2. Television Programme “Big Boys Club” (兄弟幫) 3

Complaints dealt with by the Communications Authority (“CA”) (released on 2 September 2014)

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

Complaint Cases

1. Television Programme “Dolce Vita” (明珠生活) 2. Television Programme “Big Boys Club” (兄弟幫) 3. Television and Radio Programme “City Forum” (城市論壇)

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 Television Broadcasts Limited (“TVB”) on the complaint related to the television programme “Dolce Vita” (明珠生活); 2. that an advice be given to TVB on the complaint related to the television programme “Big Boys Club” (兄弟幫); 3. that no further action be taken against Radio Television Hong Kong (“RTHK”) on the complaints related to the television and radio programme “City Forum” (城市論壇); and 4. to uphold the decisions of the DG Com on 12 cases of dissatisfaction with the decisions of the DG Com. (List of the cases is available in the Appendix).

2 September 2014 - 2 - Case 1 – Television Programme “Dolce Vita” (明珠生活) broadcast on the HD Jade Channel of TVB on 31 July 2013 on at 5:55pm – 6:25pm

A member of the public complained that –

(a) the introduction of a whisky house in the segment of an animation project featuring a late martial artiste was not editorially justified and was unsuitable for broadcast during the family viewing hours (“FVH”), viz. the period between the hours of 4:00pm to 8:30pm; and

(b) a whisky brand was identified as the product sponsor of the same programme broadcast outside the FVH but not in the programme under complaint broadcast during the FVH. The sponsorship for the concerned liquor product was hidden in the programme under complaint, which was in breach of the relevant provision in the code of practice that prohibited commercial promotion for any liquor product during the FVH.

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 lifestyle programme broadcast during the FVH covered the launch of an animated whisky commercial featuring a late martial artiste, followed by a visit to a whisky club in Beijing;

(b) a whisky brand was identified as the product sponsor in the end credits of the same programme which was broadcast outside the FVH on 27 July 2013 and 1 August 2013 on the same channel, but not in the programme under complaint broadcast on 31 July 2013 during the FVH; and

(c) TVB submitted that the programme broadcast during the FVH was not sponsored by the concerned whisky brand, and this version of the programme was different from that broadcast outside the FVH, as the sponsor credit acknowledging the sponsorship from the whisky brand was removed from the version broadcast during the FVH.

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

(a) paragraph 2(c) of Chapter 6 – for domestic free television programme services, the licensee should not include in its licensed service between the hours of 4:00p.m. and 8:30p.m. each day any liquor advertising or include in its licensed service between these hours any material in respect of which the licensee has invited, offered or accepted sponsorship or any form of commercial promotion for any liquor product.

- 3 - The CA’s Considerations

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

(a) the coverage of the launch of a commercial in the concerned segment focused on the background and personality of the late martial artiste, and the ensuing visit to a whisky club where the event was held featured whisky drinking as a connoisseur activity. There was no reference to any liquor brand and no remark which encouraged consumption of alcohol. As such, the segment was not unsuitable for broadcast in a lifestyle programme not targeting children; and

(b) TVB submitted that it had not received sponsorship for the concerned segment broadcast within the FVH. Nonetheless, it admitted that the same segment broadcast outside the FVH was sponsored by a whisky brand. Paragraph 2(c) of Chapter 6 of the TV Advertising Code stipulated that the licensee should not include in its licensed service within the FVH any material in respect of which the licensee has invited, offered or accepted sponsorship for any liquor product. As such, the concerned segment should not be broadcast during the FVH as there was programme material in respect of which TVB had accepted sponsorship for the liquor product featured therein.

Decision

In view of the above, the CA decided that TVB should be advised to observe more closely the relevant provision of the TV Advertising Code. ______

Case 2 – Television Programme “Big Boys Club” (兄弟幫) broadcast on the J2 Channel of TVB on 5 April 2014 at 12:30pm – 1:00pm

A member of the public complained that the depictions of the dismemberment of a victim of a murder case within the programme were overly detailed, bloody and violent, and might be instructional.

The CA’s Findings

Details of the Case

(a) the programme was a talk show broadcast outside the FVH at 11:30pm – 12:00 midnight and repeated at 6:30am and 12:30pm the next day. It was classified as “PG” (Parental Guidance Recommended) for occasional disturbing content; and

(b) the topic of discussion in the concerned edition was a real murder case in which a 16-year-old girl was murdered and dismembered by a man. The hosts discussed the murder case throughout the programme. - 4 -

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

(a) paragraph 2 of Chapter 6 – depiction of violence should be handled with extreme care;

(b) paragraph 3 of Chapter 6 – all depictions of violence should be relevant and necessary to the advancement of theme. Excessive depictions of violence or perverted practices are not acceptable;

(c) paragraph 8 of Chapter 6 – at times outside FVH, any portrayal of violence must not be too frequent or impactful and must be essential to the programme context;

(d) paragraph 4 of Chapter 8 – programmes classified as “PG” may contain adult themes or concepts but must remain suitable for children to watch under the guidance of a parent or guardian; and

(e) paragraph 4(a) of Chapter 8 – no overly realistic, bloody or horrific depictions of violence are permitted in a “PG” programme. Any violence depicted must not be too frequent or impactful and must be essential to the programme context.

The CA’s Considerations

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

(a) despite TVB’s submission that details of the murder case were widely reported during the trial of the case, the hosts’ verbal depictions of the dismemberment of the victim were graphic with much detail, some of which were repeated unnecessarily. Together with the occasional sound effects of slashing and visual effects of blood stains, the overall presentation of the programme was an overly realistic depiction of violence or perverted practices for a “PG” programme; and

(b) the concerned verbal depictions would, however, unlikely invite imitation.

Decision

In view of the above, the CA decided that TVB should be advised to observe more closely the relevant provisions of the TV Programme Code. ______

Case 3 – Radio Television Hong Kong (“RTHK”) Programme “City Forum” (城市論壇) broadcast on the Jade Channel of TVB and Radio 1 Channel of RTHK on 8 June 2014 at 12:05pm – 1:00pm and 12:15pm – 1:00pm respectively

Seven members of the public complained about the concerned programme. The main allegations were –

- 5 - (a) the programme and the host were partial and biased because only pan-democratic guest speakers with an anti-government stance were invited to the forum to discuss a controversial topic concerning the June 4th Incident (“Incident”);

(b) the remarks about counterfeit goods in the Mainland made by a guest speaker were untrue, biased, insulted the Mainlanders, and exerted a bad influence on children;

(c) the host’s opinion that the remarks of a particular person were sophistries whereas those made by the founder of Civic Passion were true was partial; and

(d) the host called the police to arrest a protester who took out a cutter to cut the strap for fastening a placard on a barbecue fork, which showed that the station had a political stance.

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 RTHK programme was a public forum on current issues. The radio version was labelled as a personal view programme (“PVP”), while the TV version was not labelled as such. The topic of the forum that day was “六四燭光燒向佔中政改廿五維園肝膽兄弟鬩牆”;

(b) four guest speakers including the Chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Movements of China (“Alliance”) and the founder of Civic Passion were invited to the forum and given ample opportunity to discuss the aforementioned topic. In the fourth part of the programme, the host invited views from the audience and political groups on the floor;

(c) when being asked about the increasing conflicts between the locals and Mainland visitors, the concerned guest speaker commented on the counterfeit goods in the Mainland; and

(d) the alleged contents under allegations (c) and (d) were not found in the programme.

Relevant Provisions in the TV Programme Code

(a) paragraphs 2 – 6 of Chapter 9 – the due impartiality rule applicable to any factual programmes dealing with matters of public policy or controversial issues of public importance in Hong Kong; and

- 6 - Relevant Provision in the Radio Code of Practice on Programme Standards (“Radio Programme Code”)

(b) paragraph 36 – the rules applicable to all PVPs on matters of public policy or controversial issues of public importance in Hong Kong.

The CA’s Considerations

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

(a) for allegation (a), RTHK submitted that it had invited two representatives from the pro-establishment camp to attend the programme but they declined the invitations. Besides, the programme’s discussion focused on two separate events related to the Incident held in different places at the same time by the Alliance and Civic Passion respectively. Representatives from the two event organisers were invited to the forum to exchange their views and were given ample opportunities to express themselves. The host also invited audience and political groups with different political stances on the floor to speak in part four of the programme. In view of the above, the CA considered that RTHK had made reasonable efforts to seek a balance of relevant viewpoints in the concerned programme;

(b) for allegation (b), the concerned general remarks made in passing by the concerned guest speaker expressed his personal views on the matter. There was insufficient evidence to suggest that such remarks denigrated or insulted the Mainland visitors; and

(c) for allegations (c) and (d), as the alleged contents were not found in the programme, there was no evidence that the programme was in breach of any relevant provisions of the TV and Radio Programme Codes.

Decision

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

- 7 -

Appendix

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

Title Channel Broadcast Substance of Decision being Date Complaint upheld TV Programme “Market TVB Pearl 21.2.2014 No English Minor breach Update” (金融行情) subtitles

TV Advertisement for TVB I News 1, 4, 5 & Wrong Minor breach “Travel Expert” (“專業 8.5.2014 information in 旅運”廣告) illustration

TV Programme “News TVB Jade 1.7.2013 Inaccuracy Unsubstantiated Roundup” (晚間新聞)

TV Programme “Hong RTHK (TVB 16.2.2014 Partiality, Unsubstantiated Kong Connection” (鏗鏘 Jade unfairness & 集) misleading content

TV Programme RTHK (TVB 7.3.2014 Partiality Unsubstantiated “Pentaprism” (左右紅藍 Jade 綠)

TV Promo for “Unleash TVB HD 13 & Rules & Unsubstantiated Your Creativity” (“2014 Jade 14.3.2014 conditions of the 打開創意天空” 宣傳 contest not clearly 片) and fully announced

TV Programme “Views ATV Home 27.3.2014 Encouragement Unsubstantiated on Hong Kong” (香江怒 of smoking and 看) drinking & unsuitable for broadcast during the FVH

TV Programme “Secret TVB Jade 29.3.2014 Improper Unsubstantiated Garden” (秘密花園) portrayal of sexual assault

TV Programme “Dolce TVB HD 2.4.2014 Indirect Unsubstantiated Vita” (明珠生活) Jade advertising

- 8 - Title Channel Broadcast Substance of Decision being Date Complaint upheld Radio Programme RTHK Radio 12.4.2014 Inaccuracy Unsubstantiated “News Bulletin” (午間 1 新聞天地)

TV Programme “ATV ATV Home 27.5.2014 Inaccuracy & no Unsubstantiated Focus” (ATV焦點) & Asia opportunity for response

TV Advertisement for TVB Jade, April – June Disturbing Unsubstantiated “BETADINE Dry HD Jade & I 2014 content Powder Spray” (“必妥碘 News 乾粉噴霧消毒劑”廣告)