BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A professional firefighter's trauma following an attendance at a fatal car crash was the

subject of the episode of Against the Odds broadcast on TV3 at 11.00pm on 4

February 1997.

Mrs Forrest of Ngaruawahia complained to TV3 Network Services Limited that the

programme failed to acknowledge the voluntary personnel who assisted at the crash.

Moreover, she wrote, it did not give recognition to female firefighters, and was

disrespectful to the dead and their families by describing the state of the crash victims.

TV3 advised Mrs Forrest that as it did not make the programme, it had forwarded her

letter to the producer of the programme for comment.

Dissatisfied with the action taken, Mrs Forrest referred the complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

In responding to the Authority on the substantive matters, TV3 stated that the

comments made about the condition of the bodies in the car were needed in the

programme to convey the reasons for the firefighter's stress. The reference to

firefighters in the programme, it said, included all firefighters, men and women, and

there was no implied or direct criticism of volunteers in the programme.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the programme complained about, and

have read the correspondence relating to the complaint (summarised in the Appendix).

As is its practice, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

At 11.00pm on 4 February 1997, TV3 broadcast an episode of the series Against the

Odds. The episode recounted one firefighter's experiences during and following a fatal

car crash he had attended. The episode was designed to show the stress associated

with the firefighter's job and the problems which can occur as a result of that stress.

Mrs Forrest complained to TV3 that the programme failed to recognise the work of

volunteers; it was sexist in its reference to the Fire Service as a male "macho"

dedicated service for the big, tough and strong, without reference to female firefighters;

and it showed disrespect for the deceased and their families by providing graphic

details of the victims involved in the car crash.

TV3 did not initially treat the complaint as a formal one, but sent Mrs Forrest's letter

to the producers of the programme for comment. In referring to the Authority her

dissatisfaction with this procedure adopted by TV3, Mrs Forrest reiterated the

comments she had made in her letter of complaint to TV3, and added that she was

offended by the incident which showed the firefighter so distressed he "beat up" an

innocent member of the public.

TV3 responded to the Authority advising that it was now prepared to treat the

complaint formally. In respect of the substantive complaint, it advised that the

producer set out to demonstrate, through one person's story, that even paid

professionals with a publicly perceived "macho" image were vulnerable and not

immune to stress, and suffered lasting trauma from the situations they were thrust

into. The reference, it said, to firefighters could be taken as inclusive of all firefighters –

voluntary and professional. It argued that the details of the crash were needed in the

programme to show why the firefighter suffered the stress that he did. TV3 added that

there was nothing gender specific about the programme. While the inclusion of the

incident between the firefighter and the cyclist was included again to show the effect

of stress on the firefighter featured, TV3 emphasised that the programme did not

advocate that people "beat up" strangers. It declined to uphold the complaint.

In view of the requirement in the Act that broadcasters respond initially to a

complaint, the Authority considers that it is the broadcaster's responsibility to

determine – when they are not nominated by the complainant – which standards the

complaint alleges have been breached. By initially referring the letter of formal

complaint to the producer TV3 omitted to carry out this step on this occasion.

Consequently, the Authority has had to fulfil this task and it has considered the

programme under section 4(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act which provides:

4(1) Every broadcaster is responsible for maintaining in its programmes and

their presentation, standards which are consistent with -

(a) the observance of good taste and decency.

The purpose of the programme was to show how even firefighters, who are usually

perceived by the public as tough and strong, suffer stress when exposed to extreme

situations. The Authority accepts that, in order for the programme to achieve its

purpose, details about the state of the crash victims encountered by the featured

firefighter at the time the rescue was attempted, needed to be shown. Nevertheless, the

Authority is uncomfortable with the level of graphic detail provided, and the fact that

the description of the crash scene in which the rescue was attempted was linked to

actual footage. While it considers the manner in which the footage was used was not a

breach of the Act, the Authority questions whether it was necessary to link it to the

firefighter's description, in view of the distressing effect this would be likely to have

on the relatives of the deceased. The Authority reminds broadcasters that sensitivity

is needed when considering the broadcast of such material. While there was in this

case, because of the particular circumstances, no breach of the Act, the Authority does

not in the normal course, condone the broadcast of such material without a

compellingly good reason.

Looking at the other issues in the complaint, the Authority does not consider that the

programme was sexist against women or denigratory to volunteers. The programme

had a particular focus and, the Authority accepts, it would have been unwieldy and

impractical to require reference specifically to either women firefighters or volunteers.

Moreover, the Authority was unable to find any reference within the programme

which could be taken as being offensive to either group. The Authority was also

unable to understand how the inclusion in the programme of the incident where the

firefighter concerned assaulted a cyclist, could have caused offence. The incident

provided a potent illustration of the stress suffered by the firefighter featured in the

programme.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
15 May 1997

Appendix

Mrs Forrest's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 5 February 1997

Mrs W Forrest of Ngaruawahia complained to TV3 Network Services Limited that the

programme Against the Odds, broadcast on TV3 on 4 February 1997 at 11.00pm was

deficient in three areas.

First, it failed to give any recognition to the crew who first responded to the accident

shown, nor to the St John's Ambulance Staff. Secondly, she wrote, the reporter

stated that the Fire Service was a male macho dedicated service for the big, tough, and

strong. At no time, she added, did the documentary give recognition to the female

firefighters that did the same job. Thirdly, she advised that it was not Fire Service

policy to give out details of how people looked when trapped in cars but, in the

programme, graphic details were given by the firefighter about a body in the car. She

felt this showed disrespect for the deceased and their families.

TV3's Response to the Complaint - 11 February 1997

The letter was not treated by TV3 as a formal complaint but sent to the producers of

the programme for comment.

Mrs Forrest's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 19 February

1997

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Mrs Forrest referred her complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mrs Forrest did not believe that TV3 had handled her complaint properly. She wrote:

I feel it is up to Television 3 to deal with this as they were the ones to air the

programme, even if they had no hand in the making of it as the letter states.

In respect of the substantive part of her complaint, she wrote:

I feel that my letter to them [TV3] was quite clear as to what offended myself

and fellow Volunteer Firefighters, ie:- the paid firefighters are trained better and

are more competent handling incidents than the Volunteer brigades, the sexist

remarks stating that the NZ Fire Service was a male dominated profession for

the big, strong and tough, but most importantly giving specific dates, times,

and details of the motor vehicle accident and the details of how the victims and

the deceased looked, and how the firefighter was so distressed that he beat an

innocent member of the public up after a period of time.

It is NOT Fire Service policy to behave in any of the manners that were

reported.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 11 March 1997

TV3 commented that it had not considered the letter to it from Mrs Forrest to have

constituted a formal complaint. However, it was now prepared to treat it as such.

In response to the substantive comment made by Mrs Forrest, TV3 wrote that the

producer set out to demonstrate, through one person's story, that even paid

professionals with a publicly perceived "macho" image were still vulnerable and not

immune to stress and lasting trauma from the awful situations they were thrust into. It

contended that there was no implied or direct criticism of volunteers in the

programme. Many of the comments about bravery, stress and hard work it advised

could be applied to professional or volunteer firefighters. The programme was not, it

wrote, a record of the accident following it through from beginning to end

acknowledging everyone who contributed.

The details of the horror of the crash, TV3 said, were needed in order to show why the

firefighter suffered the stress he did, and not to include them would have compromised

the purpose of the programme. The reference to the firefighter attacking a member of

the public was to show what can happen when stress is not identified and, TV3

argued, dealt with and did not suggest that all firefighters should attack members of the

public.

TV3 said that while there was no mention of women firefighters there was nothing

gender specific about the programme and that it would have been patronising and out

of context to have commented separately about their work.

Mrs Forrest's Final Comment - 25 March 1997

Mrs Forrest reiterated her concern that the programme was discriminatory against and

misleading about volunteers. In particular she referred to the comments made by the

firefighter interviewed about the receipt of the call from the volunteer advising the

firefighters about the accident.

Mrs Forrest also reiterated her concerns about whether the victim's families were

consulted about the programme, and the sexism inherent in the reference to the macho

image of the Fire Service.