Otago
Daily Times
December 17, 1997
Press council upholds complaint
NZPA
Wellington: The
decision by the editor of the Kapiti Mail to run a
photograph on his front page depicting two young girls involved in an alleged
abduction has been strongly criticised by the New Zealand Press Council.
The photograph, published under the heading "Abduction was a hoax"
told the story of two young sisters, a 10-year-old and a 3-year-old, who
wandered away from where they should have been to a local park.
They were found there by an older brother who told them they would be in
trouble at home for wandering away.
The 10-year-old, afraid of the consequences, then fabricated a story that she
had been grabbed by a man and shoved into the back of a car but that she had
managed to escape.
The parents believed her and reported the allegation to Paraparaumu
police who followed it up, spending much time knocking on doors and appealing
for information.
The news media were alerted. Within 36 hours it was established there was no
truth to the story and the media advised accordingly.
During the time police were working on the case, the parents supplied a
photograph of their daughters to the police on the firm understanding it would
be published only for the initial inquiry and that it could not be published
unless the faces of the girls were blacked out completely.
On this understanding the police supplied a copy of the photograph to the Kapiti Mail on the same conditions, the press council said.
The colour photograph of the girls (the 3-year-old entirely innocent) was
reproduced with the faces of the girls blurred but both were wearing
distinctive clothing. The parents immediately complained to the police and to
the newspaper.
The Area Controller of Kapi Mana
police, Mr C. G. O'Fee, also complained to the
editor.
There was no doubt the girls were identified by others and subject to unwanted
attention and harassment over the incident, which also caused distress to their
family, the council said.
In his reply to the controller, the editor, Richard Woodd,
said when it was revealed there had been no abduction he decided to publish the
photo "purely to illustrate the seriousness of the situation and to
illustrate the lengths to which police went to deal with it. I was impressed by
the way the police handled this incident and I feel the public should be aware
of the effort."
The photograph had been sent to the scanning department with the instruction
that the faces be obscured.
"Unfortunately, this instruction was not completely followed. However, it
is not possible to identify these girls from their faces," Mr Woodd told the council.
The evidence available to the council indicated the children were easily
identified from the photograph.
In his response to the press council, Mr Woodd said
he was distressed when the photograph appeared without the blacking out of the
faces.
"It appeared the scanner operator chose to `muddy' the facial features but
not sufficiently to remove their features. I believe I did everything required
of me to disguise the girls' identity."
The use of the word "hoax" in the headline was due to the fact that
the reporter on the story told him the girls' story had turned out to be a
hoax.
"I was making up the front page at the time and it was a word that fitted
nicely. I agree that in hindsight it was not an appropriate word for the
circumstance."
The press council said the photograph of the girls was supplied to the police
and by the police to the newspaper with firm conditions.
No matter that the editor issued instructions that the faces in the photograph
were to be blacked out, the fact that the photograph was used at all was of
great concern to the council.
The newspaper was aware that the story the 10-year-old had concocted was false,
yet went ahead with publishing the photograph on the front page.
The council considered there was an overriding public interest to protect
children and young people from unnecessary media attention, of which this was
an example.
The council has no great difficulty with the article itself which covered the background,
but the use of the word "hoax" in the headline was unjustified.
The complaint was upheld.