Complaint
The ECU investigated concerns raised about the behaviour of a film crew commissioned by the 91福利社 to interview an individual about their social media activity and images of cruelty to cats. The complainant argued their privacy had been breached in the making of the film. The ECU considered whether the 91福利社 had met the relevant standards set out in the 91福利社 Editorial Guidelines.
Outcome
The Editorial Guidelines on Privacy make clear 鈥渁ny infringement of an individual's privacy without their consent must be justified by demonstrating that the intrusion is outweighed by the public interest.鈥 The ECU considered the nature of the investigation, that someone had been posting images of tortured cats online, justified the gathering of information about the complainant for journalistic purposes. Having reviewed a recording of an attempt to interview the complainant, it also found no evidence to support a claim that they were physically threatened.
The ECU agreed, however, that it was inappropriate and a breach of standards that the film crew failed to disclose the approach was on behalf of the 91福利社 and that the complainant was told by one of the crew via an intercom that they were a real estate agent.
The ECU understood a request to carry out a doorstep interview had been approved by the 91福利社鈥檚 Editorial Policy team, but that the crew, which was assigned to do this, failed to follow specific directions. An email briefing the team required them to say: 鈥We are working for the 91福利社. We want to ask you about the videos you post online of cats being tortured鈥.
The 91福利社 did not broadcast any part of the interview.
Partly Upheld
Further action
The finding was reported to the management of 91福利社 News and discussed with the relevant team