THE FACTS
In its three newscasts on
The story as presented on the
|
CANADIAN BROADCAST STANDARDS COUNCIL ATLANTIC REGIONAL COUNCIL CKEN-AM re Newscast (CBSC Decision 95/96-0134) Decided February 14, 1997 P. Schurman (Chair), R. Cohen (ad hoc), K. MacAulay, C. McDade, Z. Rideout, C. Thomas |
THE FACTS
A
young
The story as presented on the
A
young Canning woman who endured more than her share of tragedy has been
identified as the victim of an accident late last week.
Nineteen year old [victim] was the lone occupant of a car that went
out of control and crashed on Highway 358 just outside Canning Friday afternoon. [She] was cleared of any wrongdoing in a fatal
accident in Kentville a year and a half ago. Her car struck a man who had fallen off the
back of a motorcycle, but police said she wasn't at fault.
The
Letter of Complaint
The deceased's family wrote to protest the
malicious
and unforgivable act on the part of the radio station [Annapolis Valley
Radio], and [the announcer], and the Daily News Paper to smear and humiliate
the name of an innocent young girl just to make a news story more dramatic.
The question the
family is asking is why was that all brought up and announced along with the
accident which took her life? The way
it came across the radio is that she finally got what she deserved.
[...]
Since
when does a news reporter have the right to deliberately exaggerate a death
report to such a point that it becomes more important than the loss of an
innocent life?
The Broadcaster's Response
On
While
it is regrettable that our broadcast caused your family grief, it was never
our intention to be malicious and it remains our contention that we weren't.
[...]
The
facts of this story are not in dispute and what we did was to report the
facts. The reason for bringing up
the first accident was to point out the tragedy your daughter dealt with
in her short life.
[...]
We
understand the reporting of fatal accidents is a sensitive matter to family
members and we strive to be compassionate.
We stick to the facts, as opposed to sensationalism, and what we
did in this tragic story was to report the facts.
Because there was no malice intended, we didn't anticipate the grief
it would cause the family. After
receiving some calls from family members we omitted reference to the first
accident after three newscasts over two hours, not because the facts were
wrong, but out of respect for the family.
Ordinarily, it would have been on five more newscasts over the next
four hours.
The complainants were unsatisfied with this response and requested, on
As has occasionally occurred in other matters, the complainants in this
case provided the CBSC with additional written reasons for seeking further
action. Their second letter of
The CBSC's Atlantic Regional Council considered the complaint under the
Radio Television News Directors Association of Canada (RTNDA)
Code of (Journalistic) Ethics.
Articles 2 and 4 of that Code read as follows:
ARTICLE TWO:
News
and public affairs broadcasts will put events into perspective by presenting
relevant background information. Factors
such as race, creed, nationality or religion will be reported only when
relevant. Comment and editorial opinion
will be identified as such. Errors
will be quickly acknowledged and publicly corrected.
ARTICLE FOUR:
Broadcast
journalists will always display respect for the dignity, privacy and well-being
of everyone with whom they deal, and make every effort to ensure that the
privacy of public persons is infringed only to the extent necessary to satisfy
the public interest and accurately report the news.
The Regional Council members listened to a tape of the program in question
and reviewed all of the correspondence. The Regional Council considers that the broadcaster's
newscast did violate Article Two of the Code.
The Atlantic Regional Council members consider that it is essential to
distinguish very carefully between the issue of privacy, on the one hand,
and that relating to the provision of background information, on the other. They also consider that the issue of a local
broadcaster operating in a small community has some bearing upon their decision
in this case.
The Question of Privacy
The RTNDA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics provides that "Broadcast
journalists will always display respect for the dignity, privacy and well-being
of everyone with whom they deal, and make every effort to ensure that the
privacy of public persons is infringed only to the extent necessary to satisfy
the public interest and accurately report the news."
There can be no question but that the reporting of the tragic death of
the young woman in this case was a further unhappy moment for an already
grief-stricken family. In this instance,
the disclosure of the identity of the deceased, the nature of her death
and the location of the accident are all justifiable, if sad, aspects of
the news. Regrettably, the reporting of the story occurred
on the day of the funeral, which must have exacerbated the grief which the
family felt. The apparently inadvertent
timing of that report was unfortunate but it does not in any way change
the opinion of the Atlantic Regional Council on this point.
In this or any other small community, an event of this nature would undoubtedly
be considered important. Moreover,
on reading and re-reading the parents' letter, the Council members understand
the entitlement of the broadcaster to report the story. Indeed, fatal automobile accidents are generally
dealt with by news directors as matters of importance in large metropolitan
areas, as well as in small communities of this type. In the circumstances, the Council considers
that the broadcaster did nothing which could be considered to be in breach
of the provisions of Article 4 of the Code, which requires respect for the
dignity and privacy of individuals.
The Relevance of the
Background Information Provided
The matter did not, however, end at the question of the invasion of privacy
since the broadcaster chose to include information beyond the identity of
the individual, the nature of the accident and its location. In this case, the broadcaster determined that
there was other information which would be of interest to its listeners,
namely, that relating to a previous accident in which the complainants'
daughter had been involved as driver (although absolved of any guilt or
fault in that regard). It is the
appropriateness of the inclusion of that background information which is
in question.
The Council considers it material to observe that it accepts most of the
contentions raised by the broadcaster concerning the broadcast. For example, it accepts fully the statement
of CKEN-AM that it had no intention to be malicious. The Council also considers that the broadcaster
was not, in fact, malicious in reporting on the previous accident.
The Council also agrees with the broadcaster that it did not exaggerate
the story and that "The facts of the story are not in
dispute and what [it] did was to report the facts."
The issue does, however, go beyond questions of accuracy, sensationalization,
exaggeration and malice, for broadcasters also have an obligation,
when they wish to include other material than the straight facts of the
story they are reporting, to restrict their presentation of such material
to issues of "relevant background information."
The Council is of the view that, in reporting on the previous accident,
the broadcaster presented irrelevant (although accurate) information that
had the effect of harming the feelings, if not the reputation, of the family
of the deceased and the deceased herself.
Pointing out the earlier accident was, at the very least, insensitive
and, in any event, not necessary to put the story into perspective and,
at worst, it was irrelevant and prejudicial.
The Council in fact finds that there was no supportable purpose for
suggesting a link between this private citizen's involvement in the past
accident and the one that led to her death.
The Council does not consider that the ironic twist to the fate of
the young woman is a sufficient justification for the reporting of the earlier
accident.
Furthermore, in the Council's view, a broadcaster operating in a small
community is under a particular responsibility to be sensitive in
reporting on matters involving members of its populace. The Council reserves its right to deal with
any such situation in future in the context of a larger and more impersonal
community but it does consider that the background information noted above
ought not to have been reported here. That being said, the Council does
acknowledge that the broadcaster's decision to pull the story after receiving
telephone calls objecting to their news report was responsible and sensitive
in the circumstances.
The Broadcaster's Response
In addition to assessing the relevance of the Codes to the complaint, the
CBSC always assesses the responsiveness of the broadcaster to the
substance of the complaint. In this
case, the broadcaster's response was considerate and thoughtful, thus meeting
the CBSC standards.
Content of Broadcaster
Announcement of Decision
The broadcaster is required, within thirty days of the release of this
decision, to announce it, in the following terms, during peak listening
hours and to confirm to the Secretariat of the CBSC and to the complainant
that it has done so:
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has found that CKEN has breached
certain of the news and public affairs provisions of the Radio and Television
News Directors Association Code of Ethics. By referring to a past accident in its January
15, 1996 reporting on the death of a young woman, the Council considers
that the station presented irrelevant background information that had the
effect of unnecessarily harming the feelings, if not also the reputation,
of the deceased and her family.