Journalistic responses
To my surprise, Southern Cross Ten did respond to my earlier complaint about their story on a device that uses water to improve fuel efficiency. Commendation to them for following the issue up and taking the time to respond in full.
Commendation reduced for missing the point.
The letter I received did address what I thought was a breach of the Code of Practice in presenting factual material accurately. Apparently the code requires accuracy only in presentation of factual material. They claim the story was an expression of opinion and thus slides conveniently underneath the accuracy requirement. In my opinion, that's a fine line!
The clincher though was the rebuttal to my claim that by broadcasting the story the network had promoted the business.
The purpose of the story was to tell viewers about a newsworthy product. Network TEN did not endorse or vouch for that product and care was taken to ensure the story reported the claims and opinions of its creators.
One might wonder why a television news show chose a backyard product, strangely missing from every other mainstream media channel, as a "newsworthy" story. But the larger problem here, as I see it, is the admission of irresponsibility in selecting articles for broadcast - there is no suggestion that the broadcasters realise that by broadcasting a news story they are implicitly promoting and validating the content. In fact, the injudicious manner is quite evident.
The letter concludes by thanking me for the fifth time, and suggesting that if I have "strong concerns about the authenticity of the product" that I'm welcome to contact the manufacturers. A website link is included. A colleague suggested a fitting analogy to this suggestion: imagine if a television station decided to air a story on the business opportunity offered by a Nigerian banker, who only required your bank details and a small deposit to guarantee tens of thousands of dollars income per week. Would it seem right that broadcasting the story is ethical, because it's only the opinion of the Nigerian banker that you'll receive tens of thousands of dollars? And what if I had "strong concerns about the authenticity" of the banker's claims? Why wouldn't I just take those concerns up with the banker themselves?
There will always be scammers in the world, and they don't give a hoot whether any particular person thinks they're scammers. The best way to deal with them is to ignore them, and certainly not to give them prime time exposure on free-to-air television!