HKG_LIB1\171602\1

Appendix

Case 1 – Television Programme “6:00 News” (六點鐘新聞) broadcast on

25 September 2013 on Home & Asia Channels of ATV at 6:00pm –

6:45pm

A member of the public complained that the remarks in the relevant news item

that children and elderly persons could receive influenza vaccination at $130

under the new government subsidy scheme were inaccurate and misleading.

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 alleged remarks were found in the news item about the Vaccination

Programme 2013/14 (“VP 2013/14”) introduced by the Government;

(b)

according to the VP 2013/14, eligible children and elderly persons were

entitled to a subsidy of $130 for each dose of seasonal influenza vaccine,

instead of being eligible to receive the vaccination at $130 as reported

in the news item; and

(c)

ATV admitted and apologised for the unintentional lapse.

Relevant Provisions in the TV Programme Code

(a)

paragraph 1A of Chapter 9 – licensees should make reasonable efforts

to ensure factual contents of news to be accurate; and

(b)

paragraph 7(e) of Chapter 9 – correction of factual errors in news

should be made as soon as practicable.

The CA’s Considerations

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

(a)

the erroneous report on the Government subsidy level might cause

confusion to the eligible persons and affect their comprehension of the

VP 2013/14; and

(b)

although details of the VP 2013/14 had been widely reported by media,

ATV failed to spot the obvious factual error and did not make a timely

rectification.

Decision

In view of the above and taking into account the relevant precedents, the CA

decided that ATV should be seriously warned to observe more closely the

relevant provisions of the TV Programme Code.

Case 2 – Television Programme “Will Power” (法外風雲) broadcast on

the Jade and HD Jade Channels of TVB on 25 October 2013 at 9:30pm –

10:30pm

A member of the public complained that the repeated portrayals of a brand of

sports drink, including the placement of a vending machine of that sports

drink in the court scenes (which was alleged to be illogical) and its close-up

shots, gave undue prominence to the product and mingled programme with

advertising materials.

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 programme was a fictitious law drama.

The concerned branded

sports drink was identified as one of the product sponsors of the

programme; and

(b)

the alleged vending machine was found in the background of three

scenes in the setting of a hallway and a corridor outside the court room

where different groups of characters were shown discussing the court

hearings.

Relevant Provision in the TV Programme Code

(a)

paragraph 1 of Chapter 11 – indirect advertising in television

programmes is prohibited.

Relevant Provision in the 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.

The CA’s Considerations

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

(a)

there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the use or exposure of

the concerned vending machine as a prop in the concerned scenes of a

fictitious drama was not editorially justified; and

(b)

the first scene which showed the vending machine briefly was

acceptable.

In the second scene, a lawyer was seen purchasing the

concerned product from the vending machine.

A close-up shot of the

lawyer’s hand getting the concerned product from the machine and a

wide shot of the hallway showing the side panel of the machine with the

brand name and the enlarged product image were clearly shown.

When two lawyers sat beside the machine with the drinks in hand to

discuss a court case, the side panel of the machine was prominently

shown.

In the third scene, there were four wide shots of the hallway

showing the side panel of the machine with the brand name and the

enlarged product image while people discussing a court case.

The last

two scenes (particularly the second scene which showed the side panel

of the vending machine with the brand name and the product image in

full thrice) were gratuitous and obtrusive to viewing pleasure, and

therefore amounted to advertising material for the sports drink.

Decision

In view of the above and taking into account the relevant precedents, the CA

decided that TVB should be seriously warned to observe more closely the

relevant provisions of the TV Programme Code and TV Advertising Code.

Case 3 – Television Programme “German Soccer League 2013/14:

Dortmund vs Braunschweig” ( 德國足球聯賽：多蒙特對布倫瑞克 )

broadcast on the Soccer Betting Channel of HKCTV on 18 August 2013

at about 11:25pm – 1:30am

A member of the public complained that a host uttered a foul expression.

The CA’s Findings

In line with the established practice, the CA considered the complaint case

and the representations of HKCTV 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 live telecast of the concerned soccer match and

was available for viewing by the general audience, not restricted for

adults;

(b)

during the broadcast of the title sequence of the programme which

incorporated shots of soccer match highlights, the conversation among

the programme hosts which contained a Cantonese foul expression was

heard; and

(c)

HKCTV admitted the lapse and submitted that the live conversation

among the hosts was not supposed to be on air in the concerned taped

segment.

Relevant Provisions in the TV Programme Code

(a)

paragraph 7 of Chapter 4 - for domestic pay television programme

services, the use of downright offensive language may only be

permitted in programmes or on channels restricted for adults provided it

is appropriate to the programme context and not overly frequent and

impactful; and

(b)

paragraph 8 of Chapter 4 - obscene or profane language that is likely to

offend a substantial portion of the audience is prohibited.

The CA’s Considerations

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

although it appeared to be a technical fault that caused the private

conversation among the programme hosts to be played out, the broadcast of

the foul expression on the concerned channel, which was not restricted to

adults, could offend viewers in general.

Decision

In view of the above and taking into account the relevant precedents, the CA

decided that HKCTV should be warned to observe more closely the relevant

provisions of the TV Programme Code.

Case 4 – Television Advertisement for “Abbott Eye-Q Plus” (“雅培Eye-Q

Plus”) broadcast on 4 September 2013 on Jade Channel of TVB at

10:03pm

A member of the public complained that the claim “美國雅培，美國銷量No.1”

(Abbott No. 1 selling brand in the United States (“US”)) in the advertisement

misled viewers that –

(a)

the advertised infant formula sold in Hong Kong was produced in the

US;

(b)

the advertised infant formula was the same as that produced in the US;

(c)

the advertised infant formula was allowed to be sold in the US and was

the No.1 selling product in the US; and

(d)

the standards of the factory producing the advertised infant formula

were the same as that in the US.

The CA’s Findings

In line with the established practice, the CA considered the complaint case

and the representations of TVB and the advertiser in detail.

The CA took

into account the relevant aspects of the case, including the following –

Details of the Case

(a)

the 30-second advertisement for a brand of infant formula had two

versions, both in Cantonese, with one provided with English subtitles

for English service channel.

In the advertisement, a female singer

talked about why she chose the infant formula of the concerned brand

for her baby;

(b)

at the ending part of the advertisement, three cans of the advertised

products bearing the product names in Chinese were prominently

displayed when the best-selling claim for the US products was made in

the voice-over.

In the version for English service channel, the English

subtitles “Abbott No. 1 selling brand in the US” were shown throughout

the ending part;

(c)

a caption specifying the time period of a survey report was shown when

the best-selling claim was made; and

(d)

the aforesaid best-selling claim did not refer to the advertised products

sold in Hong Kong which were imported from Europe.

Relevant Provisions in the TV Advertising Code

(a)

paragraph 6 of Chapter 4 – references to the results of research surveys

should be presented carefully, so as not to mislead viewers; and

(b)

paragraph 7 of Chapter 4 – information conveyed must be accurate and

not misleading by concealing or failing to make clear significant facts.

The CA’s Considerations

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

(a)

there was no claim in the advertisement that the advertised products

were produced in the US or that the production standards of the

advertised products were the same as those in the US as alleged by the

complainant;

(b)

however, the best-selling claim for the US products of the brand

appeared at the ending frame with three cans of the advertised products

sold in Hong Kong prominently displayed would mislead viewers that

the advertised products sold in Hong Kong were the same as the No.1

selling products in the US.

There was no clear-cut audio-visual

separation for the two messages (i.e. the promotion of the advertised

products sold in Hong Kong and the best-selling claim for the brand’s

US products);

(c)

TVB should, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the

presentation of the advertisement must not be misleading by concealing

or failing to make clear significant facts as required in paragraph 7 of

Chapter 4 of the TV Advertising Code; and

(d)

the CA noted that the references to the results of a survey in relation to

the best-selling claim was not presented carefully and could mislead

viewers regarding the concerned best-selling claim, which was in

breach of paragraph 6 of Chapter 4 of the TV Advertising Code.

Decision

In view of the above, the CA considered the complaint justified in respect of

the misleading presentation that the advertised products were the same as

those mentioned in the best-selling claim for the brand’s US products and the

references made in the advertisement regarding the concerned survey, and

decided that TVB should be warned to observe more closely the relevant

provisions of the TV Advertising Code.

Case 5 – Television Programme “A-League: 2013/14: Newcastle Jets vs

Central Coast Mariners” (澳洲職業聯賽：紐卡素噴射機對中岸水手)

broadcast on the Soccer Betting Channel of HKCTV on 2 November 2013

at 4:30pm – 6:48pm

A member of the public complained that a host uttered a foul expression.

The CA’s Findings

In line with the established practice, the CA considered the complaint case

and the representations of HKCTV 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 live telecast of the concerned soccer match and

was available for viewing by the general audience, not restricted for

adults; and

(b)

when a player of the Central Coast Mariners passed the ball to his team

mate, a host passed a commentary with a Cantonese foul expression in

it.

Relevant Provisions in the TV Programme Code

(a)

paragraph 7 of Chapter 4 - for domestic pay television programme

services, the use of downright offensive language may only be

permitted in programmes or on channels restricted for adults provided it

is appropriate to the programme context and not overly frequent and

impactful; and

(b)

paragraph 8 of Chapter 4 - obscene or profane language that is likely to

offend a substantial portion of the audience is prohibited.

The CA’s Considerations

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

although the lapse appeared to be a slip of tongue, the concerned expression

could not be justified amid the commentaries of a soccer match and was

likely to offend the audience of the channel which was for general viewing.

Decision

In view of the above and taking into account the relevant precedents, the CA

decided that HKCTV should be warned to observe more closely the relevant

provisions of the TV Programme Code.

Case 6 – Television Programme “12:30 News” (十二點半新聞) broadcast

on the Home Channel of ATV on 4 December 2013 at 12:30pm – 1:00pm

A member of the public lodged the complaint.

The main allegation was that

the remarks in a news item that Hong Kong maintained the red Outbound

Travel Alert (“OTA”) for Thailand were inaccurate as the red OTA in force

then was for Bangkok only.

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 alleged remarks were found in the news item about the Legislative

Council (“LegCo”) Members enquiring the Secretary for Security in a

LegCo meeting on whether the OTA issued for Thailand was

appropriate to reflect the level of risk; and

(b)

ATV admitted the lapse that the red OTA was issued for Bangkok only

and the OTA for other parts of Thailand remained at amber.

Relevant Provisions in the TV Programme Code

(a)

paragraph 1A of Chapter 9 – licensees shall make reasonable efforts to

ensure that factual contents of news to be accurate; and

(b)

paragraph 7 (e) of Chapter 9 – correction of factual errors in news

should be made as soon as practicable.

The CA’s Considerations

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

(a)

although the specific place in Thailand for which the red OTA was

issued was not the focus of the concerned news item, the misstating of

the OTA for other parts of Thailand would cause confusion to travellers,

in particular those who planned to travel to Thailand; and

(b)

it was a clear factual error in a news report.

Nonetheless, ATV did not

notice the error and had not made any correction.

Decision

In view of the above and taking into account the relevant precedents, the CA

decided that ATV should be warned to observe more closely the relevant

provisions of the TV Programme Code.

Case 7 – Television Programme “Q & A Lessons” (通識小學堂) broadcast

on the Home Channel of ATV on 1 May 2013 at 9:15am – 9:45am

A member of the public complained that a guest teacher’s remarks that the

first day of May had been made the Labour Day public holiday in China since

1999, and that the former U.S. President Roosevelt confirmed the eight-hour

working day standard in 1935 were incorrect.

The complainant alleged that

the former should be in place since 1949, whereas the latter, in 1938, and the

working hour standard then should be 40 hours per week.

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

concerned

programme

was a children’s programme with

educational purposes;

(b)

the alleged remarks were given by a guest teacher when he explained

the origin of the Labour Day; and

(c)

ATV admitted and apologised for the unintentional fault.

It explained

that the first of May had been made the Labour Day public holiday in

China since 1949. The guest teacher’s remarks in fact referred to the

making of the first of May a general holiday in Hong Kong from 1999

onwards.

Relevant Provision in the TV Programme Code

(a)

paragraph 1A of Chapter 9 – licensees shall make reasonable efforts to

ensure that factual contents of children’s programmes with educational

purposes are accurate.

The CA’s Considerations

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

(a)

the erroneous remarks were presented by a guest teacher; and

(b)

ATV was not aware of the alleged errors and no rectification was thus

made.

Decision

In view of the above and taking into account the relevant precedents, the CA

decided that ATV should be advised to observe more closely the relevant

provision of the TV Programme Code.

Case 8 – Television Programme “Miss Hong Kong Pageant 2013 – Semi

Final” (2013 香港小姐競選準決賽) broadcast on the Jade Channel of

TVB on 25 August 2013 at 9:00pm – 10:30pm

A member of the public complained that the programme, with a majority part

of it being pre-recorded, was broadcast without subtitles and in contravention

of the subtitling requirement.

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 programme under complaint was indicated as a live broadcast in

TVB’s official publication and was broadcast without subtitles

throughout.

However, according to some media reports, the part of

the programme broadcast from 9:00pm to 10:00pm was recorded the

night before, and only the part from 10:00pm to 10:30pm was broadcast

live.

Relevant Provisions in TVB’s Domestic Free Television Programme

Service Licence (“Licence”)

(a)

Condition 3.1 of the First Schedule – the Licensee shall provide

subtitling for its Service, as may be directed by the Broadcasting

Authority (“BA”); and

(b)

Condition 3.2 of the First Schedule – the Licensee may, with the prior

approval of the BA and subject to such conditions as may be imposed

by it, deviate from the requirements in Condition 3.1 of this Schedule.

The CA’s Consideration

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

(a)

pursuant to Condition 3.1 of the First Schedule of TVB’s Licence, the

former BA directed TVB to, among others, provide on its Cantonese

channel Chinese subtitles for all programmes shown between 7:00pm

and 11:00pm.

Pursuant to Condition 3.2 of the Licence, the former

BA also granted a blanket approval to exempt TVB from the above

subtitling requirement where the provision of subtitling was not

practicable, including in the case of live broadcasts.

For other

technical constraints not covered in the blanket approval, TVB was

required to apply to the CA for exemption on a case-by-case basis

justifying the constraint in question;

(b)

the pre-recorded segments, which amounted to about two-thirds of the

programme and the filming of which started on the day before the

programme was on air, should not be regarded as “live broadcasts” or

falling within the scope of the former BA’s blanket approval; and

(c)

while TVB submitted that the main reason for not being able to provide

subtitles for the pre-recorded segments was due to time and technical

constraints, as an experienced licensee, TVB should be well aware of

the time required for the filming and other post-production work

including subtitling for similar shows, and should have applied to the

CA for an exemption if it was not able to prepare subtitles for the

pre-recorded segments of the programme.

Decision

In view of the above, the CA considered the complaint in respect of TVB’s

failure to provide subtitles for the pre-recorded parts of the programme

without applying for the CA’s exemption justified and decided that TVB

should be advised to observe more closely the relevant conditions in its

Licence.

Case 9 – Television Programme “M. I. Challenge” (智激校園) broadcast

on the Jade Channel of TVB on 6 October 2013 at 4:30pm – 5:00pm

A member of the public complained that when a teacher character gave the

answer to a question, his reference to “Rio de Janeiro” as the capital of Brazil

was inaccurate.

The capital of Brazil should be Brasília instead.

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 children’s programme with

educational purposes; and

(b)

the alleged mistake was found in a quiz participated by students.

Relevant Provision in the TV Programme Code

(a)

paragraph 1A of Chapter 9 – licensees shall make reasonable efforts to

ensure that factual contents of children’s programmes with educational

purposes are accurate.

The CA’s Considerations

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

(a)

it was a clear factual error which might mislead some children viewers

of the programme; and

(b)

TVB had taken remedial actions to lessen the adverse effect of the lapse,

including rectifying the recordings of the programme on its website

promptly and arranging to ask a similar question in the same

programme to convey the accurate information.

Decision

In view of the above and the relevant precedents, the CA decided to classify

the lapse as a minor breach of the relevant provision.

Case 10 – Television Programme “ATV Focus” (ATV焦點) broadcast on

the Home and Asia Channels of ATV on 7 November 2013 at 6:35pm –

6:45pm

A member of the public complained that the remarks “日前，香港考試及評核

局出版了2013中學文憑試的考試報告，被喻為「死亡之卷」、有接近一

半考生「肥佬」的中文科，不少考生表現差劣

…” (English Translation: The

Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (“HKEAA”) published

the 2013 Examination Report of the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary

Education (“HKDSE”) recently.

About half of the candidates “failed” in the

subject of Chinese Language which was referred to as the “paper of death”

and many of the candidates performed poorly in the subject…) (“First

Remark”) and “香港考試及評核局日前發表了第二屆中學文憑試《考試報

告及試題專輯》，稱考生中文科成績欠佳，達標率只有五成二

…” (English

Translation: The HKEAA released the second HKDSE “Examination Report

and Question Papers” (“ERQP”) recently, which stated that the candidates did

not perform well in the subject of Chinese Language with an attainment rate

of only 52%) (“Second Remark”) were inaccurate.

It was unfair to infer,

with the inaccurate remarks, that Hong Kong students were poor in Chinese.

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”).

The host and a media worker made the concerned remarks respectively

and opined that the Chinese standard of Hong Kong students was poor;

(b)

ATV submitted that the host and the media worker referred to

candidates who did not attain “Level 3” or above in the subject of

Chinese Language in the HKDSE examination as being failed and not

attaining the required standard, since such candidates did not meet the

minimum entrance requirements of the 4-year undergraduate degree

programmes in local universities; and

(c)

investigation revealed that standard-referenced reporting was adopted to

assess candidates’ performance in the subject of Chinese Language in

the HKDSE examination, in which candidates’ performance was

reported at Levels 1 to 5 and there was no general attainment level for

the subject.

Education institutions could set their own requirements

for different selection purposes.

However, the 2013 ERQP never

mentioned or implied that the candidates did not perform well in the

subject and that the attainment rate was only 52%.