RTNDA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics

Commentary Re Article 3: Authenticity

Precedents Relating to Editing Taped Interviews to Distort

In CTV re W5 (“Lawn Wars”) (CBSC Decision 95/96-0187, October 21, 1996), the complainant, one of the persons interviewed for a story on the public affairs program W5, alleged that her story had been “distorted” and “turned into a comedy”. The segment in question, entitled “Lawn Wars”, told the story of the conflict between two Toronto neighbours who were fighting over the states of their adjacent properties. In the report, the complainant described her neighbour’s overgrown, weed-filled yard as dirty, smelly and gross, and her neighbour as “very lazy”. The neighbour countered by saying that her yard was an “ecosystem”, while the complainant’s yard, with a mown lawn and flower beds, was an “industrial monoculture”. The report did not deal with the issue of the devaluation of the complainant’s property although the complainant had stated to the W5 producer that this was her main concern. While the Panel found that the report had breached Article 1 of the RTNDA Code for failure to address the market value issue, it did not find a breach of Article 3.

The CBSC agrees with the view expressed by CTV’s Vice President, News, that “While not everything you said was used, [this is] a normal practice in television.” It is, in the Panel’s view, important that members of the public appreciate that this is the case. All news and public affairs stories, whether in the print or electronic media, begin large and are pruned small. The result is that, in all likelihood, only a part of what any interviewee says to a reporter in any medium will be used. The question ultimately relates to the choice which is made.

The Panel does not consider that there was any editing of a taped interview so as “to distort the meaning, intent, or actual words of the interviewee” in breach of Article 3 of the RTNDA Code of (Journalistic Ethics). The editing choice made by the broadcaster was to eliminate an entire issue from treatment. While the brief interview with the complainant was, in her view “horribly edited, [and] clipped”, there was no distortion of her point of view on the issues retained in the segment. She (and the Panel) would have liked to see another issue treated but the decision not to do so has nothing to do with the prohibition in Article 3.

In CIII-TV (Global Television) re First National News (Premiers’ Conference) (CBSC Decision 96/97-0246, February 26, 1998), the Ontario Regional Panel found that Global’s improper editing of a statement made by Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard had distorted the meaning of his statement. The story in question reported on the Premiers’ discussion about holding another meeting on national unity (in Calgary) and included a clip of Premier Bouchard saying “It’s doomed before it begins.” The complainant had seen a more complete report on another station in which Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin was shown remarking that, in the last federal election, 65% of Quebeckers had voted for federalist parties. In response to this, Premier Bouchard replied: “If you think that 65% of Quebeckers are federalists, it’s doomed before it begins.” In response to the complaint, the broadcaster had contended that “whether you use his sound-bite from the beginning or the middle, it is clear that his words mean the same thing, that any constitutional process undertaken by the federalists is doomed to fail.” The Panel disagreed.

Whatever one’s view of Premier Bouchard’s attitude toward national unity, a news report ought not to distort his words to make them reflect a reporter’s or News Director’s view of Bouchard’s political position. The people, as the Code provides, should be entitled “to know what is happening” in order that “they may form their own conclusions.” By removing the first part of the Premier’s sentence “If you enter into this new process, which is not substantial process, new process, with the idea that 65 per cent of Quebeckers are federalists,” Global has not told the audience what was in fact happening. By leaving only “it’s doomed before it begins,” Global has usurped the audience’s democratic entitlement to reach its own conclusions. Its editing, not merely of an interview, but of a single sentence, has had the effect of distorting the meaning of the Premier’s statement as well as breaching the requirement to provide a “full, fair and proper presentation of [the] news.” In effect, Global took a statement Premier Bouchard had made for one purpose, namely, to comment on the view that 65% of Quebeckers had voted for federalist parties in the last election, and used it for another, namely, to conclude that any proposed Premiers’ conference on national unity would be doomed to failure.

In CHEK-TV re Newscast (CBSC Decision 97/98-0500 and 0543, May 20, 1998), the B.C. Regional Panel dealt with a report on the plight of a shopping mall Santa who had been fired from his position after scolding a child who had apparently kicked him in the groin. The report in question followed up on Santa’s firing by visiting him at his new job in another shopping mall. It included a video clip of Santa crossing his hands over his groin and saying: “No, I’m not going to hold my jangles.” The complainant alleged that the video footage was that of him responding to something said off camera and that the report had been created through “skilful editing and manipulation of words”. The Panel disagreed.

The members of the B.C. Regional Panel had the opportunity to view a copy of the raw footage in its entirety. There is no question whatsoever that the video portions of the ultimate newscast were not “doctored” to leave an impression which did not reflect the actual occurrences. The complainant who was directly affected by the report, the Mall Santa Claus, was offered the opportunity to go to the television station to review the tapes but he chose not to do so. That was certainly his option but he might have thus satisfied himself that no tampering with the tape had occurred.

It does go without saying that there is no obligation on the part of a broadcaster to use all of the material shot for the purpose of the story or to use the material in the order in which it was shot. Every broadcaster is also entitled to edit that material to condense the story to fit the available time and, indeed, to focus the story in the way in which it believes the story should be told provided, of course, that it does not thereby distort or sensationalize the story. The conflict, if any, which may generally occur, and does in this case, flows from the options which the reporter has to use some of the footage that was available to tell the story one way or to use other footage to tell the story another way. The reporter (and, of course, the station) in this case chose a route which did not please the Mall Santa or the other Complainant.

[…]

While the reporter might have chosen to steer the story in a direction which would not have shown the Mall Santa covering his groin, she was not obliged, by any set of standards, to do so. It was, after all, Mr. Turner who chose to cover his crotch; there is no allegation that anyone else invited him to do so. In his letter of December 23, he acknowledges his own naïveté in doing so. His decision to do so in the presence of news cameras was certainly injudicious since he alone opened himself to the risk that such footage could be recorded and used. While the reporter might have been ungenerous in building the story this way, it is perfectly clear that Mr. Turner created the opportunity for her to do so and, indeed, in some respects asked, if not taunted, her to do so. The seguë from the earlier story, which became a national tale and apparently involved a kick to the groin, to a second story with a groin-related aspect, is obvious. It is regrettable that Turner created that situation because the other footage of him playing the role of Santa left a clear sense that he was good at his job as a Mall Santa. Moreover, as stated by the Complainant, Mr. Turner probably did not fall into the category of individuals who deal more frequently with the media and “are obviously more circumspect in their actions.” The Council finds, however, that the direction of this story did not, in the end, depend on “skilful editing”. It was an obvious direction, given the circumstances, which were not of the broadcaster’s making.

CTV re a W-FIVE segment ("No Tax") (CBSC Decision 01/02-0965+, January 15, 2003) involved a segment during a public affairs program about a movement known as the "detaxers" who argue that Canadian citizens are not legally required to pay income tax. The CBSC received a number of complaints about the segment, primarily from detaxers who felt that the segment had not accurately represented the movement and had made all detax sympathizers look like terrorists. Many complainants alleged that much of the information presented to the reporter at the initial information gathering stage never made it into the report. The National Conventional Television Panel found no breach of any Code provision, stating that the broadcaster adequately presented the information and "to the extent that the show as broadcast has left the detax proponents feeling unrequited, it appears to the Panel that the complainants are simply reiterating what they would have wished that the broadcaster include in its report in order to 'make a better case' for their position."

[T]he Panel finds that the detaxers were provided ample opportunity to state their case. To begin, it was the detaxers who were first provided the time and opportunity to lay out their position. In that sense, it could justifiably be argued that the initial philosophical impact was theirs. Messrs. Muljiani and Warman “had the floor”. They staked out the justification for their movement’s position. They raised the issues of Magna Carta and applicable (or, as they argued, inapplicable or irrelevant) legal systems. Ms. Rosenberg, one of the individuals who lost her anti-taxation case, was permitted to express her perspective on the taxation system and, at the end of the segment, Muljiani and Warman were again given the opportunity to comment on the program’s thesis, relating to the connection between detaxation, anti-government views and violence.

Moreover, the detaxers were given the platform to enunciate a number of unusual and unconventional positions relating to issues like drivers being “artificial persons”, the primacy of the Magna Carta over Canadian fiscal legislation, the Timothy McVeigh fall guy theory and the like. Overall, the Panel has not the slightest doubt that the detaxers were given ample time and opportunity to express their viewpoints. As noted above, the broadcaster was under no obligation to provide time for every argument the detaxers wished to raise. Television is not print. Nor is it the Internet. The detaxers may well be able to expound on their arguments in those media that provide fewer, if any, limitations of space or time. On television, on the other hand, they must fit within the constraints of the medium. That being said, they were right to expect that the broadcaster would allow them to put their case. It did and they did. CTV had no further obligation in this respect.

The Panel further added, with respect to the allegation that many important issues had not been raised in the report,

If balance depended on the obligation of a broadcaster to reach out to exponents of every contrary viewpoint (however spurious), it would put an effective halt to dealing with controversial public issues within a reasonable time frame, both as to the preparation and the broadcast of such segments as that before the Panel today.


Precedents Relating to the Presentation of Editorial Opinion

In TVA re J.E. en direct (Alternative Medicine) (CBSC Decision 97/98-0580, September 24, 1998), the Quebec Regional Panel found the aggressive and mocking behaviour of hosts during an interview inconsistent with broadcast standards. The case concerned a report on alternative medicine which included hidden camera-generated video footage of a consultation with a homeopath (taken by a journalist posing as a patient) and interviews with a dissatisfied patient as well as the heads of various alternative and traditional medicine associations. The complainant claimed that the report was biased against alternative medicine. While the Panel found no problem whatsoever with the substance of the report, including the use of deceptive journalistic practices in obtaining some of the report’s content, it did find that the hosts of the show demonstrated an unusually “aggressive and mocking behaviour” towards one of their guests, treating him in a hostile manner inconsistent with broadcast journalistic standards. The Panel stated:

Even if provoked, [journalists] need to be able to stand back from the fray. They can test, they can challenge, they can contradict, but they ought not to mud-wrestle. The Panel is of the view that remarks such as “[translation] Come down off your high horse and let’s talk frankly, you and I”, “[translation] No, no, you said nothing before - answer the question” and “[translation] This isn’t Nagano, take off your skates and answer my questions”, etc., were neither proper nor fair coming from a veteran and well-respected broadcast journalist. By attacking and mocking their guest thus, Mr. Girouard and Ms. Cazin “showed their colours”, so to speak, in a way which violated Article 2 of the RTNDA Code [...] and Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics.

In TQS re a News Report on Le Grand Journal (CBSC Decision 01/02-0512, December 20, 2002), the Quebec Regional Panel dealt with a complaint about a news broadcast concerning a woman who had been sheltering nearly 150 cats and dogs on her property and was being evicted. SPCA workers were shown gathering up the animals, some of which appeared sick or wounded, for relocation. Updates about the story in progress were provided throughout the midday news broadcast. Interviews with SPCA representatives, a veterinarian and the woman herself were included. The program was hosted by Gilles Proulx who introduced the story referring to the animals as "des chiens-chiens", "des kikis" and "des pits-pits" and making barking noises. He also called the woman "a rare animal" and, after her interview, in which she responded sarcastically reporter to Jean Lajoie's questions, he suggested that she be given a contract to appear with a comedy troupe. The complaint came from the woman who felt that the information and images contained in the report had been inaccurate and that Lajoie had "come across as a fool" in presenting the report, which was in "poor taste". With respect to the comments made by Proulx, the Panel acknowledged that Le Grand Journal is "a hybrid show, [...] mixing news and feature stories and driven by a host [...] who is not shy about inserting his opinion, perspective or 'take' on a story." It found his comments "on the edge" of acceptability, but not in violation of the Code:

The Grand Journal is not, however, all news. It is hosted by Gilles Proulx, who is well-known in Québec for his sometimes aggressive, sarcastic and acerbic manner in dealing with callers to his radio show. The television program reflects this approach. In introducing the story, he referred to the animals as "des chiens-chiens", "des pits-pits" and "des kikis" ("doggies", "mutts", and "bow-wows") and during a video clip showing the wounded animals, he pretended to talk like to a dog, saying "Kiki, calme-toi, woof, calme-toi, kiki" ("Doggie, down boy, woof, down boy."). On a couple of occasions during the episode, he asked his on-air colleague Patricia who the Minister of Dogs was and, if she would bark or meow. Before reporter Lajoie's interview with the complainant, Proulx referred to her as "that rare animal" and he later suggested to Lajoie that the woman "be given a contract for the Mecs comiques [a Québec comedy troupe]" (the comment having been motivated in part by the complainant's own sarcastic comment to and about the reporter).

In general, it could safely be said that the host's antics made both the subject and the complainant look trite and foolish. The Panel finds, however, that the host does not have the same responsibility as the reporters. As a "non-news" figure, some may say that he has an entitlement, within limits (which are not breached here), to hold and express opinions. The Panel finds that Proulx uses the "power of the microphone" to make his comments" but these are at the edge of acceptable and do not cross the line. The broadcaster, thus, has not breached any of the foregoing provisions of either the CAB Code of Ethics or the RTNDA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics.

[Top]