OTTAWA – A news report which aired on CHEK News at Five on July 19, 2010 has been ruled to be unfair and an invasion of privacy by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC).
The newscast’s lead story dealt with the death of a family of raccoons in Esquimalt, British Columbia. It was reported that an individual had killed a mother and a baby raccoon with a hockey stick, and that the SPCA was investigating the incident. The report named the husband, who had allegedly killed the animals, and his wife – who had not herself been connected to the incident – and provided their home address.
The news report included no information regarding any judicial or police involvement or charges, nor any balancing interviews or perspective regarding the allegations. The CBSC’s B.C. regional panel concluded that the report was neither comprehensive nor fair and thus in violation of Article 1 of the RTNDA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics.
The panel ruled that while the station was entitled to report on the event it was extremely risky without such a “stamp of disapproval” by authorities to identify individuals allegedly associated with the extermination of the raccoons. The CHEK-TV news story also identified by name the individual associated, the station asserted, with the death of the raccoons, as well as his wife, despite the fact that she had no alleged connection with incident.
The reporter also included a “prejudicial statement by a neighbour characterizing aspects of the targeted couple’s home life,” which had nothing to do with the story of dead wildlife. The panel concluded that it was “neither comprehensive nor fair; evidence of the reporter’s bias; and that it failed the test of “enabl[ing] people to know what is happening, and to understand events so that they may form their own conclusions.” It was thus in violation of Article 1 of the RTNDA Code of Ethics and Clause 5 of the CAB Code of Ethics.
In finding a breach of Article 4 of the RTNDA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics, the Panel concluded that the naming of the husband, who, it was claimed, had killed the animals, and the wife, who had no connection whatsoever to the events constituted a breach of their privacy. The fact that their names were removed from later broadcasts of the story does not alleviate the broadcaster of responsibility for the stories it ran with their names included.
