BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

An item on Teletext reported on the death of a man from head injuries which he had sustained the previous day when visiting a motor cycle club. It also reported that three men who were at the scene "when he was beaten" were being interviewed.

Ms MacDonald complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item, which she said was broadcast on 7 September 1999, was fabricated and totally wrong. As the ex-wife of the dead man and on behalf of his two young sons, she said they had been devastated by the report. She sought a correction from the broadcaster.

TVNZ responded that "a second news item following the autopsy" had not been published because of editorial pressures. It agreed that a later explanation should have been aired, and advised Ms MacDonald that it had been broadcast on Teletext on 10 September. Regretting the stress caused by the first report, TVNZ said the original information had been given by the police at the scene, and reported accurately on 6 September.

Dissatisfied with the action taken by TVNZ, the complainant referred the 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 complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have read transcripts concerning 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.

A news item broadcast on Teletext reported on the death of a man who had sustained head injuries the previous day. It said that three men who had been at the scene "when he was beaten" were being interviewed.

Ms MacDonald complained to TVNZ through the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the story was "fabricated" and totally wrong. As the deceased man’s ex-wife and the mother of his two sons, on whose behalf she also wrote, she said "when we heard of your report [we] were incredibly more devastated than what we already are". She had been assured by the police that the broadcast information had not been released by them, she said. She sought a statement to correct the report and to rectify the damage she said was done to the deceased man’s character, and that of the occupants of the house where the accident happened.

TVNZ replied that a second news item "following the autopsy" was withdrawn without being shown, due to editorial pressures. It enclosed a copy of a later explanation which it said had been published that day. The statement, dated 10 September, said that police initially had reported they were investigating an assault but further inquiries had shown that an accident probably had caused the man’s death. In a letter to the complainant, the broadcaster expressed regret for any stress caused by the original report, and said that the statement was made by police at the scene and was reported accurately. TVNZ apologised that it had not broadcast what it called a police "clarification" which had been issued three days earlier.

In her referral, Ms MacDonald expressed dissatisfaction with TVNZ’s response, and what she called its "inaccurate, incompetent and unprofessional journalism". She sought a retraction of the original story, and an apology. Ms MacDonald said her two young sons had been deeply affected by "this media sensationalism", while also having to cope with losing their father. They were upset and confused that someone may have beaten their father to death, she wrote, and one son had been asked by other children if his father had been killed "by a bikie gang".

TVNZ replied that Teletext had accurately reproduced the original story from Radio New Zealand, but was at fault in not immediately publishing the update which showed the cause of death as accidental. It acted properly in rectifying the omission when it was brought to its attention, and in writing to the complainant, it added.

In a further letter to the Authority, TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint under standard G21 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which reads:

G21  Significant errors of fact should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

It said that the Teletext service erred in overlooking the subsequent story which carried the significant new information that the death was accidental. The complaint should be upheld as a breach of standard G21, it said, as one of the facts contained in the story was wrong and it should have been corrected at the earliest opportunity. It apologised to Ms MacDonald, and submitted that it had acted properly and professionally in broadcasting the updated information once it was drawn to its attention. It also explained that it had attempted to resolve the problem informally so as to expedite the complaints process, in view of the complainant’s distress.

In a final comment, Ms MacDonald said she laid her complaint because the original broadcast was inaccurate, and this "has still not been acknowledged by TVNZ". The report had caused hurt, confusion and anger to her and her two sons. Her sons deserved an apology, she added. While she appreciated TVNZ’s admission of a standard G21 breach, she wrote, "it was lazy and incompetent journalism that caused the problem" and contributed to the three-day delay in screening the correction. Ms MacDonald reported on investigations which her brother had carried out to determine the veracity of the broadcast. A senior police officer had spoken with the investigating police officer, she wrote, and the investigating officer reported that he had made no mention of a beating. A local Radio New Zealand reporter had also confirmed that no mention of a beating had been made in that organisation’s reporting, she added.

Ms MacDonald continued that it was inappropriate and unfair for TVNZ to deny any blame for the distress it had caused. It had offered an apology for the delay in screening updated information, she noted, but it was not "updated information" when the correct information always had been available. She submitted that TVNZ should not have treated her complaint informally, as to do so belittled her complaint by suggesting "our anger and distress could be smoothed over informally". Ms MacDonald concluded by referring to her sons:

As well as coping with their grief and pain at losing their father they have had to deal with feelings of anger and confusion over the inaccurate reporting.

The memories they have of their father have been tarnished through [the broadcaster’s] lack of competent reporting. This is unacceptable and unfair.

The Authority’s Findings

The Authority notes that the substance of Ms MacDonald’s complaint is that the original Teletext item was in error when it described her deceased former husband as having been beaten at the time he sustained the head injuries which apparently led to his death. TVNZ advised that it obtained its material from Radio New Zealand. The complainant contended that neither the police nor Radio New Zealand had reported that information. The complainant’s view is that the report was fabricated. While the Authority has experienced some difficulty in distinguishing the origin and subsequent use of the available material, on balance it accepts TVNZ’s explanation as to the source and the content of its original report.

The Authority also notes however that TVNZ, in its correspondence with Ms MacDonald and to the Authority, acknowledged that it was in error in failing promptly to correct the initial information it had broadcast. It said it had broadcast a corrected statement three days after its first report, but had overlooked publishing an earlier report which corrected the information. It apologised to Ms MacDonald for "the additional stress caused by the original report". The broadcaster accepted that it had breached standard G21, because it should have undertaken corrective action earlier.

The Authority appreciates that Ms MacDonald’s concern was with what she saw as TVNZ’s initial misdescription. It was unfortunate that this occurred. The Authority also appreciates that the broadcast was made at a time of great tragedy in Ms MacDonald’s life and that of her young sons. However, the Authority considers that TVNZ’s acted appropriately in upholding her complaint as a breach of standard G21. The Authority notes the action subsequently taken by the broadcaster to correct the position, and its apology to the complainant for the additional stress caused by the original report. The Authority is satisfied that nothing further is required.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint that the action taken by Television New Zealand Limited pursuant to standard G21 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, following the broadcast of a Teletext item, was insufficient.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
9 December 1999

Appendix

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

1.    Jayne MacDonald’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd, made through the
      Broadcasting Standards Authority – 7 September 1999

2.    Further Letter from Ms MacDonald to the Authority, with attachments –
      16 September 1999

3.    Letter from TVNZ to the Authority, with attachments – 23 September 1999

4.    The Authority’s Letter to TVNZ – 28 September 1999

5.    TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 30 September 1999

6.    Ms MacDonald’s Final Comment – 7 October 1999

7.    TVNZ’s Letter to the Authority, with attachments – 28 October 1999

8.    Ms MacDonald’s Letter to the Authority – 9 November 1999