Complaints dealt with by the Communications Authority (“CA”) (released on 27 September 2016)
The CA considered the following cases which had been deliberated by the Broadcast Complaints Committee (“BCC”) –
Complaint Cases
1. Television Programme “Night Talk．PK Battle” (晚吹-真PK) 2. Television Programme “Come Home Love” (愛‧回家)
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 strong advice be given to HK Television Entertainment Company Limited on the complaints related to the television programme “Night Talk．PK Battle” (晚吹-真PK); 2. that no further action be taken against Television Broadcasts Limited and TVB Network Vision Limited on the complaints related to the television programme “Come Home Love” (愛‧回家); and 3. to uphold the decisions of the DG Com on ten cases of dissatisfaction with the decisions of the DG Com. (List of the cases is available in the Appendix.)
27 September 2016
- 2 - Case 1 – Television Programme “Night Talk．PK Battle” (晚吹 - 真 PK) broadcast on the ViuTV Channel of HK Television Entertainment Company Limited (“ViuTV”) at 11:45 pm to 12:15 am on 9 April 2016 and at 11:30 pm to 12:00 midnight on 16 and 23 April 2016
15 members of the public complained against the programme. The main allegations were that the punishments inflicted on the programme hosts in the programme contained a bad theme; were offensive, indecent, unnerving, disturbing, violent, dangerous, sex-related, unhygienic, or of bad taste; amounted to torture, sadistic and perverted behaviour, and taking pleasure in inflicting pain upon others; exerted a bad influence on children and youth; and exceeded the acceptable bounds for a programme classified as Parental Guidance Recommended (“PG”) or Mature (“M”) categories or were unacceptable for broadcast on domestic free television programme service.
Some complainants also complained that the programme contained crude or foul language.
The Communications Authority (“CA”)’s Findings
In line with the established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the representations of ViuTV 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 talk show featuring punishments inflicted on the two male programme hosts. Episode 1 (broadcast on 9 April 2016) was classified as “PG” for indecent language, inappropriate behaviour and unnerving depiction, and Episodes 2 and 3 (broadcast on 16 and 23 April 2016 respectively) were classified as “M” for indecent language, inappropriate behaviour, adult contents, depiction of nudity and unnerving depiction. Aural and visual advices were given before the start of the concerned episodes. During the programme, the hosts were punished by each other or by a masked man;
(b) the punishments inflicted on the programme hosts included pumping a host’s nipples with toilet pumps, stuffing a sock of the programme guest into the mouth of a host, smearing food paste on the masked man’s armpit onto a host’s face, two hosts hitting tennis balls with two bottles of water clipped to their armpits, hitting a host’s buttocks with his butt cleavage or even his bare buttocks clearly revealed, two hosts playing tug of war with a string of rubber bands clipped to their nipples, pouring wasabi powder into a host’s mouth, and carrying live worms in the hosts’ mouths with close-up shots of a plate of live worms;
(c) warning captions indicating that the punishments contained dangerous acts and should not be imitated were superimposed at the top left corner of the screen during the portrayals of the punishments. There were close-up shots of the hosts’ bare chests or nipples and shots showing the butt cleavage of the host (including a brief shot of his buttocks when he pulled down his - 3 - underpants) when the hosts received certain punishments;
(d) regarding the use of language, the programme contained unrefined expressions and puns on foul expressions. Special sound effects were applied in all the concerned episodes to cover some terms in the dialogues, and no foul expression was broadcast aurally or visually in the caption; and
(e) ViuTV submitted that the concerned light-hearted programme was a comical and fun-provoking talk show and a niche production which was tailored to appeal to certain segments of viewers who had a broader acceptance level in terms of unpretentious dialogues and expressions; that the programme contents, including the punishments featured therein, were within the acceptable bounds for “PG” or “M” programmes taking into consideration the late broadcast hours, the provision of advisory statements and programme classification before the start of the programme for viewers to make an informed choice on whether to stay on watching.
Relevant Provisions in the Generic Code of Practice on Television Programme Standards (“TV Programme Code”)
(a) paragraph 1 of Chapter 3 – programmes should be handled in a responsible manner and should avoid needlessly offending audiences; and
(b) paragraph 2(a) of Chapter 3 – programmes should not include any material which is indecent, obscene, or of bad taste which is not ordinarily acceptable to the viewers taking into consideration the circumstances in which they are shown.
The CA’s Considerations
The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that –
(a) as a general rule, TV programmes should not include any material which is indecent or of bad taste which is not ordinarily acceptable to the viewers taking into account the circumstances in which they are shown;
(b) the punishments inflicted on the programme hosts in the three episodes of the concerned programme were of bad taste, indecent and nonsensical, which were not ordinarily acceptable to the viewers even under the circumstances in which the programme was shown (viz. in a “PG”/“M” programme broadcast at late hours with the provision of aural and visual advice);
(c) ViuTV had not handled the concerned programme in a responsible manner, nor had it avoided needlessly offending audiences; and
(d) although some of the expressions used in the programme punned on foul expressions, no genuine foul language was found either aurally or visually in the programme.
- 4 - Decision
In view of the above, the CA considered that the complaints were justified. Taking into consideration that this was the first lapse of ViuTV, the CA decided that ViuTV should be strongly advised to observe more closely paragraphs 1 and 2(a) of Chapter 3 of the TV Programme Code.
Case 2 – Television Programme “Come Home Love” (愛‧回家) broadcast on the Jade and HD Jade Channels of Television Broadcasts Limited (“TVB”) on 19 and 22 February 20161 at 8:00pm – 8:30pm and the Jade Catch Up Channel of TVB Network Vision Limited (“TVBNV”) on 20 and 23 February 2016 at Various Time Slots
18 members of the public complained that the references to the new arrangements for TVB’s digital channels effective from 22 February 2016 (the “New Channel Arrangements”) in the two episodes of the concerned programme were abrupt and unrelated to the theme of the concerned situation drama, which amounted to broadcast of non-programme material and indirect advertising for TVB within the concerned programme.
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) the concerned programme was a situation drama about several families, which was broadcast on TVB and rerun on TVBNV; and
(b) in each of the two episodes, there was a scene of about 1 or 1.5 minute shot in a living room setting in which some characters chit-chatted about the New Channel Arrangements, including the cessation of the simulcast of two channels, the high definition picture quality of one channel, the renaming of another channel and its programming, and the need to re-scan the channels to continue to receive one of the channels.
Relevant Provisions in the Generic Code of Practice on Television Advertising Standards
Applicable to TVB only (a) paragraph 2(c) of Chapter 2 – for the purpose of this Code the term advertisement or advertising material does not include material for the promotion of the licensee’s station and/or programme service; and
1 The simulcast arrangement of TVB Jade and HD Jade ceased on 22 February 2016, and the concerned programme was broadcast on TVB Jade only with effect from 22 February 2016. - 5 -
(b) paragraph 1 of Chapter 8 – unless otherwise permitted by the CA, non-programme material, including materials for the promotion of the licensee’s station and programme service, may be placed only at the beginning or end of a programme or in a natural break occurring therein.
Relevant Provisions in the Generic Code of Practice on Television Programme Standards
Applicable to TVBNV only (a) paragraph 1 of Chapter 11 – indirect advertising in television programme is prohibited; and
(b) paragraph 3 of Chapter 11 – no undue prominence may be given in any programme to, among others, a service of a commercial nature so that the effect of such reference amounts to advertising. Such references must be limited to what can clearly be justified by the editorial requirements of the programme itself, or of an incidental nature.
The CA’s Considerations
The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that –
(a) it was not unreasonable for the characters in the situation drama in question to talk about the New Channel Arrangements. The concerned contents could be considered informative and of value to the general viewing public, and were materials within viewers’ expectation and contextually justified for inclusion in the concerned episodes of the situation drama; and
(b) in light of the above, the concerned contents did not amount to promotional materials for TVB’s station and programme service or indirect advertising for TVB.
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.
- 6 -
Appendix
List of Cases of Dissatisfaction with the DG Com’s Decisions
Title Channel Broadcast Substance of Decision being Date Complaint upheld TV Programme “A TVB I News & 15.10.2015 Inaccuracy Unsubstantiated Closer Look” (時事 TVBNV TVBN 多面睇)
TV Programme “now now TV now 9.2.2016 Inaccuracy Unsubstantiated Noon News” (now午 News 間新聞)
Radio Programme CR 1 11.2.2016 Partiality Unsubstantiated “Our Way Out” (人民 大道中)
TV Programme TVB Jade, HD 15 and Nudity Unsubstantiated “Buzz Stop” (一綫娛 Jade & TVBNV 16.2.2016 樂) Jade Catch Up
TV Programme TVB Jade 11.3.2016 Partiality Unsubstantiated “News Roundup” (晚 間新聞)
TV Programme TVB Jade 30.3.2016 Inaccuracy and Unsubstantiated “News Roundup” (晚 partiality 間新聞)
TV Advertisement for TVB Jade & I March to Disgusting Unsubstantiated “Money Hero” News May 2016 Material (“Money Hero”廣告)
TV Advertisement for TVB Jade 19.5.2016 Misleading Claim Unsubstantiated “Ricqlès Peppermint Cure” (“雙飛人藥水” 廣告)
TV Programme TVB I News & 31.5.2016 Inaccuracy Unsubstantiated “News Report” (新聞 TVBNV TVBN 報道)
TV Programme “6, TVBNV TVBS 4.6.2016 Inaccuracy Unsubstantiated 7pm News (晚間6, 7 News 點新聞)”