On December 16, 2024, during its 6:00 pm newscast CTV News at Six, CTV Toronto (CFTO-DT) broadcast a report about the housing situation faced by refugees arriving in Toronto from Syria. Earlier in the year, the Canadian government had agreed to accept a significant number of refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war. The report included interviews with representatives from an Armenian Cultural Centre who alleged that the refugees were having trouble securing housing because landlords were asking for a year’s worth of rent payments and documentation such as proof of employment and credit checks, which the newly-arrived individuals did not have.
The report then showed the CTV reporter entering the offices of a property management company alleged to have refused tenancy to Syrian refugees. The reporter announced “We’re with CTV. We’re trying to find someone we can talk to.” A woman approached the reporter and spoke to him, but their conversation was inaudible because CTV overlaid narration for the report. The view of her was also partially blocked by the reporter’s back due to the position of the cameraperson behind him. The woman was then seen walking away holding what was presumably the reporter’s business card. The footage then switched to an interview with the vice-president of the property management company who indicated that this was the first he was hearing of any difficulties for refugees and would look into the matter.
The complaint, filed on January 11, 2024, came from the woman shown in the report. She wrote that the reporter had not informed her that the camera was actually filming, nor had he asked her permission to be filmed or provided any other indication that she might appear on the evening news. She felt that her privacy had been violated.
CTV Toronto responded to her on February 1. CTV pointed out that its reporter had clearly identified himself and the cameraperson had been clearly visible beside him when they entered the company’s offices. CTV suggested that the woman could have advised the CTV news team at that time that she did not want to appear on camera. The station also pointed out that the woman was not identified in the segment and only appeared for seven seconds, three of which had her obscured by the reporter standing in front of her. CTV regretted that the footage had troubled her, but believed the story had been handled responsibly and professionally.
The complainant wrote back to both the broadcaster and the CBSC on Feburary 1. She argued that she should not have been expected to know to ask not to be filmed since the reporter did not even inform her that the camera was on. She also wrote that the fact that she only appeared on screen for a short time did not lessen its impact on her. She asked whether the reporter was required to inform her that the camera was filming or to ask for her consent to be included in the report.
The English-Language Panel examined the complaint under Article 4 (Privacy) of the Radio Television Digital News Association of Canada’s (RTNDA) Code of Ethics which reads as follows:
Electronic journalists will respect the dignity, privacy and well-being of everyone with whom they deal, and will make every effort to ensure that newsgathering and reporting does not unreasonably infringe privacy except when necessary in the public interest. Clandestine newsgathering techniques should only be used when necessary to the credibility or accuracy of a story in the public interest.
The Panel Adjudicators read all of the correspondence and viewed a recording of the challenged broadcast. The Panel concludes that CTV Toronto did not breach Article 4 of theRTDNA Code of Ethics.
The Panel considers that there is no requirement under the RTDNA Code of Ethics to alert people that they are being recorded; there are, however, limitations on clandestine newsgathering, as indicated in Article 4 above. The Panel Adjudicators determine, from the angle of the footage, that the cameraperson had to be holding the camera on his shoulder, in plain view of the complainant. Camerapeople usually carry their cameras in their hands when they are not filming and on the shoulder when they are. As a result, in the view of the Panel, there were no clandestine newsgathering techniques used in the filming of the story.
The Panel was also faced with the question of whether the broadcaster should have requested permission from the complainant to film her and to air the seven-second footage where she appeared in full view or partly hidden by the reporter.
The Panel Adjudicators unanimously agree that the broadcaster did not need specific permission to film the complainant and air the footage during the newscast. She was not identified, was not asked to make a statement, only appeared briefly on screen and the footage was taken in a place accessible to the public. In addition, the footage was part of a newscast on a matter of public interest and the complainant worked for one of the property management companies allegedly involved in refusing housing to Syrian refugees on reasonable terms.
Therefore the Panel Adjudicators conclude that CTV Toronto did not breach Article 4 of the RTDNA Code of Ethics by airing the seven-second footage in which the complainant appeared.
In all CBSC decisions, the Panels assess the broadcaster’s response to the complainant. The broadcaster need not agree with the complainant’s position, but it must respond in a courteous, thoughtful and thorough manner. In this case, CTV Toronto provided a reasonable reply to the complainant, explaining its news team’s actions. The broadcaster fulfilled its obligations of responsiveness and nothing further is required in this regard in this instance.
Have your say: