VTM, a Flemish commercial television station, was recently ordered to pay €10,000 in damages for improper journalistic practices (NV Food Dynamics v Vlaamse Media Maatschappij). Some observers consider that the judgment sets unreasonably high standards for journalists. The court was clearly troubled by the fact that a party which was subject to a judicial inquiry was condemned by the news item's presentation of facts.
On January 10 2003 a Brussels court issued a judgment against the television station for broadcasting a news item in which the plaintiff was named in relation to a trade in illegal hormonal products.
The news broadcast showed hidden camera footage in which a farmer was shown buying products out of the trunk of a car from an unidentifiable representative of the plaintiff. The footage was selected from a broadcast aired by a French television station. The next day the same footage was used and it was stated that the suspect worked for the plaintiff, and further, that the plaintiff has links to the trade in hormonal products. It was added that this company denied being part of such trade.
The court stated that hormonal products can be legal, but that the way in which the news item was presented equated hormonal products with forbidden products.
Soon after the incident the judicial inquiry ended and the company was cleared. The investigation showed that the products sold were only herbal food additives, in which the company normally trades.
The court began by outlining the relevant principles of journalistic behaviour. A journalist must inform the public as objectively and fully as possible, and with the utmost care, modesty, objectivity and prudence in researching and distributing news. This appears to set high standards for the profession. The court qualified this by stating that a journalist must act like any normally careful journalist would in the same circumstances.
The court then applied these principles to the facts. Before making its allegations and giving the public a certain impression, the broadcasting company should have established the nature of the substances that were actually traded, especially as this information could be obtained in a reasonable way. A laboratory report could have revealed the true nature of the traded products.
By linking the name of the company directly to the traffic of illegal hormonal products without reasonable grounds, the news item damaged the reputation of the company. Merely adding that the company denied the allegations did not remove the impression that the company was guilty.
The news item was correct when it stated that a judicial inquiry had been started against a certain company, but it went too far by showing a suspicious transaction and combining this with its own comments on hormonal products. This set of circumstances linked the company with an illegal trade in hormone products without sufficient and reasonable grounds.
As a result, the news report was not as impartial or objective as one could expect from a normal and careful journalist. The court was of the opinion that the scoop was more important to the journalist than an objective and complete news report.
For further information on this topic please contact Herman Croux or Peter Marx at Marx Van Ranst Vermeersch & Partners by telephone (+32 2 285 01 00) or by fax (+32 2 230 33 39) or by email ([email protected] or [email protected]).