OTTAWA – A news report that speculated that the sole survivor of a fatal traffic accident would also “likely die” did not breach any broadcast codes, according to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC).
The report, entitled “Fatal Highway Crash”, aired during the 11:00 pm newscast on February 19, 2010 on CTV British Columbia (CIVT-TV). The reporter, who was live at the scene, explained that a vehicle had traveled the wrong way down Highway 17 in Delta, BC and had collided with another in a fiery crash. Three people had already been declared dead and the fourth was being airlifted to hospital. She commented that “it’s not really looking good for him”, and he “will most likely die.”
The CBSC received a complaint about the reporter’s choice of words. The complainant was concerned that the reporter was inappropriately speculating on the crash victim’s condition without having any medical authority to do so, and without revealing who her sources were. He also suggested that it was insensitive towards the man’s loved ones who may have been watching the news report. CTV explained in a letter to the complainant that its reporter had obtained her information from RCMP investigators at the scene, and also noted that, despite the initial bleak prognosis, the man had in fact survived.
The CBSC’s British Columbia Regional Panel examined the complaint under the relevant provisions of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics and the Radio Television News Directors Association of Canada (RTNDA – The Association of Electronic Journalists) Code of (Journalistic) Ethics.
The Panel found the report to be accurate, fair and proper because it had been based on information available at the time. The Panel noted that the crash victim’s identity was not revealed and that the reporter was careful to use the word “likely” in suggesting the outcome rather than drawing a definitive conclusion. The Panel also pointed out that the reporter was not obligated to mention who her source was, particularly as she did not reveal a source for any of the other crash details (type of vehicles, speed, status of other passengers).
The Panel explained its reasoning in the following terms:
“While the Panel fully appreciates that the reporter was speculating as to the probable result, it does not consider that she in any way misled her audience. First, she was on the scene and, in terms of the viewers, who were not, she was in the best position to provide them with useful information that would enable them to assess the severity of the event. Second, […] she was careful to use the tempering conditional adverb “likely”. In other words, she was not baselessly predicting the outcome, she was conditionally assessing the prospect for the sole survivor of the collision. […] [T]he reporter’s words indicated that “it’s really not looking good for him” and that “the fourth person will most likely die.” Likelihood, yes. Certainty, no. Of course she was speculating as to the likely, if not then apparent, outcome. On occasion, that is precisely what a reporter needs to do to benefit the audience.”
