1st December, 2008

The Chief Operating Officer,

TVWorks Ltd,

Private Bag 92624,

Symonds Street,

Auckland, 1150.

Dear Mr Friesen,

Re: Formal complaint about TV3 News, 18 Nov 2008

The following story appeared on TV3 News on Tuesday, 18 November, 2008.

The future of the polar bear is under threat

INTRO by newsreader, Samantha Hayes: The future of the polar bear is under threat with claims that global warming is destroying its ability to find food to survive. In some parts of the Arctic the animal’s number [sic] are declining rapidly but in other parts they’re increasing. ITV’s Lawrence McGinty went to northern Canada to investigate.

Video item from ITV

LM: On the shores of the Hudson Bay it’s minus 40 — cold, but not cold enough for the polar bears. They’re desperate to get back on to sea ice, where they can hunt seals. But the sea ice is forming late. ***These bears haven’t eaten for four or five months. They’re losing weight rapidly, two pounds every day.*** They’re under stress. No one knows that more than Dr Steven Anstrupp. He’s studied polar bears in Alaska for three decades. He joined me on our tundra buggy to explain the evidence behind the decision to list the polar bear as threatened. Evidence like cannibalism.

SA (Polar bear researcher): Large adult males that were clearly stalking, killing and eating other bears. So it wasn’t a situation where bears were having a fight over a mate, or something like that, and one of them was killed in the process, and the other bear decided well, as long as I’ve got a dead bear here, I’ll go ahead and eat it. It was actual stalking and killing and then consuming other animals. Now that sort of thing we just hadn’t seen in all the years I’d been there.

LM: Capturing and studying bears on sea ice, as Steven Anstrupp does, is becoming more and more dangerous, one reason why they’re looking at this device, an infra-red camera, that might be able to detect pregnant bears in their dens below the snow from the heat they give out. Within half an hour the heat-seeking camera had spotted a pregnant bear dug in below the snow, showing up as a black blob. …[radio chatter]… Knowing how many bears give birth in dens is important, because scientists believe bears are still having cubs, but they’re not surviving.

Ian Stirling (Polar bear researcher): I don’t see a lot around me to be optimistic about, quite frankly. This is the most serious thing that’s happened in recorded history and we really have to do something about it, collectively.

LM: All this doesn’t mean that the polar bear is on the brink of extinction. Its grip on this icy world is ever more perilous.

*** Marks a passage of six seconds, during which bears are shown on sea ice, with leads in the ice clearly visible, showing they do have access to the water.

This story breached standards of accuracy, with unsubstantiated claims and untruths. The numbered paragraphs catalogue specific instances.

1.

The newsreader claims that “the future of the polar bear is under threat” and that ”global warming is destroying its ability to find food to survive.” Nowhere in the subsequent commentary is this explained or supporting evidence provided—in fact, incredibly, the claim isn’t mentioned again. The claim, unsubstantiated, cannot be shown to be true. It is untrue, misleading and unnecessarily alarming.

2.

The story contradicts itself. The newsreader’s first sentence (”the polar bear is under threat”) contradicts Mr McGinty’s penultimate sentence, which denies “that the polar bear is on the brink of extinction.” In contradicting itself, the story fails to be true and accurate.

3.

McGinty contradicts himself in his last sentence. The statement “its grip on this icy world is ever more perilous” contradicts the assertion that “this doesn’t mean that the polar bear is on the brink of extinction.” In contradicting itself, the story fails to be truthful and accurate.

4.

McGinty informs us that minus 40 degrees (whether Celsius or Fahrenheit is not stated, so it is ambiguous, which is inaccurate) is not cold enough for the polar bears. But he does not tell us why it is not cold enough. As the video shows happy polar bears play-fighting in the snow, and it is common knowledge that Arctic temperatures regularly range through minus 40 degrees (either Celsius or Fahrenheit) and higher, this assertion is inaccurate, untrue and unsubstantiated.

5.

Mr McGinty, apparently able to discern the emotional state of polar bears, tells us they are “desperate” to get back on to sea ice to hunt seals. Then he states “but the sea ice is forming late” so there is none (he implies) to get back on to. This is false, as we show.

The item was broadcast on 18 November. At the usual mid-September Arctic sea ice minimum extent (after the summer melt season, and two months before the broadcast), it was the second-smallest on record. But it recovered faster than at any time in the period of record (1980 to the present), so on 18 November it was greater than it has been at that time for about the last five years. A graph of Arctic sea ice extent can be found at http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm. Below is the graph for 27 November:

The sea ice was not late to form, for there was more ice than in the last few years and it was forming quickly. The statement is false.

6.

McGinty says the bears have not eaten for four or five months. Only during the winter hibernation do the bears fail to eat for several months; but the broadcast occurs before hibernation, at the end of the summer, when activity is the highest of the year and it is highly unlikely the bears have not been eating. The filming may have been done at the end of winter, since it shows one occupied den, though we are not told. But during winter there is no shortage of sea ice, so it falsifies the earlier claims the bears cannot find any and it’s not cold enough. The statement is monumentally false and misleading.

7.

There is a curious graphical contradiction. At the very moment that McGinty says “these bears haven’t eaten,” the scene shows bears walking on none other than the sea ice we were told is not forming, with leads clearly visible showing they have access to the water. It presents a weird incongruity with the commentary—like describing heavy rain while displaying sunshine. The sequence is misleading.

8.

We’re introduced to a scientist, Dr Steven Anstrupp, who studies polar bears, and the subject flips to the reasons the bears have been declared threatened, such as cannibalism. The idea of cannibalism is shocking, but it is no reason for the bears to be threatened, nor is any other threat elucidated in the commentary. No rate of cannibalism amongst bear populations is given, so it might be confined to just a few individuals. No explanation for this aberrant behaviour is ventured, so it could be a natural response to overcrowding caused by a growing population or by encroachment by human settlements, but nothing is said about it. It’s almost as though the topic is mentioned simply to be alarming, for that’s all that is said and no conclusion is offered. The material is unnecessarily alarming.

9.

Next we’re told that capturing bears on sea ice is becoming more and more dangerous. We are left to wonder why, since neither Mr McGinty nor the TV3 newsroom are going to assist us. The statement is unnecessarily alarming and/or untrue.

10.

Then, we hear that using the infra-red camera to learn about the numbers of cubs is important, since they’re not surviving. Why are they not surviving? How many are not surviving? How do we know they’re not surviving? One is wary of asking questions, having by now learned the uselessness of curiosity around this seasoned reporter. The statement is unnecessarily alarming and untrue.

11.

A researcher suddenly says “this is the most serious thing that’s happened in recorded history and we really have to do something about it, collectively.” Crikey, that’s worrying! But what is it that has happened? You have not told us! And what can we do? This offends against the very spirit of the privilege of public broadcasting. It is unnecessarily alarming and untrue.

This story requires a retraction, corrections and an apology. TV3 are as culpable for the errors as the original provider. Following a complaint by the Climate Conversation Group, you were advised by the Broadcasting Standards Authority in Decision No. 2008-024, dated 5 June, 2008, of “the difficulties inherent in broadcasting a news item which has been taken directly from another organisation, without having done independent research to check the information contained in the item”.

It is at least delinquent and at worst frankly stupid for a leading television station to publish a story with so many strong defects. It contains, it has to be said, the most bewildering series of assertions the writer has heard on public television outside Fawlty Towers. I sat there shaking my head in disbelief. This was not some two-bit documentary filler, but the national news, but who could tell what it was trying to say?

I await your response, sir, with a keen hope, first, that you will apologise to your public for these clear failures; and second, that reason might prevail and bring changes in your newsroom. Your people are surely professional enough not to use items from other providers without decent consideration; so it becomes a matter of great concern that they have chosen to use this item even in the face of its deficiencies. One must wonder at their motives.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Treadgold

Convenor,

Climate Conversation Group.