a breach of programme standards.

TVNZ advised that as far as it could be ascertained, the quote was dropped from the later news because of time constraints.

As far as standard G2 was concerned, TVNZ considered the comments were an accurate description of what the psychic believed had happened. It added that it was interesting to note that these comments matched closely the description given in Truth (14 February). TVNZ believed the item was a timely reminder that the case remained unsolved, and it demonstrated the levels of desperation now confronting both families, as well as the desire of people to give their time and energy to conduct searches.

Referring to standard G14, TVNZ considered the item was presented accurately and objectively. Viewers were told the search was under the direction of a psychic and the views expressed were seen to be her own.

As far as standard G17 was concerned, TVNZ repeated that both families had been involved in the search. It advised that there had been no indication that the psychic’s search had caused them any extra grief and distress beyond the terrible state in which they now lived. It added that the head of the police investigation had raised no objection to the proposed item.

TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Ms Gendall’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 29 April 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision on the complaint Ms Gendall referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

First, she pointed out, she was not objecting to the whole item but to the inclusion of the specific words which referred to how the friends died. She believed TNVZ had tried to divert attention from her specific concern by widening the scope of its reply to talk about the merits of the item in general. She wrote:

Although I may have thought it silly, I would not have objected to the item if those words had been missing. I have not complained about the item broadcast on the "Tonight" news, in which the words were edited out.

Secondly, Ms Gendall expressed her dissatisfaction about the grounds on which TVNZ had considered her complaint, noting that in a fax dated 18 April she had asked it to consider that standard as well.

She noted that she had been advised by telephone that TVNZ did not consider standard G15 appropriate, because it regarded the "sources" as the reporters themselves. Ms Gendall said that she did not believe that was the correct interpretation. She argued that Ms Birkin was clearly the information source, and complained that TVNZ had failed to address the issue of Ms Birkin’s integrity and reliability as an information source.

Thirdly, Ms Gendall wrote, this was not an accurate presentation. Even if Ms Birkin had established herself as a reliable psychic at other times, she could not have established any accuracy about the manner in which the friends died. She complained that TVNZ had presented a particularly gruesome scenario which it could not prove to be accurate.

Fourthly, Ms Gendall continued, the item was offensive under standard G17. She said that the friends and families of the pair had been through enough without having someone present themselves to the nation and describe the presumed manner of their deaths. She added that Ms Birkin might well believe that Olivia had been strangled, but that she considered that comment should not have been included on the news.

Ms Gendall considered parts of TVNZ’s response to be irrelevant, among them the reference to the head of the inquiry not objecting to the report on the psychic search. She repeated that she was not objecting to the report on the search itself, and therefore it did not matter what the police head thought of it.

Fifthly, Ms Gendall responded to TVNZ’s argument that it could not do an item about a psychic search without providing information on what the psychic came up with. She emphasised that the psychic came up with nothing. The offensive words, Ms Gendall argued, were her own "ghastly opinion". Her thoughts on the manner of death had no merit beyond her own psychic circle.

Ms Gendall repeated that she had not objected to the reporting on the psychic search, but considered that TVNZ should have stuck to the fact of the search, and not the pyschic’s opinion.

Ms Gendall said she considered TVNZ’s reference to time constraints interesting. She suspected that TVNZ cut the words after she complained to the Christchurch newsroom. She said that she had timed the two items, and noted that the 6.00pm item was 1 min 49 secs long, and the Tonight item was 1 min 44 secs long. She wrote:

It seems strange they would cut an item to save 5 seconds on Good Friday, when they were under no commercial pressure. I specifically asked [TVNZ] to assure me in writing that it was not cut because TVNZ themselves had second thoughts. [It] declined to do so.

Ms Gendall described it as a "pitiful state of affairs for responsible broadcasting" if TVNZ attempted to justify the words by linking them to a description given in Truth.

She said she was mystified by TVNZ’s concluding comment that the head of the police inquiry raised no objection to the item. She asked whether that meant that her complaint meant nothing because Mr Pope did not object.

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 5 May 1998

In TVNZ’s view, the referral raised matters which required comment. It believed that the grounds for Ms Gendall’s complaint had moved since it was initially lodged with TVNZ. It noted that she said she would not have complained had the words to which she objected not been included. Yet, TVNZ observed, in her fax of 18 April, she had questioned TVNZ’s use of a self-proclaimed psychic and her qualification to comment in such a grisly way on the manner of death of the two young people. She asked that TVNZ assess the complaint under standard G15.

TVNZ concluded that the complaint extended well beyond the precise comments made by the psychic, and that it questioned the propriety of a news outlet reporting the activities of a psychic, or interviewing such a person.

TVNZ confirmed that it advised Ms Gendall that it did not consider standard G15 was relevant, because the psychic was not the source of the story. It believed she would only have been the source if were she who had told TVNZ about the search. In fact, it noted, that information came from other sources.

Next TVNZ responded to the accusation that it had failed to address the issue of the integrity and reliability of the psychic as an information source. TVNZ’s view was that it was for the news consumer to judge the reliability of comment made by an interview subject. It added:

It is the journalist’s job to report that certain views exist – and to present them objectively and impartially. Were journalists to presume the extra role of ruling on the credibility of any set of views, they would be setting themselves up effectively as a censorship body (an anathema to most journalists and quite unacceptable in a democratic society).

TVNZ considered it was justified in reporting the psychic’s search, particularly as some in the community consider they had credibility.

Referring to Ms Gendall’s concern that it was impossible to establish the accuracy of the psychic’s claim about how the pair died, TVNZ responded that the psychic’s views were presented as her own opinion only. Under standard G3, it noted, she was entitled to express her opinion.

Finally, TVNZ said it did not understand Ms Gendall’s assertion that she would not have objected to the story if the psychic herself was not spoken to. Surely, TVNZ asked, it was essential to talk to her to discover what she had learned.

Ms Gendall’s Final Comment – 12 May 1998

Ms Gendall contended that TVNZ had failed to address the basic issue of her complaint, which was the status of the words uttered by the psychic when she said:

"Olivia was strangled (touches her own neck) and Ben was hit from behind and there was no warning with Ben."

Ms Gendall denied that she had moved her ground, as TVNZ contended.

She maintained that several aspects of TVNZ’s response caused her concern, such as its belief that the contents of the item would have caused the families no additional distress. She considered it sad that the more people were suffering, the more TVNZ thought they could take.

In addition, Ms Gendall noted, TVNZ had failed to address the change in the two items between the 6pm broadcast and the Tonight piece. She said that she remained suspicious that TVNZ knew the words were inappropriate, and that it changed them on the night and now would not admit it.

Ms Gendall said she also continued to dispute the psychic’s status under standard G15. She pointed out that she was the only source of information appearing in this item, other than Mr Pope. Therefore, Ms Gendall argued, her standards of integrity and reliability were an issue in the complaint in that they reflected on her ability to make a credible or incredible statement.

Further Correspondence

In a letter dated 23 May, Ms Gendall advised that she considered it necessary for the Authority to obtain a copy of the item broadcast on the later news from which the words to which she objected had been cut.

She repeated that immediately after the 6.00pm news she telephoned the Christchurch newsroom to express her concern about the item. It was after this that the item was changed. She wrote:

I still wonder if TVNZ had second thoughts of their own about the contents of the initial broadcast, but that now they won’t admit it.

She believed the two items should be compared, particularly as TVNZ had justified the excision on the basis of time constraints.

TVNZ responded on 28 May. It stated that it saw no point in including the later item, because it had never denied that the words Ms Gendall referred to were not included in the later broadcast.

It suggested that in assessing the reasons why the words were not there, Ms Gendall was engaging in pure supposition. It added that natural justice required the Authority to disregard such supposition.

In a letter dated 30 May 1998, Ms Gendall denied that her comments about why TVNZ removed the words were "supposition". She said it was the only inference to be drawn from the fact that they withdrew the words after she had telephoned her complaint. She wrote:

I note TVNZ’s failure to give any explanation to you as to why the material was deleted after the initial broadcast. This is significant because they can not give any truthful reason other than that they realised how wrong they had been. It supports my inference, which is simply a rational process of reasoning. It is not "supposition".

Ms Gendall added that TVNZ’s call for "natural justice" was typical of its misuse of catch-cries in an attempt to influence. She said that she always thought that natural justice was the requirement that TVNZ be given the right to explain the comment. She noted that it had not explained, but remained silent as to why the material was removed. In her view, drawing the only inference available from the obvious facts, it had nothing to do with natural justice. It was simply a rational common sense process of reasoning.

Finally, she wrote that although TVNZ had failed to provide a copy of the second item, she still believed it would be relevant for the Authority to view it.