Complaints dealt with by the Communications Authority ( CA ) in August

Transcription

1 Complaints dealt with by the Communications Authority ( CA ) in August In August, the CA considered the following cases which had been deliberated by the Broadcast Complaints Committee ( BCC ) Complaint Cases 1. Television Programme 我愛返尋味 2. Television Programme Have Fun Everyday (fun 轉每一天 ) 3. Television Programme 賢妻良母 4. Reports on the Filibuster Incident in Six News Programmes 5. Radio Programme Rightable Wrong ( 有冇搞錯 ) 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 warning be given to Asia Television Limited ( ATV ) on the complaints related to the television programme 我愛返尋味 2. that a warning be given to ATV on the complaint related to the television programme Have Fun Everyday (fun 轉每一天 ) 3. that a strong advice be given to ATV on the complaint related to the television programme 賢妻良母 4. that no further action be taken against Television Broadcasts Limited ( TVB ) and TVB Pay Vision Limited ( TVB Pay Vision ) on the complaints related to the reports on the filibuster incident in six news programmes 5. that an advice be given to Radio Television Hong Kong ( RTHK ) on the complaint related to the radio programme Rightable Wrong ( 有冇搞錯 ) 6. to uphold the decisions of the DG Com on 4 cases of dissatisfaction with the decisions of the DG Com. (List of the cases is available in the Appendix.)

2 Case 1 Television Programme 我愛返尋味 broadcast on the TVS Channel of ATV from December 2011 to March 2012 at 7:20 pm 8:10 pm Two members of the public complained that the programme contained a lot of advertising materials for products and services like restaurants, cooking oil, soymilk maker, etc. A brand of olive oil was specifically mentioned by one of the complainants. Relevant Provision(s) Generic Code of Practice on Television Programme Standards ( TV Programme Code ) - paragraph 1 of Chapter 11; and Generic Code of Practice on Television Advertising Standards ( TV Advertising Code ) - paragraphs 7 and 10(a) of Chapter 9 The CA s Findings In line with established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the representations of ATV in detail. The CA noted the facts of the case, among others, as follows (a) the programme under complaint was a gourmet programme broadcast on weekends on the TVS Channel, a direct re-transmission channel carried by ATV in its domestic free television programme service; (b) four episodes were spot checked. In the episode broadcast on 10 December 2011, a restaurant chef demonstrated five dishes. Positive remarks were given on the ingredients and the dishes. Every time after the demonstration, acknowledgement was given to the restaurant in the voice over and captions, with the address of the restaurant provided in detail. There was also a map at the start of the programme indicating the location of the restaurant; and (c) in the other three episodes, favourable and detailed comments about the alleged brand of olive oil and a brand of soybean milk maker were repeatedly made, together with prominent display of the brands products. In addition, the two

3 brands sponsoring the programme were identified by way of sponsor credits shown at the bottom of the screen during the course of the programme. The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that (a) regarding ATV s argument that the commercial references shown in the programme did not target Hong Kong market, the relevant provisions in the codes of practice does not exempt the incorporation of advertising material in a programme in view of its target market; and (b) the abundant favourable remarks on the restaurant s dishes and the sponsors products, the frequent acknowledgement of the restaurant, prominent products shots and the sponsor credits placed within programme amounted to advertising material for the restaurant and the two sponsors and had contravened paragraph 1 of Chapter 11 of the TV Programme Code and paragraphs 7 and 10(a) of Chapter 9 of the TV Advertising Code governing indirect advertising and sponsorship. Decision In view of the above and taking into account ATV s repeated lapses of similar nature, the CA decided that ATV should be warned to observe more closely the relevant provisions in the TV Programme and Advertising Codes. Case 2 Television Programme Have Fun Everyday (fun 轉每一天 ) broadcast on the TVS Channel of ATV on 23 March 2012 at 5:30pm 6:00pm A member of the public complained that the programme advertised for a jewellery brand and a male artiste. Relevant Provision(s) TV Programme Code - paragraphs 1 and 3 of Chapter 11

4 The CA s Findings In line with established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the representations of ATV in detail. The CA noted the facts of the case, among others, as follows (a) the programme was a lifestyle programme broadcast on the TVS Channel, a direct re-transmission channel carried by ATV in its domestic free television programme service; (b) there was an eight-minute segment filmed at the shop of a jewellery brand. A host introduced a collection of the brand s jewellery with the specific collection name given. He made a lot of positive cross references between the jewellery collection and a male artiste who had been recently appointed as the collection s image representative; (c) detailed descriptions and positive remarks about the brand s jewellery were presented with close-up product shots. There were also extensive shots of the brand s jewellery displayed in the shop and deliberate showing of a poster bearing the brand name; and (d) the brand was acknowledged in the end credits of the programme. The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that (a) the positive cross references between the artiste and the brand s jewellery collection, the extensive close-up shots of the brand s jewellery and poster bearing the brand name, as well as the abundant positive remarks on and recommendations to buy the brand s jewellery had given undue prominence to the brand; and (b) the prominent exposure given to the brand and its products had mingled extensive and blatant advertising materials within the programme, which was in breach of paragraphs 1 and 3 of Chapter 11 of the TV Programme Code which prohibit indirect advertising.

5 Decision In view of the above and taking into account ATV s repeated lapses of similar nature, the CA decided that ATV should be warned to observe more closely the relevant provisions in the TV Programme Code. Case 3 Television Programme 賢妻良母 broadcast on the SZTV Channel of ATV on 15 March 2012 at 4:40pm 5:15pm A member of the public complained that the programme contained violence but it was not classified and did not carry any warning caption. Relevant Provision(s) TV Programme Code - paragraph 2 of Chapter 2; - paragraph 8 of Chapter 6; and - paragraphs 1, 2 and 8 of Chapter 8 The CA s Findings In line with established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the representations of ATV in detail. The CA noted the facts of the case, among others, as follows (a) the programme under complaint was a drama series broadcast during the family viewing hours on the SZTV Channel, a direct re-transmission channel carried by ATV in its domestic free television programme service; and (b) the episode under complaint contained depictions of a man holding his mother-in-law in bondage, kicking and beating her up with a baton, and strangling, slapping and hitting his wife.

6 The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that (a) the portrayals of violence, in particular the shots of the mother-in-law who was tied on the chair and pushed over onto the ground, might cause injury if imitated by children; (b) the portrayals of the domestic violence in a contemporary setting might cause alarm or distress to young children. The depiction of no blood stain on the victim being repeatedly hit with a baton might be considered by adults as unreal but young children might be misled that such violence would not cause serious consequence; (c) the concerned depiction of violence, though not prolonged and unreal, was unsuitable for broadcast on a domestic free television programme service during the family viewing hours when there was a large audience of children and guidance from parents or guardians might not be available; and (d) the broadcast of the programme was in breach of paragraph 2 of Chapter 2, paragraph 8 of Chapter 6, and paragraphs 1, 2 and 8 of Chapter 8 of the TV Programme Code governing the family viewing policy applicable to domestic free television programme services, depiction of violence and provision of advice on programme nature and content. Decision In view of the above, the CA decided that ATV should be strongly advised to observe more closely the relevant provisions of the TV Programme Code. Case 4 - Reports on the Filibuster Incident in Six News Programmes broadcast on the Jade, HD Jade and I-News Channels of TVB on 16 May 2012 at 6:30pm, 7:00pm & 11:00pm, and on the TVBN Channel of TVB Pay Vision on the same date at 7:00pm 167 members of the public complained about the six television news programmes concerning the reports on the protests and gathering outside the Legislative Council

7 ( LegCo ) Complex in relation to the filibuster being conducted at the LegCo meeting. 166 complaints were against the five news programmes broadcast at 6:30pm and 7:00pm. The main allegations were (a) footage of some filibuster opponents throwing water bottles were shown while a reporter was reporting on the activities of the filibuster supporters, which misled viewers that those who threw bottles were the filibuster supporters and was biased against the filibuster supporters; and (b) shots of some people with blonde hair, in black shirts and wearing face masks who were against the filibuster being inserted between the report on filibuster supporters and an interview with a filibuster supporter was misleading. One complaint was against the news programme broadcast at 11:00pm. allegations were The main (a) the programme was biased towards the filibuster supporters, unfair and misleading, as the remark of an anti-filibuster young man that he came simply for shopping and eating in an interview would mislead viewers that those against the filibuster were nonsensical; and (b) the reporter intentionally stood near the filibuster supporters during the live report to mislead viewers. Relevant Provision(s) TV Programme Code - paragraphs 1, 1A, 7(b) & 9 of Chapter 9 The CA s Findings In line with established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the representations of TVB and TVB Pay Vision in detail. The CA noted the facts of the case, among others, as follows (a) in the news programmes at 6:30pm and 7:00pm, there were similar reports that

8 supporters and opponents of the filibuster gathered outside the LegCo Complex, taunting each other. Footage of protesters for and against the filibuster carrying banners and shouting slogans was shown. When a voice-over reported that 支持拉布的示威者下午三時左右到立法會聲援在議會內拉布的議員 (English translation: Supporters of the filibuster arrived at the LegCo at around 3:00pm to support the legislators who were filibustering at the LegCo meeting), there were fleeting shots of protesters in black T-shirts and wearing face masks with the 反拉布 (English translation: Anti-filibuster) labels on them and some protesters hurling water bottles in a chaotic situation; and (b) the news programme at 11:00pm clearly indicated that some filibuster opponents threw water bottles at the filibuster supporters. When a young man in the anti-filibuster camp was asked why he joined the protest, he replied that it was just like going to the market ( 行街買餸㗎咋 ). Towards the end of the news item, there was a brief live report in which a female reporter was seen reporting among a crowd of protesters, some of them holding banners and shouting slogans in support of the filibuster. The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that (a) regarding the news programmes at 6:30pm and 7:00pm (i) the news reports presented the chaotic situation of the protests and gathering outside the LegCo Complex in a factual manner. Activities and views of the supporters and opponents of the filibuster were covered; and (ii) although it might not be a perfect match of the voice-over and the presentation of the footage on the event, the stance of the anti-filibuster protesters was shown on their face masks in the alleged shots and the reporter did not allege that the bottles were thrown by the filibuster supporters. Viewers might also observe from the footage that the bottles were thrown from the anti-filibuster area. There was nothing inaccurate, biased, misleading or unfair; (b) regarding the news programme at 11:00pm (i) the alleged remark of the young anti-filibuster protester represented the opinion of an individual, which was factually reported. Viewers would

9 unlikely be misled that such views would represent those of all the anti-filibuster protesters; and (ii) as regards the location of a reporter during the live report, there were on-site limitations for the reporter and camera and nothing misleading was observed. Decision In view of the above, the CA considered the complaints unsubstantiated and decided that no further action should be taken against TVB and TVB Pay Vision. Case 5 Radio Programme Rightable Wrong ( 有冇搞錯 ) broadcast on the Radio 2 Channel of RTHK on 5 April 2012 at 12:00 midnight 2:00am A member of the public complained that the hosts detailed description of the methods of cheating in examinations was irresponsible in a programme targeting young persons and that their frivolousness in handling the topic might trivialised cheating as acceptable behaviour. Relevant Provision(s) Radio Code of Practice on Programme Standards ( Radio Programme Code ) - paragraphs 6 and 17 The CA s Findings In line with established practice, the CA considered the complaint case and the representations of RTHK in detail. The CA noted the facts of the case, among others, as follows (a) the programme was a light-hearted talk show broadcast at late night. In a segment, the hosts invited listeners to share their experience on cheating in examinations, which was meant to be a humorous sharing of some naughty behaviour and regarded as a negative example to remind listeners not to cheat;

10 (b) most of the callers were young persons and some were students. Callers were asked to express regret after talking about their cheating experience. Nonetheless, the hosts appeared to get carried away during the phone conversations and made the reminders in a frivolous and ridiculing tone; and (c) RTHK agreed to the view that the hosts frivolousness had defeated the purpose of a proper reminder and that the detailed description of the cheating methods could result in imitation. The station had therefore taken actions to prevent similar lapse in the future. The CA, having regard to the relevant facts of the case, considered that (a) the programme, though broadcast at late night, was targeting young listeners. The hosts should have handled the topic more discreetly so as to avoid any undesirable impact on its listeners; and (b) the programme was in breach of paragraphs 6 and 17 of the Radio Programme Code which stipulate that broadcasters should handle their programmes in a responsible manner and should be aware of the circumstances such that large number of children and young persons might be listening. Decision In view of the above, the CA decided that RTHK should be advised to observe more closely the relevant provisions of the Radio Programme Code.

11 Appendix List of Cases of Dissatisfaction with the DG Com s Decisions (Considered by the CA in August 2012) Title Channel Broadcast Date Substance of Complaint TV Programme ATV Home Remarks with Heart Beats for sexual Love ( 親密損友 ) connotation, discrimination against women and inappropriate broadcast time Decision being upheld Unsubstantiated TV Programme Gloves Come Off ( 拳王 ) TVB Jade Remarks with sexual connotation Unsubstantiated Radio Programme RTHK Radio Indirect Unsubstantiated Stand By Me ( 有 advertising 你同行 ) Radio Programme RTHK Radio 5 23 & Indirect Unsubstantiated Stand By Me ( 有 advertising 你同行 )