The registrar received a complaint against M-Net, the subscription broadcaster, concerning its
regular programme, Carte Blanche. The complainant argued that he had been prejudiced in a programme concerning so called “bad oil” at a fish outlet. He had, incorrectly, been referred to as the owner of the outlet concerned while he was acting on behalf of his wife who was the owner. He said that he stated that he was not the owner. M-Net argued that the impression had been created that the complainant was indeed the owner of the Something Fishy outlet complained of. He did not state to them that he was not the owner.
We have no doubt the complaint is not the owner of the shop of which he was referred to as being the owner. We also agree that he must have been hurt substantially by the programme. On the other hand it is also true that his mere presence created the impression that he was the owner. The question, accordingly, is whether the broadcaster should have taken more steps than it did. The test would be whether the reasonable broadcaster in the same position as M-Net would have made further inquiries before it broadcast the insert on Bad Oil? Of course this is not always an easy question to answer. News commentary programmes need to reach the public with the latest news and should not be hampered unreasonably in this regard. Although it is not the task of this Commission to judge reporters, it is also true that conduct of a reporter could lead to a finding against a broadcaster, which is subject to the Code to which they have agreed. Given the extreme relevance of the ownership of the outlet involved and the enormous influence that an error in this regard could have on the standing of a person who is also in the business but not the owner of that particular outlet, the Tribunal is of the view that the reporter should have undertaken a more careful inquiry. The reference to the complainant as the owner was, accordingly, “not made on facts truly stated” as required by clause 35 of the Code.
The complaint was upheld.