« Three cheers for the OIA and one for the government | Main | Churnalism exposed »
QuakePorn
By Steven | February 23, 2011
Yes, it’s helpful to the country to understand the gravity of the disaster in Christchurch. Yes, we should cut news crews some slack when they’ve got to edit on the hoof. Yes, most of the coverage I’ve seen on TVNZ and TV3 has been responsible.
But I think the highlights packages of bleeding-head woman, bandage man, howling woman, and others similarly injured or distraught, repeated over and over and over again, is crossing the line. Someone make them stop.
[Tim Watkin over at Pundit takes issue with me in his comments thread. I join battle.]
Topics: Broadcasting Standards Authority, Media ethics | 56 Comments »
56 Responses to “QuakePorn”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Someone make them stop.
The BSA?
Because I’ve been thinking that too since it first started.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Well, the BSA doesn’t have injunctive powers. But privacy complaints can be taken straight there.
I had in mind their heads of news and current affairs, or some wise heads in the reporting staff, or their in-house legal counsel, or some outraged members of the public.
Dr Nicole Moreham might suggest an invasion of privacy lawsuit (see the discussions on Pike River privacy in recent months).
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:25 pm
I don’t suppose the BSA has the power to fine reporters for hyperbole does it?
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:30 pm
No.
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Yes I agree!! One of the first things I thought when seeing the footage (I had it on TV from about 4pm to 8pm) I thought about how invasive some of the footage was and wondered how many complaints would be filed with the BSA (this should be a compliment to you Steven, I took your privacy paper last semester and the BSA was one of the first things that popped into my head after watching it on tv, followed by the possibility of invasion of privacy lawsuits)!
Some of the footage goes far far beyond any kind of public interest there could be to justify it, and some of it is just shocking. I would be outraged if I had been videoed in some of the situations, especially of people receiving medical care, or covered in blood.
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Some of the videos posted online, especially the early ones, in my view, come close to the tortious line. BSA however cannot get at them until they are broadcast on the box.
Maybe an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy is reduced at a time or in such an event and when the suffering isn’t confined to a particular individual but is across a large number of individuals all similarly situated in the event. But the counter to this is that the media focus on particular individuals to symbolise or represent or to provide an insight into individuals situation (… if we think that is what the media is doing).
Unless someone is well heeled (and haven’t suffered monetary loss from the quake or is not occupied by it all) I won’t hold my breath for something to appear in the High/District Court.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:51 am
[…] I have little agreement with those who complain of media exploitation — for two examples, see Steven Price and Jonathan Green — although their arguments are understandable. I think most […]
March 8th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Interesting post Steven. We discussed this on the first day of Journalism Ethics and Law at AUT.
What I’m concerned about is the BSA’s time limits for complaints. For those affected by the quake, making a complaint might be important to them but they might have other more essential and urgent priorities during recovery, or might not realise they want to make a complaint until later on.
I wonder whether the BSA will allow delays in complaints given the circumstances?
March 8th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
The deadline is statutory and there is no flexibility.
May 29th, 2020 at 2:43 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
June 12th, 2020 at 3:14 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
June 19th, 2020 at 7:52 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
June 26th, 2020 at 8:25 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 54746 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
July 5th, 2020 at 6:20 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
July 17th, 2020 at 2:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
July 17th, 2020 at 5:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
July 24th, 2020 at 9:46 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
August 5th, 2020 at 7:21 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
August 23rd, 2020 at 12:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 60003 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 6:46 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 75300 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
August 31st, 2020 at 4:00 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
September 5th, 2020 at 1:40 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
September 30th, 2020 at 7:07 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
October 14th, 2020 at 10:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
October 20th, 2020 at 4:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
October 25th, 2020 at 4:07 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
November 5th, 2020 at 4:03 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
November 13th, 2020 at 1:10 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
November 24th, 2020 at 3:27 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
November 27th, 2020 at 4:57 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 83288 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
December 19th, 2020 at 12:16 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 82175 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
January 6th, 2021 at 3:28 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
January 17th, 2021 at 5:01 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
January 20th, 2021 at 11:15 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
January 21st, 2021 at 5:13 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 68470 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
January 27th, 2021 at 4:58 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
February 12th, 2021 at 6:53 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
February 15th, 2021 at 8:56 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
March 3rd, 2021 at 9:12 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
April 11th, 2021 at 12:40 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
April 14th, 2021 at 11:15 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
May 20th, 2021 at 9:25 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 4120 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
June 26th, 2021 at 12:15 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 3425 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
June 26th, 2021 at 11:55 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 3:14 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
July 11th, 2021 at 4:57 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
September 4th, 2021 at 1:37 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
October 15th, 2021 at 7:54 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
October 27th, 2021 at 5:08 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
November 11th, 2021 at 12:36 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
November 13th, 2021 at 12:53 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
December 18th, 2021 at 1:29 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 26144 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
February 5th, 2022 at 7:30 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
February 8th, 2022 at 2:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
February 13th, 2022 at 4:29 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 59122 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]
February 14th, 2022 at 1:15 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 95108 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=436 […]