Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1998-005, 1998-006
Members
- S R Maling (Chair)
- J Withers
- L M Loates
- R McLeod
Dated
Complainant
- Phillip Smits
Number
1998-005–006
Programme
AssignmentBroadcaster
Television New Zealand LtdChannel/Station
TVNZ 1
Summary
A documentary about West Auckland, broadcast by TV One on 7 August 1997 at
7.30pm, used the murder of a young woman by her partner to illustrate the theme of
the "Wild West".
Phillip Smits complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the
item was unbalanced in its discussion of the murder case, and that by showing and
identifying her, it had breached the privacy of the murdered woman's young daughter.
Initially TVNZ refused to accept the complaint since it contained abusive language
which was directed at TVNZ and its staff. After Mr Smits had re-submitted the
complaint, couched in more moderate language, TVNZ rejected the allegation that the
item diminished the seriousness of the murder. Referring to the privacy aspect,
TVNZ advised that permission was given by the little girl's paternal grandparents to
film her. It declined to uphold the privacy complaint.
Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Smits referred the complaints 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 complaints.
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 complaints without a formal hearing.
After some correspondence about the acceptable tone to be used in a letter of
complaint, Mr Smits complained to TVNZ about an Assignment programme. The
programme had examined popular conceptions about the West Auckland, or
"Westie", culture and whether it was a "moral wasteland", and had used details of a
recent gruesome murder as an illustration of the source of public perceptions.
Mr Smits complained that the item denigrated the murder victim, Stephanie Skidmore,
as a stripper, prostitute and drug addict, and had implied that she was killed by her
partner, Jason Menzies, as he had to defend himself. The couple's child was shown
and, Mr Smits said, her privacy was breached by Jason Menzies' mother in her
attempt "to curry sympathy" to assist in the forthcoming custody case involving the
child.
TVNZ assessed the complaint under s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and
standard G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The former requires
broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual, while
the standard requires them:
G6 To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political
matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.
TVNZ did not accept the aspect of the complaint that the seriousness of the crime of
murder had been diminished. It cited extracts from the script which, it said, ensured
that viewers were aware of the horror of it. TVNZ pointed out that the crime was
used while examining the West Auckland culture, and had disclosed details of the
crime and the tempestuous relationship not previously given.
As the child's guardians had given permission for her to be filmed, and as she was
central to the tragedy, TVNZ did not accept that her privacy had been breached.
When he referred his complaint to the Authority, Mr Smits persisted in his opinion
that the item was unbalanced, and maintained his objection to the footage of the child.
The Authority addresses first the issue of balance. It notes that the programme, in its
examination of the "Westie" culture generally and in its discussion of the murder
specifically, interviewed an array of people. The range of opinions given about West
Auckland, and about Jason Menzies and Stephanie Skidmore, it believes, provided a
reasonably good indication of their personalities and the kind of environment in which
they lived. The Authority feels some slight hesitation at some of the remarks made
about the victim, but does not consider that standard G6 was threatened. In the
context of the programme which focussed on West Auckland, the Authority concludes
that the programme overall was balanced, impartial and fair.
The Authority, nevertheless, has concern about the footage of the couple's daughter.
It acknowledges that the shots showed an apparently happy child, and the people who
cared for her. However, she was identified on the programme in a way which
infringed her rights to privacy, and which would ordinarily require consent before
broadcast. The Authority accepts that permission was sought and given by persons
who at that time apparently had the day to day responsibility for the child. But it has
misgivings as to whether that was sufficient in the circumstances of this case. The
Authority is of the view that such consent can only be given by the parents or legal
guardians of a child, and then only in circumstances where it is in the child's interests
to permit filming and subsequent broadcast.
It is not clear in the present case whether the grandparents were in fact the legal
guardians of the child at the time the filming took place. TVNZ described their status
as that of "legal custodians". But the programme itself made it clear that whole issue
of custody was still before the Courts. Moreover, the Authority is not satisfied that
the filming, and subsequent broadcast, were in the interests of this child. She is young
and could well face considerable stress as she grows up and learns about the events
referred to in this programme. She will have to try to come to terms with all that has
occurred. In the Authority's opinion, public filming of this sort will do little to assist
her in this process. In addition, the Authority has the impression, rightly or wrongly,
that perhaps the grandparents stood to gain more from filming than the child. The
Authority also considers that there were other ways available to the broadcaster to
convey the storyline in this case while still respecting the privacy of this child.
Having said that, the evidence as to the grandparents' legal status is equivocal. It is
not such as to enable the Authority to conclude definitely that the consent given in this
case should be ignored. The Authority is also mindful of the fact that it has yet to
develop a principle which deals specifically with the privacy interests of children. It
now signals its intention to do so.
Against this background, the Authority declines to uphold the privacy complaint on
this occasion.
For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority
Sam Maling
Chairperson
12 February 1998
Appendix
Mr Smits' Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 21 August 1997
Phillip Smits of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an
Assignment programme broadcast at 7.30pm on 7 August 1997, which he stated was
unbalanced and involved a breach of privacy.
The item, Mr Smits said, presented the male referred to as a gentle person, and a
victim, while the dead woman was portrayed as the villain. Further, the item showed
the couple's child and talked about the custody case involving her. He regarded this
as a breach of the child's privacy.
Mr Smits expressed particular concern that no effort had been made to show the
woman as at least partly a product of her environment. Rather, Mr Smits argued, the
approach adopted included moralist overtones which suggested that the woman
"deserved it".
TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 25 August 1997
Pointing out that it had explained previously that it did not intend to accept complaints
which were either abusive or made personal comments about staff, TVNZ declined to
accept the complaint on the basis that TVNZ had been described as "bastards".
Further, it said, some of the comments made about the reporter bordered on being
actionable.
Mr Smits' First Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 1 September
1997
Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision not to accept his formal complaint, Mr Smits
referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting
Act 1989.
Mr Smits recalled that he had watched the programme to see if Stephanie Skidmore
(the murdered woman) was given a "fair go" and, he argued, neither she nor her
daughter were. He maintained that the programme implied that Jason Menzies had
had to kill her in order to defend himself, while Ms Skidmore was denigrated as being
a stripper, prostitute and drug addict. He also stated that the programme had little to
do with the West Auckland culture, which was said to be the focus of the item.
Because Ms Skidmore was a whore, he said, she was treated as valueless.
As for her child, Mr Smits expressed amazement that Jason Menzies' mother was
allowed "to curry sympathy". The child, he believed, was exploited as the custody
case involving her was irrelevant to the subject of the programme. He wrote:
Her father killed her mother and left her to rot where she died – then chucked
her in the boot of his old car. Hadn't she had enough tragedy in her life
already? – didn't she deserve some consideration?
Describing the programme as a "disgrace", Mr Smits acknowledged that Stephanie
Skidmore was not an angel, but, he wrote, she did not deserve to die.
TVNZ's Report to the Authority – 5 September 1997
TVNZ wrote:
We advise that we are holding to a policy of not accepting formal complaints
from any viewer, who indulges in personal abuse of out staff. We do not see
this as being precious, just a requirement that correspondents adhere to some
semblance of courteous discourse.
Mr Smits, TVNZ added, was the only person who made formal complaints which
involved personal abuse. It understood that the Advertising Standards Complaints
Board and TV3 both refused to correspond with Mr Smits. TVNZ, on the other hand,
would deal with complaints written in temperate language, and had upheld one
recently. TVNZ concluded:
We remain prepared to consider the Assignment complaint from Mr Smits but
only if he will rewrite it in reasoned and moderate terms, refraining from
remarks about TVNZ staff members.
Mr Smits' Letter to the Authority – 14 September 1997
Mr Smits advised that he had re-submitted "a censored version" of his complaint to
TVNZ.
TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 26 September 1997
TVNZ advised that the complaint was dealt with under standard G6 of the Television
Code of Broadcasting Practice and s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.
It dealt first with the matter of balance, and the suggestion that the programme had
diminished the seriousness of the crime committed by Jason Menzies when he
murdered Stephanie Skidmore. It did not agree with Mr Smits' view, and referred to
extracts from the script, which, it suggested, reflected the full horror of the crime.
These included:
- "It was not hard to gasp at what 20 year-old Jason Menzies had done to Stephanie
Skidmore".
- "... long-haired youth from West Auckland was accused of having strangled
Stephanie in their Henderson flat, then having left her body to decompose, first in
the flat, then in the boot of her car, for seven weeks".
- "To make matters worse Jason Menzies, who went on caring for their daughter
Lexie, had lied about Stephanie's disappearance to everyone, claiming on
television she'd run away".
- "When the truth came out, it was ghastly".
- "Stephanie had been choked nearly to death, then finished off with an electrical
cord around her neck".
- "So Danny moved in with Jason into a place where a corpse lay decomposing".
- "Jason made an easy villain. He'd murdered, lied and manipulated and dragged
his mates into a distasteful conspiracy. The jury had little difficulty in finding him
guilty of killing the 20 year old mother of his child".
In TVNZ's view, the programme did not "explain away" the enormity of the crime. It
considered that it was hard to imagine that anyone would have felt other than outrage
and revulsion at Jason's behaviour.
TVNZ did not consider that by looking at the victim's life and revealing something
about her showed a lack of balance. It repeated that the extract came in the context of
a programme about West Auckland, and was examining whether "moral wasteland"
was a fair description of the region. The reference to the tempestuous relationship
between Ms Skidmore and Mr Menzies was to provide a fully rounded version of the
crime not previously revealed in the media. It did not consider there was a lack of
balance.
Referring to the allegation that the couple's daughter's privacy was breached, TVNZ
emphasised that she was central in the tragedy and that without her the story would be
incomplete. It pointed out that permission had been given to film her by her legal
custodians. It declined to uphold the privacy complaint.
With respect to Mr Smits' allegations about the reporter, TVNZ wrote:
As this point we wish to emphatically reject your unfounded accusation that
the reporter's "prejudice as a practising moralist/Christian resulted in him
deliberately trying to minimise what Menzies did." The reporter concerned is
one of this country's most experienced and respected journalists with a string
of awards to his credit. Like any professional journalist must when he comes
to work he sets aside his own personal views in the interest of presenting
material in an objective, impartial and balanced manner.
Mr Smits' Referral to the Authority – 12 October 1997
In Mr Smits' view, the programme contained a one-sided debate about whether
Westie culture was good or bad.
He objected to the story about the murder of Ms Skidmore, which he described as
"one of the most disgusting things" he had ever witnessed. He said that the footage of
the inside of her flat was voyeuristic and prurient, and accused TVNZ of making no
effort to bring home the horror of what had happened.
He repeated his objection to the footage of Ms Skidmore's daughter.
Mr Smits also claimed that the item put forward an interpretation of the crime which
argued that Jason Menzies was only defending himself.
TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 23 October 1997
TVNZ expressed its disappointment that the referral amounted to a personal attack on
the reporter, rather than a critique of the programme.
Mr Smit's Final Comment – 2 November 1997
Maintaining that an attack on the writer of a complaint was a good indication that
TVNZ had no defence, Mr Smits stated that the murderer, and his family and friends
were dealt with positively, while the victim was not shown any compassion. She did
not, he wrote, deserve to be murdered.