Erin Ellis against Radio New Zealand and The Blenheim Sun

Radio New Zealand ran an article on October 6, 2024, headlined Three dead after car crashes into Marlborough river. The story was based on a Police summary of what happened in the accident and their recovery of bodies from the scene. The story also showed a photograph of the car after it had been lifted from the river.

The story and photograph were also published in the Blenheim Sun.

Erin Ellis, who lost her son in the accident, complained that she had been hounded by reporters who would not take no for an answer at a time when she was extremely vulnerable. That element of the complaint, which was addressed to several news organisations, was not taken further.

However, she said publication of the photo was insensitive and disgusting and no parent or family member needed to see it.

“I feel that the use of the pictures stated was a breach of privacy, not only to us as the family, but to our 3 children that died. We did not want to see the images; I personally did not want to see the vehicle that my son passed away in. However, that choice was taken away when it was published in the above articles. It seems that RNZ feel that the public interest was more important than the family, friends and the community that the tragedy has affected. I personally feel that this is incorrect. They could have run the story like many other media without the use of the image of the vehicle.

In response RNZ acknowledged the difficult personal circumstances outlined in the complaint. Although the circumstances were tragic this did not diminish the public interest. 

While the photo was distressing to the complainant, RNZ said it was required to weigh the public interest against any downside to publication. It did not accept there had been a breach of Media Council principles.

The Blenheim Sun said it accepted that the photo of the crashed car caused distress and apologised for that. But it maintained the photo was newsworthy, had wide public interest and its publication was not a breach of privacy.

The Media Council sympathises with the complainant as she continues to grieve her son’s death.

The Council’s privacy principle says those suffering from trauma or grief call for special consideration. It also sets out that everyone is normally entitled to privacy of person, space and personal information and that these rights should be respected by publications. It also says that nevertheless the right of privacy should not interfere with publication of significant matters of public record or public interest.

Principle (11) Photographs and Graphics, also states that photographs showing distressing or shocking situations should be handled with special consideration to those affected.

Editors are often required to weigh these ethical considerations when reporting tragic accidents. It goes without saying that images convey a lot of information and can help people understand what happened. That is why news outlets commonly run photos of accident scenes or of crashed vehicles, boats or planes.

The Council accepts such photos may be particularly upsetting to those personally affected but it also understands that this must be weighed alongside the legitimate wider public interest in understanding what happened.

This was a serious accident in which three young people were tragically killed when their car ran off the road and crashed into a river. The photo showed largely the underneath of a car suspended upside down from a crane after it had been lifted from the river. No bodies were shown and no personal details could be gleaned from the image. Even the make of car would not be identifiable to most readers.  But the picture provided context and showed where the crash happened.

The Council did not believe the photo was gratuitous or that its publication breached its principles relating to privacy or the use of photos.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.