On June 28, 2011, a police officer with the York Regional Police Force (in the Greater Toronto area) was pinned under a mini-van during an early morning traffic stop. He was able to radio for help and to talk to the dispatcher for a few moments. He later succumbed to his injuries in the hospital.
Both CITY-TV and CFTO-TV (CTV Toronto) covered the story in their early evening newscasts (transcripts and descriptions of the broadcasts are available in Appendix A). The officer was identified by name in the reports. Both the CITY-TV and CTV Toronto reports also provided details about the officer’s family, a statement from the York Regional Police Chief, interviews with people affected by the tragedy and details about the circumstances of the incident which were available at the time.
CITY-TV included audio excerpts of the officer’s radio transmission in its reports. The constable was heard telling the dispatcher that he had a car on top of him, that it hurt, and also that there were people in the van and he did not know how they were doing. CITY-TV did not warn viewers prior to airing the recording in its first report about the incident. Another report later in the newscast discussed the radio transmission in more detail. Prior to broadcasting that lengthier excerpt, the CITY-TV host said “the audio we’re about to hear is graphic and very intense.” A written transcript of the distress call appeared on screen as the audio was played.
CTV Toronto did not air audio excerpts of the actual radio transmission. Instead, it displayed a written transcript on the screen and read it. There was no warning to viewers before displaying and reading the transcript.
The CBSC received a complaint dated June 30 about these broadcasts from the York Region Chief of Police (the full text of that letter and all other correspondence can be found in Appendix B). He objected to the broadcast of the constable’s radio transmission since it showed the officer’s obvious pain and distress as the man lay dying. He described the decision to broadcast the excerpts as “callous” and wrote that it had caused “additional anguish” to the already-grief-stricken family and colleagues of the constable. He suggested that the broadcasters should have found a more appropriate method of informing the public about the incident, while at the same time respecting the rights of the victim and his family. He argued that the broadcasters’ actions were unethical and that they had “resort[ed] to sensationalism”. He also wrote that he had not authorized “the release of these radio transmissions” and would not have done so “in these tragic circumstances”.
That initial letter did not identify specific broadcast dates and times which are required for the CBSC to initiate its official complaints-resolution process. In a letter of July 25, the Chief provided that information and identified a number of different broadcasters. The complaints against CIII-TV (Global Toronto) and CHCH-TV are dealt with in a separate decision because those stations took a different approach from CITY-TV and CFTO-TV to their presentation of the incident.
CITY-TV’s letter of response to the police chief explained that the decision to air the audio of the officer’s radio transmissions had been taken after serious consideration and discussion. The station chose to air the recording because the story was in the public interest and the recording demonstrated that the officer had maintained his composure, professionalism and concern for others even while in severe physical distress. The reports presented the radio transmissions in that context.
In its letter, CTV Toronto emphasized that it had not broadcast the actual audio recording of the distress call, unlike the other broadcasters mentioned in the complaint. CTV explained that it nevertheless presented a transcript of the call because it was in the public interest and it demonstrated the constable’s heroism.
The police chief sent a letter indicating his dissatisfaction with all of the broadcasters’ responses. He asserted that the stations had violated the Radio Television Digital News Association’s (RTDNA) Code of Ethics and reiterated his view that the broadcast of the distress call was “a callous invasion of privacy” and a sensationalization of events.
The Ontario Regional Panel examined the complaint under the following provisions of the Radio Television Digital News Association of Canada (RTDNA) Code of (Journalistic) Ethics, as well as Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Violence Code and Code of Ethics:
RTDNA Code of Ethics, Article 4 - Privacy
Electronic journalists will respect the dignity, privacy and well-being of everyone with whom they deal, and will make every effort to ensure that newsgathering and reporting does not unreasonably infringe privacy except when necessary in the public interest. Clandestine newsgathering techniques should only be used when necessary to the credibility or accuracy of a story in the public interest.
RTDNA Code of Ethics, Article 8 – Decency and Conduct
Electronic journalists will treat people who are subjects and sources with decency. They will use special sensitivity when dealing with children. They will strive to conduct themselves in a courteous and considerate manner, newsgathering as unobtrusively as possible. They will strive to prevent their presence from distorting the character or importance of events.
CAB Violence Code, Article 6 – News & Public Affairs Programming
6.1 Broadcasters shall use appropriate editorial judgment in the reporting of, and the pictorial representation of violence, aggression or destruction within their news and public affairs programming.
6.2 Caution shall be used in the selection of, and repetition of, video which depicts violence.
6.3 Broadcasters shall advise viewers in advance of showing scenes of extra-ordinary violence, or graphic reporting on delicate subject matter such as sexual assault or court action related to sexual crimes, particularly during afternoon or early evening newscasts and updates when children could be viewing.
6.4 Broadcasters shall employ discretion in the use of explicit or graphic language related to stories of destruction, accidents or sexual violence, which could disturb children and their families.
6.6 While broadcasters shall not exaggerate or exploit situations of aggression, conflict or confrontation, equal care shall be taken not to sanitize the reality of the human condition.
CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 6 – Full, Fair and Proper Presentation
It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle shall apply to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs, magazine, talk, call-in, interview or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion, comment or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited guests or callers.
The Panel Adjudicators read all of the correspondence and viewed the broadcasts in question. The majority of the Panel concludes that neither CITY-TV nor CFTO-TV violated Articles 4 and 8 of the RTDNA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics. One adjudicator dissented on that point. The Panel unanimously concludes that neither CITY-TV nor CFTO-TV violated Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics. The Panel unanimously concludes that both CITY-TV and CFTO-TV violated Article 6.3 of the CAB Violence Code for failing to provide adequate warnings prior to presenting the police radio transmission.
The majority of the Panel determined that CITY-TV’s broadcast of the constable’s radio transmission and CFTO-TV’s voice-over broadcast of the transcript of that recording did not violate Articles 4 (Privacy) and 8 (Decency and Conduct) of the RTDNA Code of Ethics. The distress call was in fact made on the public airwaves and could be received by the public since it was not encrypted in any way.
Moreover, the broadcasters in both cases decided to air the recording or a transcript of that recording after assessing its impact and concluding that it was in the interests of both the public and police forces, in the sense that it informed viewers of the high degree of professionalism demonstrated by the constable in the performance of his duties, and showed, in a general fashion, the circumstances that law enforcement officers often face and that can, as in the present case, even lead to death.
The majority of the Panel determined that CITY-TV and CFTO-TV were not required to obtain the consent of the York Regional Police Chief to broadcast the recording of the officer’s call. That non-encrypted recording had in fact been initially received on the public airwaves and then re-broadcast on the Internet. It was therefore in the public domain and the York Regional Police Chief was not in a position to authorise or prohibit the broadcast.
Contrary to the majority, Mr. Braun does not agree that the broadcasters complied with Articles 4 and 8 of the RTDNA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics nor does he agree that the stations were not required to obtain the consent of the police force. He is of the opinion that it was not up to CITY-TV and CFTO-TV to broadcast the last words of a dying man, even if, in the case of CFTO-TV, the broadcast consisted of a transcript of those words with voice-over. He feels the broadcasters should have opted for paraphrasing the policeman’s last words in order to comply with the provisions of the RTDNA Code of Ethics on Privacy, and Decency and Conduct. He also considers that, even though police transmissions can be intercepted with scanners, it does not mean that police forces have given tacit approval to broadcast the content; broadcasters should obtain consent before disseminating the content.
In light of the fact that the provisions of the RTDNA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics on sensationalism were repealed when that Code was revised in 2000, the CBSC relies upon Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics when dealing with a complaint on sensationalism.
The Panel unanimously determined that CITY-TV and CFTO-TV did not sensationalise this news story. Rather, the broadcasters in both cases highlighted the officer’s professionalism who, though seriously injured, was concerned with the fate of occupants of the van that had just pinned him down.
The Panel unanimously determined that neither CITY-TV nor CFTO-TV violated Articles 6.1, 6.2, 6.4 and 6.6 of the CAB Violence Code because the audio broadcast of the constable’s last words was done in the public interest.
The Panel unanimously determined that CFTO-TV did not meet the requirement set out in Article 6.3 of the CAB Violence Code to warn viewers of the disturbing content of the transcript of the officer’s distress call. Even though the broadcaster opted for a transcript with voice-over rather than the actual broadcast of the distress call in question, its content was sufficiently disturbing to require the airing of an appropriate viewer advisory by CFTO-TV.
With respect to CITY-TV, the Panel also determined that CITY-TV failed to broadcast the required viewer advisory prior to the first airing of the audio track at the beginning of its news report, contrary to Article 6.3 of the CAB Violence Code. CITY-TV did, however, air the required advisories when it broadcast another segment on the constable and the audio portion.
In all CBSC decisions, the Panels assess the broadcasters’ responses to the complainants. The broadcasters certainly need not agree with the complainants’ position, but they must respond in a courteous, thoughtful and thorough manner. In this case, both CITY-TV and CTV Toronto sent respectful letters to the complainant which outlined their decisions to present the police officer’s radio transmission. Both broadcasters met their membership requirements of responsiveness in this case.
Announcements of the Decision
CITY-TV is required to: 1) announce the decision, in the following terms, once during prime time within three days following the release of this decision and once more within seven days following the release of this decision during the time period in which CityNews at Six was broadcast; 2) within the fourteen days following the broadcasts of the announcements, to provide written confirmation of the airing of the statement to the complainant who filed the Ruling Request; and 3) at that time, to provide the CBSC with a copy of that written confirmation and with air check copies of the broadcasts of the two announcements which must be made by CITY-TV.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has found that CITY-TV violated the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Violence Code in a news report broadcast on June 28, 2011 on CityNews at Six. CITY-TV failed to warn viewers before airing a disturbing audio clip of an injured police officer. CITY-TV violated Article 6.3 of the Violence Code.
CFTO-TV (CTV Toronto) is required to: 1) announce the decision, in the following terms, once during prime time within three days following the release of this decision and once more within seven days following the release of this decision during the time period in which CTV News was broadcast; 2) within the fourteen days following the broadcasts of the announcements, to provide written confirmation of the airing of the statement to the complainant who filed the Ruling Request; and 3) at that time, to provide the CBSC with a copy of that written confirmation and with air check copies of the broadcasts of the two announcements which must be made by CFTO-TV.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has found that CTV Toronto violated the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Violence Code in a news report broadcast on June 28, 2011 at 6:00 pm. CTV failed to warn viewers before presenting the transcript of a disturbing audio clip of an injured police officer. CTV violated Article 6.3 of the Violence Code.
This decision is a public document upon its release by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
 CIII-TV (Global Toronto) & CHCH-TV re broadcasts of a police radio transmission (CBSC Decision 10/11-2040 & -2187, February 7, 2012).
 See the following previous CBSC decisions for cases where the CBSC found no violations of privacy or dignity: CKEN-AM re Newscast (CBSC Decision 95/96-0134, February 14, 1997); CTV re coverage of the fatal luge accident at the 2010 Winter Olympic Games (CBSC Decision 09/10-0895+, November 12, 2010); and CHOI-FM re Dupont le midi (suicide) (CBSC Decision 08/09-2041 & 09/10-1462, September 23, 2010).
 See the following previous CBSC decisions for cases where the CBSC did find violations of the privacy or dignity of people about to die: CHAN-TV (BCTV) re Newscast (Toronto Subway Death) (CBSC Decision 97/98-0383, May 20, 1998) and CTV re a News Report on Charles Ng’s Sentencing (CBSC Decision 98/99-1120, March 22, 2000).
 See the following previous decisions where the CBSC acknowledged that news coverage of disturbing events did not violate the CAB Violence Code and that the broadcasters acted appropriately by providing warnings: CTV re Canada AM (Airborne Hazing) (CBSC Decision 94/95-0159, March 12, 1996); CTV Newsnet re a News Item (Hostage Murder in Riyadh) (CBSC Decision 03/04-1817, December 15, 2004); and CTV re coverage of the fatal luge accident at the 2010 Winter Olympic Games (CBSC Decision 09/10-0895+, November 12, 2010).