In seven complaints received by the ombudsman about the SRF report on the Basel professional fire department, a short scene was criticized in which the fire department was shown rescuing a man from a toilet in which he was trapped and trying unsuccessfully to revive him.
The audience thus witnessed that there was a death in the course of the firefighters' operation. The complaints mainly denounced the violation of human dignity (Werbewoche.ch reported).
Respect for human dignity is a central norm of the Radio and Television Act and the downstream SRG concession. The Journalists' Code, which the Swiss Press Council applies, also requires journalists to respect human dignity. The "journalistic guidelines" of SRF radio and television are also based on human dignity.
No violation of human dignity
Ombudsman Roger Blum does not see any violation of these basic rights in the criticized broadcast. In the film, no dead person was shown who was recognizable. Thanks to pixelation, the man was not visible - except for his hand, which was in the picture for a second. The man was thus doubly unrecognizable, neither physically (as a human body) nor individually (as a person with a face and a name), argues the SRG ombudsman.
In its statement, the SRF editorial team responsible noted that the scene was important because it made it possible to portray everyday firefighting in all its facets. This also included stressful situations. The cameraman had shot the scene with restraint and chosen a camera position that ensured the man's anonymity and directed the focus to the reporter and the firefighters.
SRF is of the opinion, even in retrospect, that the scene was edited appropriately and appropriately. In terms of the form and duration of the scene, reality was neither dramatized nor trivialized on the image and sound track. The dignity of the deceased had not been violated and his identity had been protected.
Criticism in side points
On secondary points, the Ombudsman partially upholds two complaints. Apparently, the dead man was more visible in the original version of the film. The ombudsman also criticizes the fact that the dead man's relatives were not contacted and informed before the broadcast.
As usual, SRF provided interested media with a working copy of the broadcast, including a press release, around two weeks before the film was broadcast. The material was accompanied by a note stating that the video footage was to be treated confidentially and was not to be further disseminated.
Before the film was broadcast, the newspaper had View with unauthorized frames SRF denounced to show the death of a human being. After the broadcast of the film revealed the View the name of the dead person.
In this context, the Ombudsman noted that ethical principles had not prevailed by themselves in this case, but rather that the View The editorial team had further pixelated the scene with a view to broadcasting it. In addition, the editors had apparently given up hastily on researching the identity of the deceased.
The editorial team states that the identity of the deceased was not known to anyone on site. After the shooting, the TV team asked for the identity of the deceased person in order to contact the relatives if necessary. For reasons of data protection, the authorities refrained from providing further details about the deceased person.
Ambiguous role of the gaze
According to the SRF ombudsman, the View played an ambivalent role, because the paper accused Fernsehen SRF of breaking taboos, but broke taboos itself by also showing pictures, revealing the name of the deceased and confronting the deceased's sister in advance with a view of the film that did not correspond to reality.
An eighth complaint about the SRF report criticized the fact that in another operation, two people were shown making a fire on a balcony without having given their consent for the television footage to be broadcast.
The ombudsman does not support this complaint. The audience certainly did not get a bad picture of the two people, he states. It is not apparent how they could have been portrayed negatively or incorrectly. (SDA)