Released on 24 May 2016)

Complaints dealt with by the Communications Authority (“CA”) (released on 24 May 2016)

The CA considered the following cases which had been deliberated by the Broadcast Complaints Committee (“BCC”) –

Complaint Cases

1. Television Programme “TV Awards Presentation 2015” (萬千星輝頒獎典禮 2015) 2. Television Programme “Below The Lion Rock 2015” (獅子山下2015) 3. Television Programmes “Good Morning Hong Kong” (香港早晨) and “News Report” (新聞報道) 4. Television Programme “now Noon News” (now午間新聞) 5. Simulcast Arrangement on Metro Music Digital (“MMD”) and Metro Life Digital (“MLD”) 6. Cessation of News Programmes of Asia Television Limited (“ATV”) 7. Broadcast of Current Affairs Programmes by ATV 8. Television Programme “TVB 48th Anniversary Gala” (萬千星輝賀台慶) 9. News Reports on the Incident in Mong Kok on 9 February 2016

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 a financial penalty of $150,000 be imposed on Television Broadcasts Limited (“TVB”) on the complaints related to the television programme “TV Awards Presentation 2015” (萬千星輝頒獎典禮2015); 2. that a strong advice be given to Radio Television Hong Kong (“RTHK”) on the complaints related to the television programme “Below The Lion Rock 2015” (獅子山下2015); 3. that a strong advice be given to TVB on the complaints related to the television programmes “Good Morning Hong Kong” (香港早晨) and “News Report” (新聞報道); 4. that an advice be given to PCCW Media Limited (“now TV”) on the complaint related to the television programme “now Noon News” (now午間新聞); 5. that the complaints regarding the simulcast arrangement on MMD and MLD are substantiated. In the light of the sanction imposed by the CA in respect of the breach concerned, no further action be taken against Metro Broadcast Corporation Limited (“Metro”) in respect of the complaints; 6. that the complaints regarding the cessation of news programmes of ATV are substantiated. In light of the follow-up actions taken by the CA in respect of the breach concerned, no further action be taken against ATV in respect of the complaints; 7. that the complaints regarding the broadcast of current affairs programmes by ATV are substantiated and the breach concerned be put on record; 8. that no further action be taken against TVB on the complaint related to the television programme “TVB 48th Anniversary Gala” (萬千星輝賀台慶); - 2 - 9. that no further action be taken against TVB and TVB Network Vision Limited (“TVBNV”) on the complaints related to the news reports on the incident in Mong Kok on 9 February 2016; and 10. to uphold the decisions of the DG Com on two cases of dissatisfaction with the decisions of the DG Com. (List of the cases is available in the Appendix.)

24 May 2016

- 3 - Case 1 – Television Programme “TV Awards Presentation 2015” (萬千星輝頒獎典禮 2015) broadcast on the Jade and HD Jade Channels of TVB on 13 December 2015 at 8:00pm to 10:30pm and repeated on 9 February 2016 at 10:15am to 12:45pm

15 members of the public complained that the brand logo of a fried chicken chain was conspicuously and blatantly shown, which was gratuitous, obtrusive to viewing pleasure, without editorial justification, and amounting to indirect advertising for the concerned brand.

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 concerned programme was a livecast of TVB’s annual award presentation ceremony;

(b) the concerned fried chicken chain was identified as the product sponsor in the end credits of the programme; and

(c) in a segment, a female host remarked that while the artistes were anxiously awaiting the announcement of the major awards, she would give them a good treat. Then several assistants marched in carrying trays stacked with boxes of food. The logo of the concerned fried chicken chain was clearly shown on the food boxes. There were also medium to close-up shots showing the artistes eating and passing the food around enthusiastically, and the brand logos on the food boxes and soft drink cups were clearly shown. The whole segment lasted for about 1 minute and 12 seconds.

Relevant Provisions in the Generic Code of Practice on Television Programme Standards (“TV Programme Code”)

(a) paragraph 1 of Chapter 11 – indirect advertising in television programme is prohibited; and

Relevant Provisions in the Generic Code of Practice on Television Advertising Standards (“TV Advertising Code”)

(a) paragraph 10(a) of Chapter 9 – the exposure or use of the sponsors’ products and/or services within a programme should be clearly justified editorially, not obtrusive to viewing pleasure and not gratuitous.

- 4 - The CA’s Considerations

The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that –

(a) the insertion of the segment showing dressed up artistes consuming fried chicken in the award presentation ceremony was gratuitous, not justified editorially and obtrusive to viewing pleasure;

(b) the female host made the complimentary remark “good treat” twice when she referred to the food to be served to the artistes. There were continuous and gratuitous medium to close-up shots focusing on the brand logo of the sponsor on the food boxes when the food was delivered to the artistes. The brand logo of the sponsor was prominently and conspicuously displayed in the middle of the screen for around 10 seconds to draw viewers’ attention to the sponsor and its products. Such prominent exposure of the sponsor’s brand logo and products with the complimentary remark made by the female host constituted blatant advertising material for the sponsor’s products;

(c) the programme segment in question was intentionally designed and inserted into the concerned TV award presentation ceremony to cater for the exposure of the sponsor’s brand logo and products. The deliberate inclusion of such a segment in the concerned programme without any editorial need but to draw viewers’ attention to the sponsor’s logo and products constituted a serious breach of the provisions of the TV Programme and Advertising Codes that govern indirect advertising and product/service sponsorship; and

(d) the CA had expressed serious concern over TVB’s repeated breaches of the provisions governing indirect advertising and product/service sponsorship. The CA had also repeatedly reminded TVB that indirect advertising was strictly prohibited under the TV Programme Code and broadcasters should comply fully with the relevant provisions in the TV Advertising Code in respect of product/service sponsorship, and that the CA would consider imposing heavier sanctions for any further breach of the relevant provisions having regard to, among others, the nature and severity of the breach, and the licensee’s past record of non-compliance.

Decision

In view of the above, and taking into account TVB’s repeated breaches of the provisions that govern indirect advertising and product/service sponsorship and its representations, the CA decided that a financial penalty of $150,000 should be imposed on TVB for breaching the relevant provisions in the TV Programme and Advertising Codes.

Case 2 – Television Programme “Below The Lion Rock 2015” (獅子山下 2015) of RTHK broadcast on the Jade Channel of TVB and the TV 31 Channel of RTHK at 7:30pm to 8:30pm and 9:00pm to 10:00pm respectively on 14 November 2015

- 5 - Five members of the public complained against the programme. The main allegations were that the programme was overly horrifying, frightening, unsuitable for broadcast during prime time or the family viewing hours (the “FVH”); terrified children and gave them nightmares; and contained violent scenes but was not classified into Parental Guidance Recommended (“PG”) category when it was broadcast on RTHK TV 31.

The CA’s Findings

In line with the established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the representations of RTHK in detail. The CA took into account the relevant aspects of the case, including the following –

Details of the Case

(a) the programme was a fictitious drama broadcast on TVB Jade during the FVH and on RTHK TV 31 outside the FVH. It revolved around the story of an investor who speculated in “haunted” apartments. The investor moved into a flat where the previous occupant, a stewardess, was murdered in order to persuade a potential buyer that the flat was not haunted;

(b) an advisory announcement alerting viewers to violent and horrifying materials was shown at the beginning of the programme broadcast on both channels. Against dimly lit settings and suspenseful background music and/or appalling sound effects, there were portrayals of the stewardess walking through a quiet car park and a corridor, and taking an elevator to go home nervously; the investor cleaning red stains on the floor of the haunted apartment and answering doorbell to find that no one was at the door; the suspected spirit of the stewardess appearing beside the investor when he was burning paper offerings, etc. In a scene inside the haunted apartment which lasted for about 3 minutes, the investor was terrified by what he saw, including red liquid running from the tap in the bathroom, red words on a glass door threatening him to move out of the apartment, and a female walking towards him and turning into a wisp of red smoke. In an auction venue, there were portrayals of a group of people in white clothes against green lighting effect pestering the investor and asking him whether he would speculate in tombs;

(c) regarding the allegation on violence, there were portrayals of a person walking into the bedroom of the stewardess at night with a knife in hand and close-up shot of a hand stabbing downwards. No actual depiction of stabbing the stewardess was shown. There were also brief depictions of an assistant of the investor being chased, kicked, punched and pushed and of the stewardess being pushed into the pool and pressed down into the water; and

(d) RTHK submitted that it did not have any intention to frighten the audience, and the depictions of spirits were used as a tactic to draw the audience’s attention to the distorted human nature in the haunted property market.

- 6 - Relevant Provisions in the TV Programme Code

(a) paragraph 2 of Chapter 2 – nothing unsuitable for children should be shown during the FVH;

(b) paragraph 3 of Chapter 2 – morbid sound effects intended to anticipate or simulate death or injury, the use of the supernatural or superstition so as to arouse anxiety or fear, and any matter likely to lead to hysteria, nightmares or other undesirable emotional disturbances in children are some of the reasons for a programme to be considered unsuitable for family viewing;

(c) paragraph 8 of Chapter 6 – violence may not be presented in such a manner as to cause alarm or distress to children within the FVH, and at other times any portrayal of violence must not be too frequent or impactful and must be essential to the story line or programme context;

(d) paragraph 1 of Chapter 7 – the licensee should be vigilant on the likely effects of all material shown on television on children;

(e) paragraph 3 of Chapter 8 – programmes which are not generally suitable for viewing by children must be classified into PG category according to the standards in the same Chapter which included paragraph 4(k) on the depiction of the supernatural; and

(f) paragraph 4(k) of Chapter 8 – fictional depiction of exorcism, psychic or occultic practice and the supernatural should not be overly realistic in a PG programme so as to unsettle young minds. In certain cases, clear advance warnings should be provided.

The CA’s Considerations

The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that –

(a) although most of the contents of the programme were shown in daily life settings with no horrific images, the gruesome atmosphere of the ghostly scenes against realistic settings, gloomy lighting and appalling sound effects (in particular the approximately 3-minute sequence featuring the investor’s encounter with the spirit of the deceased stewardess in the haunted apartment where the stewardess was murdered) were frightening to some viewers, especially children. The concerned portrayals exceeded the acceptable bound for materials to be broadcast during the FVH when children might watch television without parental guidance, and such materials rendered it necessary for the programme to be classified into PG category when it was broadcast outside the FVH;

(b) the inclusion of an advisory announcement at the beginning of the programme which advised viewers that the programme contained violent and frightening materials would not render the programme suitable for broadcast within the FVH; and

- 7 - (c) the portrayals of violence were brief and contextually justified for plot development and characterisation purposes, and were acceptable for broadcast at the scheduled time slots, including within the FVH.

Decision

In view of the above, the CA considered that the complaints were justified. Taking into consideration the relevant precedent and the likely effects of the horrifying materials on young viewers, the CA decided that RTHK should be strongly advised to observe more closely paragraphs 2 and 3 of Chapter 2, paragraph 1 of Chapter 7, and paragraphs 3 and 4(k) of Chapter 8 of the TV Programme Code.

Case 3 – Television Programmes “Good Morning Hong Kong” (香港早晨) and “News Report” (新聞報道) broadcast on the I News Channel of TVB from 8:00am to 12:00noon on 23 November 2015

Two members of the public complained that the concerned news programmes showed an erroneous number of votes received by a candidate who was elected in the 2015 District Council (“DC”) Election and an erroneous caption that another candidate was elected for the concerned constituency.

The CA’s Findings

Details of the Case

(a) the alleged erroneous number of votes for the elected candidate, and the erroneous display of the caption “當選” (elected) alongside the name and photograph of another candidate, had been shown in the split screen of the concerned news programmes for six times from 8:07am to 11:36am;

(b) the correct election result of the concerned constituency was found at 12:18pm in the programme “Noon News” (午間新聞); and

(c) TVB admitted that the lapse was caused by an operational error in entering the number of votes for the elected candidate.

Relevant Provision in the TV Programme Code

(a) paragraph 1A of Chapter 9 – the licensee shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the factual contents of news are accurate.

- 8 - The CA’s Considerations

The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that –

(a) although the lapse would not have affected the election results of the concerned constituency, the news programmes contained clear factual errors; and

(b) although the concerned voting results had already been announced earlier on 23 November 2015, the inaccurate information had been broadcast for six times from 8:07am to 11:36am, and TVB only corrected the error at 12:18pm. TVB had not made reasonable efforts to ensure that the concerned factual contents of the news programmes were accurate.

Decision

In view of the above, the CA decided that the complaints were justified. Taking into account the relevant precedent, the CA decided that TVB should be strongly advised to observe more closely paragraph 1A of Chapter 9 of the TV Programme Code.

Case 4 – Television Programme “now Noon News” (now 午間新聞) broadcast on now News Channel of now TV from 12:00noon to 12:20pm on 21 November 2015

A member of the public complained that in a news item about the 2015 DC Election, the photographs of three candidates in a constituency did not match with the names in the photograph captions.

The CA’s Findings

In line with the established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the representations of now TV in detail. The CA took into account the relevant aspects of the case, including the following –

Details of the Case

(a) the concerned news programme was broadcast on 21 November 2015, the day before the DC Election on 22 November 2015;

(b) in the programme, there was a 3-minute segment which reported the challenges faced by the members in the second echelon of two political parties in different constituencies;

(c) the segment briefly introduced the four candidates contesting in a constituency. The photograph of each of the four candidates was shown against a caption containing the candidate’s name and political affiliation. While the photograph and caption of one of the candidates were correctly shown, the photographs and captions of the other three candidates were mismatched;

- 9 - (d) the same segment was broadcast twice per hour on the same channel from 10:00am to 3:00pm on that day; and

(e) now TV apologized for the unintentional lapse and submitted that the news item was stopped after 4:00pm on that day.

Relevant Provisions in the TV Programme Code

(a) paragraph 1A of Chapter 9 – the licensee shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the factual contents of news are accurate.

The CA’s Considerations

The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that –

(a) the mismatched photographs and names of three of the candidates contained clear factual errors; and

(b) while the concerned factual errors might not have a significant effect on the election results in the concerned constituency, now TV should be reminded to be more careful when reporting election-related news, particularly before the polling day.

Decision

In view of the above, the CA considered that the complaint was justified. Taking into consideration the relevant precedents and the impact of the lapse, the CA decided that now TV should be advised to observe more closely paragraph 1A of Chapter 9 of the TV Programme Code.

Case 7 – Complaints about Broadcast of Current Affairs Programmes on the Home and World Channels of ATV from 8 to 21 February 2016

A member of the public complained that ATV failed to meet the requirement under its domestic free television programme service licence (“Licence”) to broadcast a minimum of two half-hour current affairs programmes each week on its Home and World Channels during the concerned two weeks from 8 to 14 February 2016 and from 15 to 21 February 2016.

The CA’s Findings

In line with the established practice, the CA considered the complaint case. The CA took into account the relevant aspects of the case, including the following –

- 10 - Details of the Case

(a) the analogue and simulcast digital Home and World Channels were the Chinese language and English language services of ATV. ATV was required to broadcast current affairs programmes on these two channels in accordance with the relevant condition in its Licence;

(b) other than a half-hour current affairs programme broadcast on the World Channel at 8:00pm-8:30pm in each of the two concerned weeks, no other current affairs programme was found between 6:00pm and 12:00 midnight on the Home and World Channels during the two weeks concerned; and

Relevant Provision

(a) Condition 6.1 of the First Schedule to ATV’s Licence – the licensee shall provide a minimum of two half-hour current affairs programmes each week on each language service between the hours of 6:00pm and 12:00 midnight of which not less than 30 minutes are to be wholly of Hong Kong origin.

The CA’s Considerations

The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that there was a shortfall of one half-hour current affairs programme on the World Channel and two half-hour current affairs programmes on the Home Channel during the two weeks concerned. There was a breach of the relevant condition in ATV’s Licence.

Decision

In view of the above, the CA considered the complaints substantiated. As ATV ceased to be a domestic free television programme service licensee on 2 April 2016, the CA decided that ATV’s breach should be put on record. Such record may be taken into consideration by the CA on future occasions when the need arises for assessing the fitness and properness of ATV for the purposes of section 21 of the Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap. 562).

Case 8 – Television Programme “TVB 48th Anniversary Gala” (萬千星輝賀台慶) broadcast on the Jade Channel of TVB on 19 November 2015 at 8:00pm to 10:30pm

A member of the public complained that a brand of pizza was placed within the concerned programme at 9:38pm, which was unacceptable.

- 11 - The CA’s Findings

Details of the Case

(a) the concerned programme livecast TVB’s anniversary gala, in which a pizza chain was identified as the product sponsor; and

(b) at 9:31pm to 9:42pm, a slapstick drama was performed in the setting of a court. When the female judge character asked for submission of “important exhibits”, two court officers brought out several boxes of pizzas and said that they were a treat from the husband of the judge because the pizzas reminded him of her;

(c) in a couple of medium shots showing a court officer opening a box of pizza, the name of the concerned pizza chain on the box cover was discernible. The judge then held up the opened box, smelt the pizza and remarked that it was a large, good-looking and savoury pizza, which made her feel good. She also shared the pizza with the jurors who cheered and applauded. There were shots showing dressed-up jurors passing and eating pizza, and another brief shot from an elevated angle in which two pizza boxes were placed on the chairs next to the jurors, with the name of the concerned pizza chain on the cover barely discernible.

Relevant Provision in the TV Programme Code

(a) paragraph 1 of Chapter 11 – indirect advertising in television programme is prohibited; and

Relevant Provision in the TV Advertising Code

(a) paragraph 10(a) of Chapter 9 – the exposure or use of the sponsor’s products within programmes should be clearly justified editorially, not obtrusive to viewing pleasure and not gratuitous.

The CA’s Considerations

The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that –

(a) in view of the comical nature of the concerned skit, the portrayals of court officers bringing out boxes of pizzas, the remarks made by the court officers and the judge, and the dressed-up jurors eating pizza in court were not unacceptable in the context of the slapstick comedy; and

(b) the sponsored product was shown in a few separate shots briefly and the sponsor’s brand name on the box cover was briefly discernible in some incidental medium and distant shots. Although the judge made a - 12 - complimentary remark about the treat given by her husband, the remark was brief and general. There was insufficient evidence to conclude that such a presentation of the sponsor’s product was unacceptable under the relevant provision in the TV Advertising Code governing product sponsorship.

Decision

In view of the above, the CA considered the complaint unsubstantiated and decided that no further action should be taken against TVB.

Case 9 – News Reports on the incident in Mong Kok on 9 February 2016 Broadcast on the Jade, HD Jade/J51, I News, Pearl Channels of TVB on 9, 10, 11, 15, 22 and 23 February 2016 and TVBN Channel of TVBNV2 on 9 February 2016

304 members of the public complained against the captioned news reports on the clashes between the police and the protestors in Mong Kok on 9 February 2016 (the “Incident”). The main allegations included –

(a) when reporting the Incident in the early morning of 9 February 2016, the use of the expressions “暴徒”, “滋事份子”, “暴亂” and “暴動” were misleading, unfair and biased against the protesters3. Some complainants also alleged that the labelling of the protestors as “暴徒” associated their actions with participation in a riot as defined under the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245), which amounted to making judgement before trial and might prejudice a fair trial;

(b) the reports on the Incident were partial and pro-government, as it was repeatedly shown that policemen were attacked by protesters, and events took place at different time were edited and not broadcast in chronological order. Some complainants alleged that there was no report on protesters and reporters being attacked by policemen, nor was there any report on the number of protesters injured. The police officer firing a gun into the air, though a serious matter, was not discussed in detail;

(c) the reference that “Hong Kong Indigenous” was responsible for causing the chaos was partial and amounted to making judgement before trial;

(d) in “News Roundup” broadcast on TVB HD Jade Channel on 9 February 2016, the reference that three students of the University of Hong Kong (“HKU”) were arrested without specifying the identity of other arrestees adversely affected the image of HKU and its students and was unfair to them; and

(e) one complainant alleged that the reports were biased for the protesters and smeared the police, while another complainant alleged that the use of the

1 The HD Jade Channel has been renamed as J5 since 22 February 2016. 2 One complainant complained against the news programmes broadcast by both TVB and TVBNV. 3 The only complaint against the news reports broadcast by TVBNV was related to this allegation. - 13 - expression “市民” to refer to the violent protesters misled the audience that all residents were against the police.

The CA’s Findings

In line with the established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the representations of TVB and TVBNV in detail. The CA took into account the relevant aspects of the case, including the following –

Details of the Case

(a) extensive coverage of the Incident, which included the initial conflicts between members of the public and the police over illegal hawking, the police’s attempts to clear the crowd, further confrontations between protesters and the police, the aftermath of the Incident, the responses of different stakeholders on the Incident and other related issues, was found in various news programmes broadcast on the alleged channels on the concerned dates;

(b) in the live on-site reports and news bulletins about the situation in Mong Kok broadcast in the early morning of 9 February 2016, the protesters were initially referred to as “在場人士”, “集會人士”, “聚集人士”, “示威者”, while the situation was referred to as “(警民)衝突” and “對峙”. As the chaos escalated, the protesters and the situation were referred to as “滋事者／份子” or “暴徒”, and “騷亂” in captions and news bulletins. The term “暴亂” was also used in news bulletins, though the expressions “騷亂” and “衝突” were used more frequently throughout the early morning news reports;

(c) in the news programmes broadcast in the morning and afternoon of 9 February 2016, the alleged expressions “滋事者／份子” and “暴徒” were used in the news bulletins, and the expression “騷亂” was used more frequently than “暴亂” to refer to the Incident. In the evening and late night news programmes on the same day, the expressions “滋事者／份子”, “暴徒” and “暴亂” were used in the news reports, and the expression “暴動” was used by the news anchor at about 11:23pm;

(d) in the news programmes broadcast on the following days (viz. 10, 11, 15, 22 and 23 February 2016 as alleged by the complainants), the Incident was consistently referred to as “暴亂” while the participants were either referred to as “被捕人士” or “被告” (for those who were arrested or charged) or as “滋事者”. The concerned reports did not refer to any persons arrested or charged as “暴徒”;

(e) in the English news reports broadcast on TVB Pearl at 7:30pm on 9 February 2016, the expressions “protesters”, “demonstrators” and “defiant protesters” were used to refer to the protesters, and the Incident was referred to as “unrest”, “chaos” and “mayhem”, with the expression “riot” being used sparsely;

(f) the alleged references to the role of Hong Kong Indigenous in the Incident and three arrestees being the students of HKU were found in the alleged news - 14 - reports.

Relevant Provisions in the TV Programme Code

(a) paragraph 1 of Chapter 9 – news programmes should offer viewers an intelligent and informed account of issues that enables them to form their own views. The licensees should ensure that the news is presented with accuracy and due impartiality;

(b) paragraph 2, 3, 4 & 6 of Chapter 9 – due impartiality rules applicable to news programmes;

(c) paragraph 7(b) of Chapter 9 - pictorial representation of news should be carefully selected to ensure fairness and should not be misleading or sensational;

(d) paragraph 7(c) of Chapter 9 - commentary and analysis should be clearly distinguished from news;

(e) paragraph 9 of Chapter 9 - unfairness to individuals or organisations featured in factual programmes should be avoided;

(f) paragraph 10 of Chapter 9 – programme items which are based on extracts of court proceedings or other matters of public record must be presented fairly and accurately; and

(g) 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.

The CA’s Considerations

The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that –

(a) TVB used the term “衝突” to refer to the scuffles between the police and the demonstrators at first. The term “騷亂” was used in the verbal report at 4:47am on 9 February 2016 while the term “暴亂” was used by the anchor at 5:22am. During daytime of 9 February, the Incident was more often referred to as “騷亂” in TVB’s news reports. Starting from the evening of 9 February, TVB generally used the term “暴亂” to refer to the Incident and the term “暴動” was sparsely used;

(b) the concerned news programmes as a whole included an extensive coverage of the development of the Incident by broadcasting a large amount of on-site footages and various views from different stakeholders on the Incident. The concerned terms “暴徒”, “騷亂” and/or “暴亂” were used in the statement issued by the Government at 7:43am on 9 February 2016, and/or used by the Commissioner of Police in the afternoon on that day, and the terms “騷亂” and “暴亂” were used by the majority of the media in reporting the Incident. As - 15 - such, there was insufficient evidence to support that the use of the terms “暴徒”, “滋事份子”, “暴亂” and “暴動” in the news programmes rendered the concerned reports in breach of the accuracy and due impartiality requirements of news programmes;

(c) as regards the allegation that the use of the alleged terms amounted to making judgement before trial and prejudicing a fair trial, in the news reports broadcast on and after 10 February 2016, the arrested protesters were referred to as “被捕人士” (the arrested) and “被告” (defendants) after they were charged, whereas the term “暴亂” was used by Government officials when they referred to the Incident. There was insufficient evidence to support that the use of the concerned expressions would breach paragraph 10 of Chapter 9 of the TV Programme Code governing reporting of court cases;

(d) regarding the allegations that TVB’s news reports on the Incident were either pro-government or pro-protesters, it was noted that the news reports under complaint contained an extensive coverage of the events that took place in the early hours of 9 February 2016 in Mong Kok. There were reports with footages of protesters throwing various objects at police officers, and setting fire on streets; and police officers dispersing the crowd with pepper spray and batons, and fighting against the protesters by using bricks and long sticks. There were also footages showing protesters, police officers and journalists being injured. The coverage also included other follow-up stories such as different responses of various stakeholders on the Incident. There was insufficient evidence to support that TVB had not presented the news relating to the Incident in accordance with relevant provisions governing due impartiality;

(e) regarding the allegation that the reference to Hong Kong Indigenous being responsible for causing the chaos was partial, various news footages showed that members of the group were at the scene during the confrontations between the police and the crowd. TVB’s news reports included the excerpts of a radio interview with the Convenor of Hong Kong Indigenous in which he responded to criticisms against the Incident as well as the behaviours of certain protesters. There was insufficient evidence to support that the concerned reports regarding Hong Kong Indigenous were in breach of the due impartiality rules; and

(f) as regards the allegation that the news reports on the arrest of three HKU students without mentioning the identity of other arrestees was unfair to HKU and its students, the alleged news item only contained a brief reference to three HKU students being arrested. TVB submitted that there was also a report on the arrest of a CUHK student on 10 February 2016. It was unlikely that the concerned factual report would render HKU or its students being unfairly treated.

Decision

In view of the above, the CA considered the complaints unsubstantiated and decided that no further action should be taken against TVB and TVBNV.

- 16 - Appendix

List of Cases of Dissatisfaction with the DG Com’s Decisions

Title Channel Broadcast Substance of Decision being Date Complaint upheld TV Programme “6:00 ATV Home & 8.1.2016 Inaccuracy Minor breach News” (六點鐘新聞) Asia

TV Programme “City RTHK (TVB 31.1.2016 Discrimination Unsubstantiated Forum” (城市論壇) Jade) & RTHK TV 31