******************************
The following is issued on behalf of the Broadcasting Authority:
At its meeting today (February 16), the Broadcasting Authority considered an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing on the complaint about the provision of broadcasting services by the four 3G mobile services operators in Hong Kong without licences unjustified. In January, 2007, the authority also considered two complaint cases, concerning four public complaints and a lapse reported by ATV, substantiated. The first case was about the television programme “Super Adult & Child”(超級大細路) broadcast on the Entertainment Channel of Hong Kong Cable Television Limited (HKCTV) on November 4, 2006, from 8pm to 9pm. The second case was about the radio programme “We Are Family”(自己人) broadcast on the Radio 2 Channel of Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) on July, 29 and August 5 and 12, 2006, from midnight to 2am. The third case was about the non-compliance with statutory restriction on advertising time by Asia Television Limited (ATV) in the clock hour of 7pm–8pm on the Home channel on November 15, 2006. Please see Annex for details.
The authority also noted that in January, 2007, the Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing dealt with 73 cases (144 complaints) under her delegated authority, of which seven cases (seven complaints) were classified as minor breaches, and 48 cases (119 complaints) as unsubstantiated, under section 11 of the Broadcasting Authority Ordinance. Eighteen cases (18 complaints) were outside section 11 of the ordinance. Please refer to the authority website: www.hkba.hk for details of the complaints.
Annex
Summary of Substantiated Complaint Cases, a Case of Reported Lapse and an Appeal Case
Case 1 – Appeal against the Decision of the Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing on Public Complaint about the Provision of Broadcasting Services by 3G Mobile Service Operators without Licences
A member of the public appealed against the decision of the Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing (CTEL) on the complaint about the mobile television services provided by the four 3G mobile service operators - Hong Kong CSL Limited, Hutchison Telephone Company Limited, SmarTone 3G Limited and SUNDAY 3G (Hong Kong) Limited. The substance of the complaint was that the four operators were providing broadcasting services without licences, in contravention of section 5 of the Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap.562).
After careful consideration of the submissions of the contending parties and relevant legal advice, the authority decided that CTEL’s previous decision in classifying the complaint as unsubstantiated should be upheld on the following grounds –
(a) the authority noted that under section 2(1) of the Broadcasting Ordinance, “broadcasting service” means “domestic free television programme service”, “domestic pay television programme service”, “non-domestic television programme service” or “other licensable television programme service”;
(b) the authority also noted that under the Broadcasting Ordinance, the definitions of domestic free, domestic pay and other licensable television programme services all require the service to be intended or available for reception by an audience of more than/not more than 5,000 specified premises and that “specified premises” means domestic premises or hotel rooms in Hong Kong. The BA considered that the construction of “reception by an audience of ... specified premises” should be that the potential audience is based on or identifiable with, or as matter of principle technically or physically connected with, any “specified premises”. As the potential audience of the services in question was not based on or identifiable with, or technically or physically connected with, any specified premises, the services were neither intended nor available for reception by an audience of the specified premises for the purposes of the Broadcasting Ordinance. As such, the services did not fall within the definition of a domestic free, domestic pay or other licensable television programme service;
(c) the authority considered that the mobile television services would not fall within the definition of non-domestic television programme service as the services were primarily targeting Hong Kong; and
(d) based on the above, the authority considered that the mobile television services were not licensable broadcasting services under the Broadcasting Ordinance.
Case 2 – Television programme “Super Adult & Child” (超級大細路) broadcast on the Entertainment Channel of Hong Kong Cable Television Limited (HKCTV) on November 4, 2006, from 8pm to 9pm.
Three members of the public complained that the programme hostess’ remarks that a child had “義氣” (loyalty/comradeship) with regard to the child’s refusal to disclose the name of a wrongdoer in a game segment were irresponsible and would mislead children into thinking that dishonestly keeping secret for wrongdoers was a proper behaviour.
In the episode under complaint, there was a game segment involving three children. The three children were placed in the studio set individually with either the host, the hostess or the guest in the absence of their parents. The host/hostess/guest then deliberately broke one of the props (道具) displayed on the table in front of the child and then requested the child not to tell others what had happened. Later on, the children were separately asked by other adults to reveal the person who had broken the prop. Among the three children, two identified the culprits and one said she had no knowledge and claimed that the prop was already broken when she saw it. The hostess commended that the child who refused to tell had “義氣” (loyalty/comradeship).
The authority noted that the programme under complaint was a talk show broadcast on the Entertainment Channel of HKCTV which did not target children specifically; the programme was preceded with advisory captions; the programme was first broadcast in a Saturday evening at 8pm-9pm and repeated on a Sunday afternoon at noon-1pm and 3pm-4pm, and at other times during the following week, when children were likely watching television; and instead of keeping quiet, the child lied about the actual happening of the incident after being earnestly requested by the relevant programme host.
The authority considered that –
(a) peer group recognition was important to children and teenagers, and the programme hostess’ remark “義氣” might mislead children viewers into believing that one could earn friendship by covering up for friends and that this was a proper and commendable act;
(b) despite the provision of advisory captions and announcement prior to the broadcast of the programme, the hostess’ remark was unacceptable for broadcast on a channel for general viewing on a domestic pay television programme service as the channel was unlikely to be locked and children viewers might watch the programme unaccompanied by adults, especially when the programme was broadcast in a Saturday evening and was repeated in a Sunday afternoon when a great number of children were likely to be watching television; and
(c) although the family viewing policy was not applicable to domestic pay television programme services, licensees should ensure that the programmes on their services were suitable for their likely audience, viz. including children in this case with regard to the circumstances of broadcast.
HKCTV was advised to observe paragraph 1 (programmes be scheduled with an awareness of the likely audience in mind) and paragraph 8 (programmes are suitable for their likely audience) of Chapter 2; paragraph 1 of Chapter 3 (programmes be handled in a responsible manner); and paragraph 1 of Chapter 7 (likely effects of broadcast material on children) of the Generic Code of Practice on Television Programme Standards.
Case 3 – Radio programme “We Are Family”(自己人) broadcast on the Radio 2 Channel of Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) on July 29 and August 5 and 12, 2006, from midnight to 2am.
A member of the public complained that the programme was biased towards homosexuality as it only reflected views of homosexuals but not views of others such as the Catholics and the teachers; and that the programme should carry a warning in advance as the content on homosexuality would disturb or offend many Hong Kong people.
The authority was of the view that the programme concerned was a niche programme portraying alternative lifestyles targeting minority listeners. Taking into consideration its approach and presentation, the programme did not fall within the category of factual programmes dealing with public policy or matters of controversial issues of public importance in Hong Kong. Thus, the programme concerned was not in breach of the impartiality requirement, as such requirement was not applicable to factual programmes which do not deal with public policy or controversial issues. Nevertheless, the authority considered that the programme warranted an advisory in view of its sensitive nature. The authority considered that the opening “走出衣櫃……攣家路窄……” (Out of the closet, …out of my limits, …) of the programme concerned could not be regarded as an adequate warning for listeners on the content of the programme for the purpose of paragraph 20 of the Radio Code of Practice on Programme Standards.
RTHK was advised to observe more closely paragraph 20 of the Radio Code of Practice on Programme Standards on provision of warning.
Case 4 – Non-compliance with Statutory Restriction on Advertising Time by Asia Television Limited (ATV)
ATV reported to the authority that it had broadcast an aggregate of 10 minutes 23 seconds of advertisements in the clock hour of 7pm–8pm on the Home channel on November 15, 2006, exceeding the statutory limit by 23 seconds.
Section 11(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap. 562) stipulates that, inter alia, the aggregate advertising time of a domestic free television programme service shall not exceed 10 minutes per clock hour between the period from 5pm to 11pm each day.
The authority noted the lapse had occurred because a 30-second advertisement originally scheduled to broadcast during 6pm–7pm was mistakenly moved to 7pm–8pm. The authority noted that ATV had admitted the lapse and submitted that upon discovery of the lapse, ATV had immediately taken the initiative to report the case; that ATV had not benefited from any financial gain in the incident as it had not received any additional revenue; and that the lapse was an isolated incident and ATV had taken precautionary measures to prevent the recurrence of similar mistake in future.
The authority decided that ATV was in breach of the provision on advertising time restriction. ATV was advised to observe more closely Section 11(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Ordinance.
Ends/Friday, February 16, 2007
Issued at HKT 13:16
NNNN
