OTTAWA – Ethically speaking, interviewing a child whose father was just arrested on child pornography and sex assault charges is a no-no, says the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
The organization released a decision today over Citytv’s January 25, 2005 CityPulse at Six, where it’s lead story was about a man arrested for possession of child pornography and sex assault. The report, distressingly, included an interview with the man’s young son by reporter Beatrice Politi, although his face was digitally blurred.
The broadcast provided the man’s name and a photograph of him, as well as his address. A CityPulse reporter was shown both outside and inside the man’s apartment building. “There was also a segment in which the reporter was seen in the apartment hallway speaking to a person standing in a doorway. The face of the person was digitally obscured, but the voice sounded like that of a young boy. The reporter showed the boy a photo of the accused. The boy stated that the man was his dad and that he had gone to jail,” outlines the decision.
The viewer who complained put it succinctly in her initial letter:
“I’m still bothered by what one of the reports did – a woman besides who’d I hope would have more sensitivity towards children,” it reads. “The big push that evening was about one of their reporters having an ‘exclusive’ interview. It turned out it was with the convicted man’s young son, a boy! How desperate can a local news channel be to reduce itself to such cheap promotion?
“I’m not sure if it’s illegal but I know for sure it’s unethical to interview a child without parental permissions let alone televise it. To exploit a child who is already at risk and extremely vulnerable to me seems cruel and twisted. What was CityTV thinking?”
To its credit, City immediately acknowledged its mistake in responding to the complainant.
“(The producer) replied that it was he who made the decision to air the interview and does regret the broadcast and have [sic] taken steps to ensure the reporter involved does not violate a child like this in the future,” recounts the CBSC decision.
“We made a mistake by broadcasting the interview of the little boy. Even though we hid his identity, it didn’t advance the story and was gratuitous. It was a case of something happening very late in the day, with a relatively inexperienced reporter, and a bad decision being made, by me, to run it. We should’ve given it more consideration. I apologize for any distress it caused you. I can assure you that that kind of journalism is NOT what we are about and if we could go back in time and take it out, we surely would.
“With 100 items of news in a typical newscast, we will make a mistake once in a blue moon, since we are human, but I don’t want to make excuses, I just want to apologize,” said Citytv.
A further response, by vice-president news programming Stephen Hurlbut, reads, in part: “I regret the way this story was covered. It was not in keeping with our own policy and practices, and was a result of management’s failure to appropriately communicate our fundamental values, policies and practices to the story’s producer, who is new to our newsroom.”
“The CBSC Ontario Regional Panel concluded that the news broadcast violated the privacy of the boy and did not demonstrate sensitivity towards children, contrary to provisions of the Radio Television News Directors Association of Canada (RTNDA) Code of (Journalistic) Ethics,” says the CBSC release.
“The Panel also emphasized that ‘the rules ought to be more vigilantly observed in the case of young children,’ particularly since Article 8 of the Code requires that broadcasters must ‘use special sensitivity when dealing with children.’
They [young children] are vulnerable and, where, as in this case, they add no useful information to the story being reported, there is simply no reason for their inclusion in the piece… Those who were concerned about the accused’s identity already knew his name, what he looked like, what he did for a living and where he lived. Nor was it more useful than it was wrenching to hear this young boy say that his dad ‘went to jail’. The Panel finds that the broadcaster did not display the ‘special sensitivity’ required by the Code ‘when dealing with children,’” it concludes.
Citytv 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 the CityPulse at Six news report was broadcast; 2) within the fourteen days following the broadcast 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 that written confirmation and with air check copies of the broadcasts of the two announcements which must be made by Citytv.
