Complaints Dealt with by the Communications Authority (“CA”) (Released on 13 November 2013) the CA Considered the Following
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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<Live>” (六合彩<現場直播>) broadcast on the Home Channel of ATV on 20 June 2013 at 9:30pm – 9:35pm 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.