BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

News broadcasts by Newstalk ZB and Classic Hits FM between 6.00–9.00 am on 16 October 1998 reported that a Victoria University student had been forced to leave her employment in England as a nanny because of sexual advances by her employer, Mr Mohammed Al-Fayed.

Mr Wilkinson complained to The Radio Network Limited, the broadcaster, that the reports were inaccurate. In an interview he had heard with the student on another radio station, she had emphasised cultural differences and human rights matters as being the reasons for leaving her employment, he said. The sexual slant placed on the story by the broadcaster did not assist understanding of another culture, he wrote, and it was a disservice to the student.

Responding, TRN said that the story, quoting the student as having had sexual advances made to her by Mr Al-Fayed, had been given widespread local and international coverage. That she had elaborated on the story and put a different slant on it on another radio station did not alter the basis of her original story, it wrote.

Dissatisfied with TRN’s response, Mr Wilkinson referred his 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 of the items complained about and have listened to the actualities included in the items. They have also read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

News items broadcast on Newstalk ZB and Classic Hits FM between 6.00–9.00 am on 16 October 1998 reported that a Victoria University student had left her employment in England as a nanny to the children of Mohammed Al-Fayed after Mr Al-Fayed had sexually propositioned her "while his wife was sleeping in another room". Her story, the reports continued, had been sold to Britain’s International Express newspaper.

Mr Wilkinson complained to The Radio Network that the items were less accurate reports than an interview with the student which he had heard the previous day on another radio station. The broadcaster’s reports had the student "fleeing Fayed sexual advances, driving her away from gainful employment", he wrote. The entire point of the previous story had been bypassed as the clash of cultures it was, he continued, in favour of villifying Mr Al-Fayed. In her earlier interview, the student had indicated that she had left her employment three weeks after Mr Al-Fayed had made sexual advances to her while she was visiting his bedroom late one night, Mr Wilkinson observed. The reasons which she gave for leaving her employment consisted of a number of things that amounted more to cultural differences and human rights than sexual harrassment, he said. The cultural differences which were touched upon in the interview, Mr Wilkinson wrote, included the bringing up of children, the way women were looked upon, and the value of human life. He suggested that the sexual aspect was not a worthy news item when people in service encountered it every day throughout the world.

When he rang the broadcaster, Mr Wilkinson said, his attention had been drawn to a story in the International Express newspaper. However, he observed that in her earlier interview, the student had said that her story had been "beefed up" by that newspaper. He questioned whether, in such circumstances, a news report in another paper could be accurate copy for a news report carried on the radio.

TRN responded that the student’s story had been given widespread local and international coverage and had quoted her as having said she had sexual advances made to her by Mohammed Al-Fayed. It wrote that because she chose to elaborate on that story and put a slightly different slant on it on another radio station did not alter the basis of her original story. "This was faithfully reported by The Radio Network" which "fairly reflected the story with no embellishments on that put out by [the student]", it concluded.

In referring his complaint to the Authority, Mr Wilkinson noted that he did not hear the voice of the student at all during the broadcast of the news items. He claimed that the "sexual advances slant" was only a portion of the story of a nanny living in an Arabic household in Britain. The original story, he asserted, was a clash of cultures.

In its comment to the Authority, TRN advised that it had assessed the complaint under standards R16 and R17 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards provide:

R16 News must be presented accurately, objectively and impartially.

R17 The standards of integrity and reliability of news sources should be kept under constant review.

The broadcaster noted that it was not disputed that the story raised an issue of sexual harrassment. The point of difference between it and the complainant, it wrote, was that the radio interview which Mr Wilkinson heard seemed to have the student emphasising the cultural difference rather than the sexual aspect, and the fact that she had been able to handle the situation in her own manner.

Declining to uphold the standard R16 complaint, TRN noted that the student "in her own words refers to the sexual advances". It also declined to uphold the standard R17 complaint, writing that the news source was the student herself and there was no evidence at all to suggest that she was not reliable.

In a final comment to the Authority, Mr Wilkinson emphasised that the issue of sexual harrassment was only one of many things which the student had recalled during her interview, and she did not refer to it as her main reason for leaving her employment in the other interview he had heard. He observed that he had not heard "sound bites" during the news items, and he asked whether the broadcaster had ever interviewed the student, or whether it had sourced the story entirely from a newspaper.

The Authority’s Findings

In its consideration of the complaint, the Authority turns first to standard R16. That standard requires accuracy, objectivity and impartiality in the presentation of news. Mr Wilkinson questioned the accuracy of the news report. He suggested that the source for it, which he stated appeared to be a newspaper in this case, had given a different emphasis to the story compared to its original source, the student. While the Authority appreciates that the story which was reported might have been a small part only of the entire story, it does not find that it was necessarily inaccurate. In the necessary brevity required of a commercial news bulletin, it is perhaps inevitable that emphasis will be placed upon the aspect deemed to be of most public interest. Accordingly, the Authority finds that the portion of the verbatim report which was broadcast was accurate and truthful, even if it was not in this case a complete report of the story. It declines to uphold the complaint under standard R16.

The Authority turns next to standard R17. That standard requires that the integrity and reliability of news sources be subject to constant review. In his complaint, Mr Wilkinson questioned the broadcaster’s compliance with the standard. The student, he said, was the original source of the story. He did not hear her being interviewed in the news report, and, he said, the news report differed substantially from another broadcast he had heard. The Authority notes that standard R17 places a positive duty on broadcasters to ensure that a news report has a reputable and credible source. If the broadcaster satisfied itself that the source was credible, then a newspaper could properly be the immediate source of a broadcaster’s news report. In this instance, the Authority notes that the student, directly or indirectly,was the source of the news report and it declines to uphold the complaint under standard R17.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
18 February 1999.

Appendix

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

1. Mr Wilkinson’s Complaint to The Radio Network Limited – 19 October 1998

2. TRN’s Response to the Formal Complaint – undated

3. Mr Wilkinson’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – received
   4 November 1998

4. TRN’s Response to the Authority – 30 November 1998

5. Mr Wilkinson’s Final Comment – received 7 December 1998