★★★★★ 0/5

Gratuitous: news footage played 8 times, no warning.

News bulletins risk duty of care when they replay graphic images over and over.

8
Leave a comment

How many times can News bulletins screen confronting footage before it becomes gratuitous?

And what quantifies as requiring a Warning to viewers?

Last week both Nine News and Seven News screened footage of an accident in Clayton South more than a year ago, in which a motorcyclist flipped over a vehicle which failed to halt at a stop sign.

Thankfully, he lived to tell the tale, but suffered a broken pelvis, brain injury, collapsed lung, damage to his liver and a testicle had to be removed.

Both networks reported the matter was addressed in Melbourne Magistrates Court last week, where the driver, Ajith Waduge, pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing serious injury.

In covering the story Nine News played the point of impact 8 times in a report of some 90 seconds. Seven News played it 5 times within the same time frame.

Neither preceded their reports with a warning to viewers.

Warning: graphic images

Reader Simon Robinson told TV Tonight, “I appreciate that this is a valid news story that must be brought to the public’s attention, but the sheer lack of consideration for viewers that have experienced such trauma in their lives and live with this on a daily basis was an extreme lack of judgement in my opinion.

“I lost my brother Scott Robinson this way. To repeat the same vision just because you have it and because it makes good television, is unacceptable.”

Under the Commercial TV industry Code of Practice there are guidelines concerning “Material which may cause distress.”

3.2.1 In broadcasting a news or Current Affairs Program, a Licensee must:
a) not include material which, in the reasonable opinion of the Licensee, is likely to seriously distress or seriously offend a substantial number of viewers, having regard to the likely audience of the Program, unless there is a public interest reason to do so; and

b) include a spoken warning before a segment that contains material which, in the reasonable opinion of the Licensee, is likely to seriously distress or seriously offend a substantial number of viewers having regard to the likely audience of the Program;

It must also:

e) have regard to the feelings of relatives and viewers when including images of dead bodies or people who are seriously wounded, taking into account the relevant public interest.

There is no stipulation in the Code about how many plays quantifies as “gratuitous” vision. Earlier this year media watchdog the ACMA assessed a different collision screened by Nine News four times but found it carried a warning and was therefore not in breach of the Code.

Warning: graphic images

TV Tonight asked Nine and Seven how many times it considered vision as gratuitous and why neither screened with a warning to viewers.

Nine declined to comment.

A Seven spokesperson said, “The vision of the accident was supplied to Seven News by the motorcyclist involved in the incident.

“The motorcyclist did the interview with the clear understanding and intention of seeing the clip used as effectively as possible.

“With the vision, the whole story could be told and the audience were reminded why motorists need to be careful on the roads.

“The original vision was delivered to all TV news channels.”

“Matt” the motorcyclist told reporters he wanted jail time for the driver, whose lawyers have asked the court for a fine. A sentence in the case will be handed down later this month.

8 Responses

  1. I can understand it was done for dramatic affect but some warning should have been given. As for the driver I don’t think Jail is the answer but a heavy fine and loss of license should happen as this happens too often and could have killed this rider just because someone didn’t check to see if the road was clear after the other car crossed!

  2. Don’t turn your TVs on then today….every station is trying to out do the others….with pics…interviews etc on today’s events in Spain… sad in more ways than one…. 🙁

  3. I don’t think there was anything particularly graphic about the vision. Would some people find it distressing? Sure – as one of your readers did. But if that vision shocks drivers into taking more care, then that can only be a good thing.

    And if you couldn’t tell that vision was coming from the graphic behind Peter, then there is something wrong with you.

    1. “But if that vision shocks drivers into taking more care, then that can only be a good thing.”

      That only works if you ignore the very point you conceded in your previous two sentences: some people* found it distressing.

      You may be surprised to learn that, for many people, seeing something “distressing” is in fact a bad thing rather than a “good” thing…

      * Not me particularly, and I’m not usually the person to go all trigger-warning-y – but possessing a bit of empathy allows me to understand that it might be pretty unpleasant to some people, and how it might be more than a bit upsetting to have it flash up on their screen once. Let alone 8 times…

  4. Forget “duty of care” or “gratuitous”, or even “public interest”.

    It’s simply deliberately pandering to the audience’s prurient voyeurism in order to grab ratings. It’s not in the public interest, it’s not there in the service of news, it’s not even there to inform – it’s simply a tactic that, if it works, allows them to crow about being “#1 in News”.

    And yes, surteesd, I thought exactly the same thing when I opened the article 😉

  5. In fairness David, that was the first image I saw this morning when checking your page and there is no warning until you get into the story. Once is also shocking if not forewarned

  6. I find that there are many segments without a warning, that need one! Plus I don’t understand why they have to repeat footage ad nauseum. Some times at Breakfast the same footage is played multiple times and doesn’t add to the story!

Leave a Reply