BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Newshub Live at 6pm concerning a car accident breached several standards by featuring images of dead bodies in the car wreck. The complainant believed there were dead bodies shown in the wreck, which they found highly distressing. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s distress, however, after carefully reviewing the broadcast, found that no bodies were featured. In considering the images of the car wreck shown, the Authority considered that the footage was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards, so the good taste and decency standard was not breached. It further found that an audience advisory was not required, and the programme information standard was not breached. The balance, accuracy, privacy, and fairness standards did not apply or were not breached.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, and Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  The lead item on Newshub Live at 6pm, broadcast by Discovery NZ Ltd (Discovery) on 8 August 2021, reported on a car accident in Timaru in which five teenage boys died.

[2]  In the promos for the programme in the afternoon of 8 August 2021, an un-blurred image of the car wreck was shown, surrounded by emergency services.

[3]  As part of the initial snapshot of stories to be featured at the beginning of the programme, the host stated, ‘Five boys, all aged 15 and 16, have died after a car split in two after crashing into a power pole near Timaru.’ This was accompanied by blurred out images of the car wreck.

[4]  The story was introduced as follows:

The driver who crashed into a concrete power pole near Timaru last night, killing five teenage boys, has apologized from hospital for his stupid mistakes. The driver has serious injuries but was the only survivor after the car split in two, with half of it found more than 30 meters away. It happened on a rural road in the town of Washdyke, just north of Timaru, around 7.30 last night.

[5]  During this introduction, non-blurred images of the car wreck were shown on the studio wall. Later in the broadcast, more images of the car wreck were shown with the back seat of the car blurred out.

The complaint

[6]  The complainant, HJ, believed dead bodies were visible in footage of the car wreckage, and that this breached the good taste and decency, programme information, balance, accuracy, privacy, and fairness standards.

[7]  The initial complaint to Discovery cited ‘Newshub Live at 6pm’ as the programme complained about. However, comments in the complaint were focused on the footage shown in promos for the programme rather than the full news item itself.

[8]  In referring the matter to the Authority, HJ advised they wished to focus their complaint on the news item, rather than the promos. The complainant also argued:

• It appeared to be a fresh crash scene, where the ‘jaws of life’ had not yet been used to open the doors.
• There should have been a warning at the start of the broadcast that distressing images may follow.
• In any event, the bodies should have been covered. There would not have been any blurring if there were no bodies.
• The families of the boys would not have appreciated seeing these images.

[9]  HJ advised that seeing the images was disturbing and traumatic for them, and if they had been given the opportunity, they would have turned off the TV.

The broadcaster’s response

[10]  Discovery apologised to the complainant for any distress caused by the broadcast but did not uphold the complaint. It interpreted the initial complaint as limited to the promos, and advised:

• ‘We note that there was a reflection off a piece of dislodged plastic from inside the car that looked a little like a head that did feature in the promo however, the editorial team has confirmed there were no bodies in the vehicle by the time our camera operator started filming.’

[11]  After HJ referred the complaint to the Authority, Discovery provided further comments about the full news item, in the event the Authority considered the complaint to encompass that as well. It reiterated that there were no dead bodies shown as the camera crew started filming at the crash site only after the bodies had been removed. It further advised:

• ‘The footage shown in the Newshub lead item contained blurring of the crashed vehicle. There was a reflection off a piece of dislodged plastic from inside the car that looked a little like a person's head. The Newshub editorial team examined this closely and decided to blur in the story to avoid the perception of a body being in the car. The studio wall at the beginning of the bulletin and the promo were not blurred.’
• Discovery would not screen footage of the victims in situations like this.

Jurisdiction

[12]  Under the Broadcasting Act 1989, formal complaints about broadcasts breaching standards must be made to the broadcaster in the first instance.¹

[13]  The issue here is whether the Authority has jurisdiction to consider the complainant’s concerns about the full news item (on the basis that the programme was captured in the original complaint to the broadcaster), or whether the original complaint was limited to the promos for the item.

[14]  HJ has argued the complaint did encompass the full news item, given the original complaint cited ‘Newshub Live at 6pm’ as the programme concerned, and ‘18:00’ as the time it was broadcast. However, Discovery argued this conclusion was inconsistent with the comments in the complaint which focused on images in the promos.

[15]  On balance, while acknowledging Discovery’s arguments, we find the original complaint was capable of encompassing the full news item, given specific programme details for Newshub Live at 6pm were provided. In any event, the promos and full item contain very similar content.

[16]  Having found the Authority has jurisdiction to consider the complaint in relation to the full news item, we consider it below.

The standards

[17]  The good taste and decency standard² states current norms of good taste and decency should be maintained, consistent with the context of the programme. The standard protects audiences from content likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.³ Where broadcasters take effective steps to inform their audiences of the nature of their programmes, and enable listeners to regulate their own and their children’s listening behaviour, they are less likely to breach this standard.⁴

[18]  The programme information standard⁵ requires broadcasters to ensure programmes are correctly classified and screened in appropriate timebands, and where appropriate, issue an audience advisory where the content of a broadcast may not be suitable for likely viewers. News and current affairs are not subject to classification because of their distinct nature. However, broadcasters must be mindful of children’s interests and include audience advisories where appropriate.⁶

[19]  We consider the good taste and decency and programme information standards are the standards of most relevance to this complaint. However, the balance, accuracy, privacy, and fairness standards are dealt with briefly at paragraph [29].

Our analysis

[20]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[21]  We have also considered the right to freedom of expression, which is our starting point. This includes the broadcaster’s right to offer a range of information and the audience’s right to receive it. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where the broadcast has caused actual or potential harm at a level that outweighs the right to freedom of expression. For the reasons outlined below, we have not found such harm in this case.

Good taste and decency

[22]  The question for the Authority under this standard is whether the images used in the broadcast were likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards.⁷

[23]  News media play a vital role in bringing information to the public and there are occasions where graphic descriptions or images in a news report are necessary to demonstrate the nature and gravity of the event.⁸ News items often contain disturbing content that reflects reality and audiences should not be shielded from such events, which unfortunately do take place.⁹

[24]  Having reviewed the footage at issue and examined the images carefully, we do not consider there were bodies in the car in any of the images. We accept Discovery’s advice that the camera crew started filming at the crash site only after the bodies had been removed. We do acknowledge, however, reflections inside the car wreck may have given an impression of bodies, and that the complainant found the images to be highly distressing.

[25]  Having found that the broadcast did not contain images of bodies, we go on to consider whether the images of the car wreck breached the good taste and decency standard. Here, we identified the following contextual factors as relevant to our decision:

• Newshub is an unclassified news programme targeted at an adult audience. The standards recognise that news programmes are by their nature distinctive, and often include disturbing and challenging material reflective of the world we live in.¹⁰ 
• The initial snapshot of stories to be featured at the start of the programme summarised what the item would be about, with images of the car wreck fully blurred out.
• The item reported on a matter of significant public interest; the deaths of five teenagers in a road accident. There was a public interest factor in showing images of the car wreck to deter others from dangerous driving.
• The broadcast did not include any material beyond what audiences might reasonably expect from a news item.

[26]  Having regard to the factors above, we consider the images were unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards. We do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

Programme Information

[27]  As a news programme, Newshub is not subject to classification. In addition, for the reasons discussed in paragraph [25] we do not consider the images were likely to disturb or offend a significant number of viewers. For this reason, we consider the item did not require an audience advisory, noting that viewers can expect news programmes to occasionally report on such events. In any event, the initial snapshot was sufficient to inform viewers of the upcoming item, to enable them to regulate their viewing.

[28]  We therefore do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

Remaining standards

[29]  We consider the remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached:

• Balance: For the balance standard to apply, the subject matter of the broadcast must be an issue of ‘public importance’, it must be ‘controversial’ and it must be ‘discussed’ in a news, current affairs or factual programme.¹¹ As a factual report on an event, the broadcast at issue did not discuss a ‘controversial’ issue as intended by the standard.
• Accuracy: The complainant did not allege any instances of inaccuracies in the broadcast.
• Privacy: As we have found that there were no bodies featured in the broadcast, this standard did not apply.
• Fairness: As above, the issue of whether the use of the images in the broadcast was fair to the victims is not applicable given our finding that no bodies were featured. The complaint does not allege any further reasons why the broadcast would be unfair to the parties featured in the report.

For the above reasons, the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Acting Chair
1 December 2021   

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  HJ’s formal complaint to Discovery – 17 August 2021

2  Discovery’s decision on the complaint – 9 September 2021

3  HJ’s referral to the Authority – 15 September 2021

4  Discovery’s comments on referral – 23 September 2021

5  Discovery’s comments on jurisdiction and full news item – 3 November 2021

6  HJ’s final comments – 10 November 2021

7  Discovery’s confirmation of no further comments – 18 November 2021

¹ Broadcasting Act 1989, s 6
² Standard 1 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
³ Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
⁴ Guideline 1b
⁵ Standard 2 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁶ Guideline 2f
⁷ Commentary: Good Taste and Decency, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 12
⁸ NT and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2019-028 at [38] and [42]
⁹ Lewis and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2017-069 at [14]
¹⁰ Lewis and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2017-069 at [14]
¹¹ Guideline 8a