Complaints dealt with by the Communications Authority (“CA”) (released on 13 November 2013)
The CA considered the following cases which had been deliberated by the Broadcast Complaints Committee (“BCC”) –
Complaint Cases
1. Television Programme “Mark Six＜Live＞” (六合彩＜現場直播＞) 2. Television Programme “ATV Focus” (ATV 焦點) 3. Television Programme “Triumph In The Skies II” (衝上雲霄II) 4. The Control and Management of Asia Television Limited (“ATV”)
The CA also considered cases of dissatisfaction with the decisions of the Director-General of Communications (“DG Com”) on complaint cases.
Having considered the recommendations of the BCC, the CA decided –
1. that an advice be given to ATV on the complaints related to the television programme “Mark Six＜Live＞” (六合彩＜現場直播＞); 2. that no further action be taken against ATV on the complaints related to the television programme “ATV Focus” (ATV 焦點); 3. that no further action be taken against Television Broadcasts Limited (“TVB”) on the complaints related to the television programme “Triumph In The Skies II” (衝上雲霄II); 4. that the complaints related to the control and management of ATV are substantiated. As the CA has already imposed sanction on ATV for breaching the relevant licence condition, including a financial penalty of $1,000,000, no further action be taken against ATV on the complaints; and 5. to uphold the decisions of the DG Com on 29 cases of dissatisfaction with the decisions of the DG Com. (List of the cases is available in the Appendix).
13 November 2013 - 2 - Case 1 – Television Programme “Mark Six
Three members of the public complained that the Drawn Numbers of the Mark Six displayed on screen was erroneous. One complainant further alleged that the visual information about the beneficiary organisation of the Lotteries Fund introduced in the programme was also inaccurate.
The CA’s Findings
In line with the established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the representations of ATV in detail. The CA took into account the relevant aspects of the case, including the following –
Details of the Case
(a) the programme under complaint was a live telecast of the Mark Six draw conducted by the HKJC Lotteries Limited;
(b) before the draw was conducted, the host introduced the work of one of the beneficiary organisations of the Lotteries Fund. Nonetheless, pictures and the name of another organisation were shown;
(c) when the draw was completed, while the host correctly announced the six Drawn Numbers and the Extra Number, the numbers displayed on screen were inaccurate. One of the Drawn Numbers was missed and the Extra Number was shown as a Drawn Number; and
(d) in a subsequent edition of the programme, the host apologised to viewers and the concerned beneficiary organisation for showing the wrong pictures for the organisation due to a technical fault.
Relevant Provisions in the Generic Code of Practice on Television Programme Standards (“TV Programme Code”)
(a) paragraph 1A of Chapter 9 – the licensees shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the factual contents of, among others, news, are accurate; and
(b) paragraph 1 of Chapter 3 – licensees should ensure that their programmes are handled in a responsible manner.
The CA’s Considerations
The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that –
(a) as the Mark Six was a well-known and widely participated lottery event that had attracted public attention with its big sum of prize fund, the public audience would rely on the live telecast of the Mark Six draw as a major channel of immediate access to the draw results. The results and the information of the Mark Six disseminated in the programme should be regarded as news which was required to be accurate. The inaccurate visual presentation of the draw results and the beneficiary organisation were in - 3 - breach of paragraph 1A of Chapter 9 of the TV Programme Code; and
(b) the misrepresentation of the draw results in the programme could mislead viewers. The lapse has rendered ATV not having handled the programme in a responsible manner and was in breach of paragraph 1 of Chapter 3 of the TV Programme Code.
Decision
In view of the above and taken into account that the drawing process of the Mark Six was shown to viewers and the programme host had given an accurate verbal account of all the Drawn numbers and the Extra number; that the lapses were caused by the malfunction of machine and computer system; and that ATV had apologised for and rectified the mistake about the beneficiary organisation in a subsequent edition of the programme, the CA decided that ATV should be advised to observe more closely the relevant provisions of the TV Programme Code. ______
Case 2 – Television Programme “ATV Focus” (ATV焦點) broadcast on the Home and Asia Channels of ATV on 2 and 3 September 2013 at 6:35 pm – 6:50 pm and 10:55 pm – 11:00pm
Ten members of the public complained about the television programme. The main allegations were –
(a) the programme was partial, subjective and misleading;
(b) the criticisms against a Legislative Council (“LegCo”) Member were untrue, unsubstantiated, biased, misleading, unfair to her and adversely affected her reputation;
(c) a suitable opportunity for response to the programme was not provided, nor a broad range of views was included;
(d) the programme contained inaccurate remarks;
(e) the programme contained advertising material for the station and Asia Club (“亞洲會”); and
(f) the edition broadcast on 3 September 2013 denigrated the pan-democrats and only rare opportunity for response to the programme was provided.
The CA’s Findings
In line with the established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the representations of ATV in detail. The CA took into account the relevant aspects of the case, including the following –
Details of the Case
(a) the programme was identified as a personal view programme (“PVP”);
- 4 - (b) the 2 September 2013 edition discussed about a rally organised by Asia Club to protest against the findings of the investigation report of the CA concerning the control and management of ATV and a rally led by the concerned LegCo Member at the same time at the same venue criticising ATV. After the programme hostess presented the background information about the topic of discussion, an article written by a freelance journalist for ATV (hereafter referred to as the “journalist”) was presented by a voice-over against relevant news footage. The concerned journalist opined that the purpose of the LegCo Member attending the rally and unfairly criticising ATV was to get publicity and to serve her own political self-interest, and he criticised her views that ATV should not continue to hold a domestic free television programme service licence. The programme hostess then mentioned the response of the LegCo Member to the journalist’s criticisms;
(c) at the end of the segment, the programme hostess invited the audience to leave their opinions on the topic on the station’s website and mentioned that the relevant opinions would be summarized and presented in the programme; and
(d) in the 3 September edition, two pieces of comments in response to the topic left on the station’s website were presented by the two hosts.
Relevant Provisions in the TV Programme Code
(a) paragraph 1A of Chapter 9 – licensees should make reasonable efforts to ensure that the factual contents of, among others, PVPs, are accurate;
(b) paragraph 9 of Chapter 9 – unfairness to individuals or organisations featured in factual programmes, in particular through the use of inaccurate information or distortion should be avoided;
(c) paragraph 15 of Chapter 9 – licensees should take special care when their programmes are capable of adversely affecting the reputation of individuals, companies or other organisations. Licensees should take all reasonable care that all material facts are so far as possible fairly and accurately presented;
(d) paragraph 16 of Chapter 9 – where a factual programme reveals evidence of iniquity or incompetence, or contains a damaging critique of an individual or organisation, those criticised should be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond;
(e) paragraph 17of Chapter 9 – for PVPs on matters of public policy or controversial issues of public importance in Hong Kong, facts must be respected and the opinions expressed, however partial, should not rest upon false evidence; a suitable opportunity for response to the programme should be provided; and Licensees should be mindful of the need for a sufficiently broad range of views to be expressed in any series of PVPs; and
- 5 - Relevant Provision in the Generic Code of Practice on Television Advertising Standards (“TV Advertising Code”)
(a) paragraph 1 of Chapter 8 – advertising or non-programme material may be placed only at the beginning or end of a programme or in a natural break occurring therein.
The CA’s Considerations
The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that –
Nature of the Programme (a) the programme, which clearly identified itself as a PVP, should be regarded as a PVP and the relevant rules governing PVPs in the TV Programme Code were applicable;
Basis of Criticisms (b) ATV had provided copy of the newspaper report showing the opinions of the LegCo Member against ATV mentioned in the 2 September edition. ATV submitted that the concerned journalist’s criticisms against the LegCo Member were based on the concerned newspaper report, and were not made on the basis of false evidence;
Opportunity for those Criticised to Respond (c) on the morning of 2 September 2013 before the programme was broadcast, ATV had sought the LegCo Member’s responses to the journalist’s article and the LegCo Member’s response was broadcast in full after the journalist’s opinions and criticisms against her were presented;
Opportunity for Response & Broad Range of Views (d) ATV had presented comments left by the viewers on the topic on the station’s website in the 3 September edition. There was no evidence that ATV had not provided a suitable opportunity for response to the PVP and had not been mindful of the need for a sufficiently broad range of views to be expressed in the PVP series;
Indirect Advertising for ATV or Asia Club (e) the alleged advertising material for ATV and Asia Club was factual information about the rally organised by Asia Club and a factual account of the opinions expressed by the participants in the rally, which was contextually justified in the discussion of the LegCo Member’s criticisms against ATV. The journalist’s defence of ATV in the article was his personal views on the issue which did not amount to advertising material for ATV or Asia Club;
Inaccurate Factual Contents (f) while there was a factual mistake in the remark “通訊事務管理局上周裁 定 …” (English translation: CA ruled in the previous week…..) as the concerned report of the CA was released on 23 August 2013 (Friday) so that it was two weeks before the concerned edition of the programme was broadcast on 2 September 2013 (Monday), the exact release date of the CA report was not a material fact which might have an impact on the opinions expressed; and
- 6 - Denigration (g) some remarks in the 3 September edition criticised pan-democrats in general. The criticisms were personal opinions of the concerned hosts or the viewers as quoted and they were not unacceptable for broadcast in a PVP.
Decision
In view of the above, the CA considered the complaints unsubstantiated and decided that no further action should be taken against ATV. ______
Case 3 – Television Programme “Triumph in the Skies II” (衝上雲霄 II) broadcast on the Jade and HD Jade Channels of TVB on 23 July, 5 and 15 August 2013 at 9:30pm – 10:30pm
30 members of the public complained that the drama contained portrayals of women in revealing attire, bed scenes, promiscuous behaviour and male characters telling lies to their lovers, which were unsuitable for children and for broadcast at the scheduled hours during school summer holidays when children might be watching television.
The CA’s Findings
In line with the established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the representations of TVB in detail. The CA took into account the relevant aspects of the case, including the following –
Details of the Case
(a) the programme under complaint was a fictitious drama about pilots and their love stories, broadcast outside the family viewing hours (“FVH”). While there was no programme classification for the 23 July Episode, the 5 and 15 August Episodes were classified as “PG” (Parental Guidance Recommended) for occasional adult plots (部分內容涉及成人情節) and dangerous acts (危險 動作) respectively;
(b) there were portrayals of female characters in bikinis with their breast cleavages revealed in a beach scene (23 July Episode) and in a poolside party scene (15 August Episode); a woman in a bathroom scene showing her bare back with a towel covering her buttocks (23 July Episode); another woman in lingerie showing her breast cleavage in a bed scene (23 July Episode); and a woman taking off her sweater against dim lighting, with part of her bare back and shoulder caught in a glimpse (5 August Episode); and
(c) in the 23 July Episode, a male character lied to two girlfriends to cover up his dating with both of them and another male character told each of his three girlfriends a different story about his family background.
Relevant Provisions in the TV Programme Code
(a) paragraph 6 of Chapter 2 – the licensee must not show material unsuitable for children or young viewers under circumstances such that large numbers of children and young viewers might be expected to be watching television, - 7 - particularly during school holidays;
(b) paragraph 2(a) of Chapter 3 – material which is indecent, obscene, or of bad taste should not be included in programmes;
(c) paragraph 3 of Chapter 3 – the presentation of all performers must be within the bounds of propriety;
(d) paragraph 5 of Chapter 5 – at times outside the FVH, depictions of sexual behaviour or nudity must be discreet and appropriate to the story line or programme context;
(e) paragraph 1 of Chapter 8 – sufficient and reliable information about the nature and content of the programmes should be provided to enable viewers to make an informed choice about viewing for themselves and their children;
(f) paragraph 2 of Chapter 8 – licensees should consider, where appropriate, the use of clear and unambiguous warnings or labelling where there is a significant risk that viewers, particularly children, may otherwise be unprepared for material that may shock or offend them;
(g) paragraph 3 of Chapter 8 – programmes which are not generally suitable for viewing by children must be classified; and
(h) paragraph 4(c) of Chapter 8 – in a “PG” programme, the portrayal of sexual behaviour and nudity should be discreet and defensible in context.
The CA’s Considerations
The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that –
(a) the drama revolving around the lives of pilots and stewardesses would unlikely be targeting at children viewers. While the programme was broadcast during school summer holidays, it was scheduled at 9:30pm, one hour after the FVH, a time at which parents should be able to provide their children with guidance for watching television;
(b) the attire and movement of all the male and female characters in the concerned scenes were within bounds of propriety. Sensitive parts of the bodies were covered. Nothing indecent, of a bad theme, or unacceptable for broadcast in the concerned episodes of the programme outside the FVH was found; and
(c) the portrayals of male characters lying to their lovers were contextually justified for plot development and characterisation purposes. The brief and light-hearted portrayals would unlikely be considered unsuitable for a drama not targeting children and broadcast outside the FVH.
Decision
In view of the above, the CA considered the complaints unsubstantiated and decided that no further action should be taken against TVB. ______- 8 -
Appendix
List of Cases of Dissatisfaction with the DG Com’s Decisions
Title Channel Broadcast Substance of Decision being Date Complaint upheld TV Programme “News TVB Jade, 15.6.2013 Inaccuracy & Minor breach At 6:30” (六點半新聞報 HD Jade & I subtitling 道) News
TV Programme “ATV ATV Home 10.7.2013 Inaccuracy, Unsubstantiated Focus” (ATV焦點) & Asia partiality & right of reply
TV Programme “Good TVB HD 11.1.2012 Partiality Unsubstantiated Morning Hong Kong” Jade (香港早晨)
TV Programme “Tears TVB Jade 16.1.2012 Human Unsubstantiated For You” (愛與淚相隨) relationships & no warning caption
TV Programme “The TVB HD 21.1.2012 Violence Unsubstantiated Lion Roars” (我家有一 Jade 隻河東獅)
TV Programme TVB HD 21.1.2012 Indirect Unsubstantiated “Wonder Woman” (女人 Jade advertising 本色)
TV Programme TVB HD 22.1.2012 Portrayal of Unsubstantiated “Wonder Woman” (女人 Jade suicide 本色)
TV Programme Promo TVB HD 22.1.2012 Race Unsubstantiated for “What Fine Couples” Jade discrimination (“登登登對”宣傳片)
TV Programme TVB Jade & 23.1.2012 Indirect Unsubstantiated “Citywalk Chinese New HD Jade advertising Year Eve Special 2012” (Citywalk金龍吐豔迎新 歲)
TV Programme “90210 TVB J2 27.1.2012 Indecency Unsubstantiated II”
- 9 - Title Channel Broadcast Substance of Decision being Date Complaint upheld TV Programme “Flicka” TVB Pearl 29.1.2012 Violence to Unsubstantiated (真我無韁) animal
TV Programme “Story TVB HD 29.1.2012 Violence & no Unsubstantiated Of Lala’s Promotion” Jade warning caption (杜拉拉升職記)
TV Programme “Open TVB Pearl 29.1.2012 Indirect Unsubstantiated For Learning” (進修新 advertising 天地)
TV Programme “I Know TVB J2 29.1.2012 Sex content Unsubstantiated Men” (芝人口面不知 心)
TV Programme “Keroro TVB J2 1.2.2012 Sex & nudity & Unsubstantiated VI” (Keroro軍曹VI) unsuitable for children
TV Programme “DFB TVB Jade 8.2.2012 Nudity Unsubstantiated Cup 2011/2012: Holstein Kiel VS Borussia Dortmund” (德國盃 2011/2012：基爾對多蒙 特)
TV Programme “Til TVB HD 22.2.2012 Frightening to Unsubstantiated Love Do Us Lie” (結‧ Jade children 分@謊情式)
TV Programme “Keroro TVB J2 23.2.2012 Sex & unsuitable Unsubstantiated VI” (Keroro軍曹VI) for children
TV Programme “Scoop” TVB Jade 23.2.2012 Violence & Unsubstantiated (東張西望) unsuitable for broadcast during the family viewing hours (“FVH”)
TV Programme TVB HD 10.12.2012 Indirect Unsubstantiated “MegaBox綻放華麗聖 Jade advertising 誕城”
- 10 - Title Channel Broadcast Substance of Decision being Date Complaint upheld TV Programme TVB Jade & 17.6.2013 Offensive to Unsubstantiated “Bachelors At War” (求 HD Jade women & 愛大作戰) language
TV Advertisement for TVB HD 11.1.2012 Misleading claim Unsubstantiated “Weisen-U” (“胃仙U”廣 Jade 告)
TV Advertisement for TVB HD 20.1.2012 Race Unsubstantiated “Ferrero Rocher” (“金莎 Jade discrimination 朱古力”廣告)
TV Advertisement for TVB Jade 23.2.2012 Sex connotation Unsubstantiated “Wing Ming Medical & unsuitable for Shen Dun Strong Seal broadcast during Pills” (“永明製藥神盾 the FVH 海狗丸”廣告)
TV Programme Promo TVB HD 22.1.2012 Offensive to Outside the remit for “Twilight” (“吸血新 Jade Chinese culture of the 世紀”宣傳片) Broadcasting (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance
TV Programme “The TVB HD 1.2.2012 Pronunciation Outside the remit World Heritage” (世界 Jade of the 文化遺產) Broadcasting (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance
TV Programme “Scoop” TVB Jade & 6.2.2012 Accuracy in Outside the remit (東張西望) HD Jade infotainment of the programme Broadcasting (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance
TV Programme “DFB TVB Jade 8.2.2012 Superimposition Outside the remit Cup 2011/2012: Holstein of station logo of the Kiel VS Borussia Broadcasting Dortmund” (德國盃 (Miscellaneous 2011/2012：基爾對多蒙 Provisions) 特) Ordinance
- 11 - Title Channel Broadcast Substance of Decision being Date Complaint upheld TV Programme TVB Jade 8.2.2012 Accuracy in Outside the remit “Metaphysics Zoom” fung-shui of the (玄來如此) programme Broadcasting (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance