BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

An incident involving a BB pistol was the subject of the lead news item on Nightline on 27 April 1999. It was reported that there had been "another school shoot-up" and that a student had been "caught up in the fury of the armed confrontation". The school’s principal had not been forthcoming when asked about the incident, according to the report.

Mr Jackson, Editor of the Northland Age newspaper, complained to TV3 that its coverage of the incident was inaccurate and sensationalist and bore no relationship to the actual event which occurred. In his view, the reporter had elected to embellish the facts, despite having been given an accurate account of what had happened. He also objected to the report’s contention that the school’s principal had not been forthcoming when asked to comment.

TV3 responded that the item was an accurate account of a potentially serious incident involving a firearm and had been a matter of concern in the community, having been reported to TV3 by two different callers. It defended the description of the incident as "an armed confrontation" and that there was a "shooting victim", quoting dictionary usage of the phrases in support of its argument. TV3 declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TV3’s response, Mr Jackson 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 upholds the complaint that standard G14 was breached.

Decision

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

An incident involving the firing of a spring-loaded BB pistol at Kaitaia College was the subject of a news item on Nightline broadcast on 27 April 1999 beginning at about 10.30pm. The item began with the claim that there had been shock over "another school shoot-up" and reported that another student had been "caught up in the fury of the armed confrontation". It was reported that a pellet from the firearm had smashed the window of a car in which a student was sitting. The item then referred to an incident which had occurred in 1994 when a man who was fleeing from the police had been shot and wounded by a police officer within the grounds of the same College.

Mr Jackson complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that its coverage of the incident was grossly inaccurate, untruthful, exaggerated and a deliberate distortion of the actual events. He identified a number of matters which he complained were not accurate. First, he said, the report that the principal of the school was not particularly forthcoming was inaccurate, noting that the principal had given a full explanation to the reporter before the item went to air. Mr Jackson said he had seen the information so given. Secondly, he objected to the claim that there was "shock" over "another school shoot-up". This he said was inaccurate, as there was no evidence that anyone was suffering from, or had expressed shock. Furthermore, he argued, the firing of a spring-loaded BB pistol, which propels a pellet, as opposed to a bullet, hardly qualified for the term "shoot-up". He also objected to the introduction which referred to a student having been "caught up in the fury of the armed confrontation" and to the reference to a "shooting victim." The facts, he maintained, did not support the use of the term "fury", "armed confrontation" or "shooting victim". He emphasised that the person who was closest to the pellet before it smashed the car window did not even know what had happened.

Mr Jackson also objected to the reference to the incident in 1994 which, he said, had no relevance to the current incident. In passing, he noted that the inclusion of dated file footage of the main street of Kaitaia was unflattering, and the use of file footage of Kaikohe was inappropriate and inaccurate.

In Mr Jackson’s view, the community was owed an apology. He argued that TV3 could not use the excuse that the reporter had not been equipped with the full facts, as she had been fully briefed, but had simply chosen to embellish them.

In its response, TV3 advised that it had considered the complaint under standards G14 and G19 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards read:

G14  News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

G19  Care must be taken in the editing of programme material to ensure the extracts used are a true reflection and not a distortion of the original event or the overall views expressed.

TV3 began with the observation that it was "puzzled" as to how Mr Jackson could have "seen" the information provided to its reporter, noting first that it had been relayed by telephone, and secondly that it was given not to the reporter who had presented the item, but to another reporter who had called on behalf of the 6pm news. TV3 advised that the school’s principal, after initially providing a basic outline of the incident, had declined to give any further details when its Nightline reporter called a short time later. It therefore considered that it was accurate to state that he had given few details.

To Mr Jackson’s argument that there was no evidence that anyone was "suffering from or had expressed shock", TV3 responded that it had been alerted to the news story by two telephone calls to its newsroom. In its view, the fact that the two callers had alerted the newsroom indicated a significant level of concern.

As for the description of the incident as a "shoot-up", TV3 referred to the Concise Oxford Dictionary definition of a shoot-up as "terrorising by indiscriminate shooting". It maintained that as the weapon used was a gun, and a shooting occurred, it was an accurate description of what had happened.

In response to the complaint about the use of the terms "fury" and "confrontation", TV3 advised that the information it had received before the programme went to air had been contradictory. The principal, it noted, had regarded the incident as serious, but had played it down. As for the terms used, it noted the colloquial definition of fury was "with great force and effort". And, it continued, the event was "an armed confrontation", according to its interpretation of the dictionary definition. One of those involved in the incident reported that the pellet had missed his friend by about two inches, and that his car was hit and the window smashed, TV3 wrote.

TV3 defended the reference to the 1994 shooting, claiming it was relevant because it was rare for a shooting to happen at any New Zealand school, whether those involved were directly connected to the school or not. It declined to uphold the complaint.

As he was dissatisfied with TV3’s response Mr Jackson referred the complaint to the Authority. In particular, he noted, TV3 had failed to explain why it had included file footage of Kaikohe, which is 85 kms south of Kaitaia where the incident occurred. He also provided a copy of an article from the Northland Age newspaper which was critical of TV3’s coverage of the incident.

In its response to the Authority, TV3 acknowledged that the file footage of Kaikohe had been selected in error. It advised that the relevant staff had been made aware of this and instructed that more care and attention was required when selecting file footage.

With regard to the newspaper article provided by Mr Jackson, TV3 noted with concern that it had quoted the principal and the police, but had not sought comment from TV3 on its role in the reporting of the incident. In addition it noted that although readers had been encouraged to complain to TV3 about the coverage, in fact it had received only one other complaint, and that had not been referred on to the Authority.

In his final comment, Mr Jackson maintained that the fact that TV3 had received only two complaints bore no relationship to the actual response of the local community, and had no relevance to the broadcaster’s duty to meet acceptable standards. He noted the acknowledgment that the programme had failed to correctly identify its file footage.

The Authority’s Findings

The essence of this complaint is that the account of an incident at Kaitaia College was exaggerated to the point where it became inaccurate, and as a result, failed to comply with broadcasting standards relating to accuracy, objectivity and impartiality. The report concerned an incident involving a spring-loaded BB pistol which a student had fired from a point near the school. The projectile had narrowly missed a student and had broken a quarter-light window in a car parked outside the school.

The report was introduced by the presenter who said that there was "Shock tonight over another student shoot-up". However, she continued, this time it was not in America, but was in our own Far North. The reporter then recounted the events, describing the incident as an "armed confrontation" which had left the town of Kaitaia in shock.

In fact, the Authority observes, the incident involved a BB pistol and was probably more properly described as a student prank which had gone awry. It notes that the incident occurred shortly after a serious and shocking incident at a high school in America where a number of students had been killed. In the Authority’s view, the story’s headline was misleading. The expression "another shoot-up" conveyed two ideas: the first was the notion that an incident of similar proportions to the American one might have been repeated here, and the second that there had been a major outbreak of gunfire. The dictionary definition of "shoot-up" – terrorise (a district) by indiscriminate shooting – supports the Authority’s interpretation of the phrase. On no account of it could the Kaitaia incident be said to be similar to the American one. What occurred was not, the Authority concludes, "another shoot-up".

The reporter described the incident as an "armed confrontation" which shocked the town. The Authority considers that overstated the matter to the point where, as a news report, it was essentially inaccurate. It was true that the perpetrator could be said to "armed" in a technical sense (he fired a BB pistol) but, in the Authority’s view there was no "confrontation" and no reliable evidence that the town of Kaitaia was in shock. The so-called "victim" spoken to on the programme had not been the intended target, and although the incident was serious within the context of school discipline, it had not been life-threatening.

As for the reference to the 1994 incident in which an armed offender was shot within the grounds of the school, the Authority’s view is that while its inclusion in the item was somewhat incongruous, it was an editorial decision which the broadcaster was entitled to make. Nevertheless, it understands Mr Jackson’s argument that it bore no relationship to the present story.

Next, the Authority turns to the complaint about the use of dated footage of Kaitaia and the use of footage of the main streets of Kaikohe to illustrate the item. TV3 confirmed that footage of Kaikohe had been used, and advised that its staff had been instructed to take greater care when selecting file footage for inclusion in news items. The Authority considers it unfortunate that such an error occurred, and notes TV3’s acknowledgement.

Overall, the Authority concludes that the item exaggerated the incident at Kaitaia College, particularly when it invited a comparison with the recent American high school shootings. That overstatement distorted the truth of the matter to the point where the report was inaccurate. As a result, it breached standard G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

As the inaccuracies arose from the report itself and not from the manner in which it was compiled, the Authority finds no complaint made out under standard G19. It therefore declines to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaint that a news item broadcast by TV3 Network Services Ltd on Nightline on 27 April 1999 beginning about 10.30pm breached standard G14 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The Authority declines to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may make orders under s.13 and s.16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. It invited the parties to make submissions on penalty.

The Authority has considered those submissions. It concludes that the complainant’s proposed course of action – to publish the findings of this Decision in the newspaper of which he is editor, and his offer to liaise with TV3 in respect of future news features in the region – is sufficient and appropriate in the circumstances. In these circumstances, it makes no order.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
11 November 1999

Appendix

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

1.    Peter Jackson’s Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 14 May 1999

2.    TV3’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 14 June 1999

3.    Mr Jackson’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 19 June 1999

4.    TV3’s Response to the Authority – 6 August 1999

5.    Mr Jackson’s Final Comment – 12 August 1999

6.    TV3’s Further Correspondence – 20 September 1999

7.    Mr Jackson’s Submissions on Penalty – 12 October 1999

8.    TV3’s Submissions on Penalty – 18 October 1999