I’m joining Peter Griffin in voicing surprise and dismay at the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) response to a complaint over a factual error–acknowledged by the broadcaster as wrong–as immaterial in reporting a science item. Peter has the full story; I’m not going to repeat it here. Readers will also want to read media commentator Brian Edward’s article and the comments in response to it.
What I’d like to do is quickly look at the BSA ruling, which I find instructive.
The news item reported a 10 year-old Canadian girl’s discovery of a supernova approximately 240 million light years away as being only 240 light years away. The BSA notes that TVNZ accepted their error but also rejected it as unimportant in the context of the story,
Furthermore, we consider that Mr McDonald’s complaint was dealt with adequately and appropriately by the broadcaster, which accepted that the figure was incorrect, but explained that it was not material to the item.
The key point is that the broadcaster rejects it as not important, arguing that they were presenting a general human interest event – but even there they describe it terms of a science achievement: ’[…] the item, which focused on the discovery of the supernova by a 10-year-old girl.’
The broadcaster’s response feels a little disingenuous to me. Their story features an achievement but they have, in part, inaccurately represented the achievement. (One thing that would be useful is some idea of how difficult, or not, it is to observe an event that far away using modest amateur equipment.)
A bigger problem is lurking – general standards of reporting science news, and what is acceptable.
Further down in the BSA ruling this line complains that Mr McDonald is ‘asking for too much’ –
Mr McDonald wishes to apply standards of scientific or mathematical accuracy where these are not required.
Let me see if I understand this.
The broadcaster reports a science event, but wishes to not be held to the standards expected of a science event? More fully, when their error is pointed out, they argue that inaccuracy is ‘immaterial’, and the BSA supports this?
If you are to report on a science event, the basic facts have to be accurate, surely? Isn’t that part of the territory?There’s no two ways the complaint is fussing for accuracy, but then this is a science event and reporting is about reporting accurately.
A danger here is this ruling can be read more widely allowing very poor standards of science reporting, if not reporting in general. Reasonable ’scientific or mathematical accuracy’ will always be required in science stories.
As others have pointed out, the BSA’s fining Mr McDonald is over his past complaints continuing into the future,
We have allowed him some consideration in the past and with considerable reservations will do so again on this occasion. We will not impose a costs order against Mr McDonald in this instance, but we signal very clearly that this leniency is unlikely to be repeated.
This might be seen to be silencing critics and corrections (not to mention accepting a low standard for science reporting). As Brian Edward wrote,
Like all deterrent sentences it finds its justification not in what the accused person has done in this case, but in what he or other offenders might do in future. The warning is for you and me as well as Mr McDonald.
I have a feeling this might encourage more complaints to be filed, perhaps even a whole lot more. Certainly it’s got me thinking that I will. If the broadcasters don’t accept these complaints of inaccuracy as being relevant to the item, then the BSA has just created a whole lot more work for themselves – what their ruling seems to want to discourage.
The seeming lack of good editorial filtering of this sort of error prior to going to air / print is something that bugs me. Where are the fact checkers or editors on this?
Perhaps the BSA isn’t an appropriate vehicle for this type of complaint. If so, fair enough – but what other independent means of filing these are available?
Brian Edwards suggests,
Okay … here’s what One News should do. Respond promptly to, and actively encourage, crowd-sourced corrections.
I can imagine going a step further, creating a New Zealand media counterpart to Ivan Oransky’s Retraction Watch and Embargo Watch websites – or just filing the errors to us at sciblogs, as Peter suggested.
Other articles on Code for life: