Press Council ruling on photo

The Press Council has upheld two complaints against the Herald over a photograph of a young girl.

The complaints were made by YouthLaw Tino Rangatiratanga Taitamariki, a national community law centre that offers a range of services to children and young people up to the age of 25, and the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.

The coloured photograph, published on June 12, filled about 60 per cent of a front page, boxed story headed "Child speedster run off the road" and captioned "Joyride Over: The 11-year-old girl sits safely in the back of a squad car after pursuing police cars forced her stolen vehicle into a brick fencepost to make her stop."

The child's eyes were blocked out by a black rectangle.

The complainants based their objections on three Press Council principles: the right to privacy, the need for particular care and consideration in reporting on children and young people, and the need to take care in photographic and image selection and treatment.

They also made reference to aspects of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Press Council said.

The second complainant, in its initial letter to the Herald, said: "The young girl was identified by both her extended family in the community (some of whom were unaware of her arrest), by peers and other residents of West Auckland. The repercussions of the publication included emotional distress for all family members and in particular for younger siblings in the school environment."

Both complainants acknowledged that the Herald made an effort to protect the girl's identity but believed this to have been insufficient.

In a reply to the complainants, Herald deputy editor Tim Murphy rejected the claim that the Press Council's principles had been breached.

"The obscuring of the young girl's identifying facial characteristics was conducted with real care, and the image was amended more than once at the duty editor's request to ensure she could not be identified, the black square being enlarged in each instance," Mr Murphy said.

He said the story had obvious significant public interest, a consideration recognised in the Press Council's privacy principle as one of the reasons for not treating the right to privacy as being absolute.

The complainants approached the Press Council because they were not satisfied with the responses from the Herald.

Youthlaw repeated points made earlier to the editor, and drew attention to the Herald's different treatment of a name-suppression case in the same month, where the whole of the face was obscured (by pixillation, or blurring), the Press Council said in its finding.

The second complainant said the Herald's attempt to conceal the identity of the child was futile, whereas complete obscuring of her face would not have been.

In his response to the complaints the deputy editor said the paper's aim was "to protect the girl's identity while still showing her age - which was highly pertinent given the circumstances.

He said the council's principles were explicitly considered and a number of staff consulted, resulting in the black strip being twice widened and deepened.

Mr Murphy said the Herald had no desire to identify the child. Her identity was not important. Her extreme youth, clearly conveyed by the non-identifying facial features and head, was directly relevant.

He also said the photograph was taken at a distance.

The Press Council said it accepted the Herald's statement that close consideration was given to the issues raised by the opportunity to publish a photograph of the girl at the centre of this dramatic and highly newsworthy incident.

It also recognised that decisions about its publication had to be made under great pressure of time, and that weighing competing rights and interest in such circumstances was a severe test of professional judgment.

But the council said the steps the Herald took to conceal the identity of the child were insufficient, and it erred in treating the child's eyes as her sole identifying feature.

It said its assessment was supported by Child, Youth and Family's statement that the child had been identified and that the photograph caused distress.

As a consequence of this inadequate care with the photograph, the child's right of privacy was infringed, the council said.

The child should have been protected from being identified, and from the consequences of that disclosure.

- NZPA