***********************************************************
The following is issued on behalf of the Communications Authority:
The Communications Authority (CA) received over 42,000 public complaints about the various episodes of the television programme entitled "ATV Focus" broadcast from September 3 to 7, 2012 (the Episodes). Considerable processing time has been spent on examining each complaint carefully, categorising the areas of concern raised by the complainants, and matching them against relevant provisions in the Generic Code of Practice on Television Programme Standards (TV Programme Code) to identify possible contraventions.
The main allegations regarding the Episodes, which were raised in the 42,000 public complaints, were that they:
(a) presented the views of a person who was not present and identifiable in the Episodes, with the programme title incorporating the name of the station, which were presented like an editorial of ATV setting out the station's own views on a controversial issue of public importance in Hong Kong, viz. the protest against the introduction of national education. This violated the principle that a licensee should be neutral in any discussion of such controversial issues;
(b) were presented as news or current affairs programmes and should not be treated as a personal view programme (PVP);
(c) contained inaccurate and misleading content and unsubstantiated accusations against people who supported the protest against the introduction of national education; and
(d) presented one-sided partial views on the national education issue but did not provide a suitable opportunity for others, in particular those criticised in the Episodes, to respond.
In considering the complaints, the CA noted that the five Episodes were characterised by ATV as a PVP, but no information about the programme host/commentator, the script writer (albeit a pseudonym was given starting September 5, 2012) or the production team was provided. Unlike a conventional PVP, there was no "person" present in the programme putting forward his or her own views on the issues being considered. The way and manner in which the programme was broadcast gave viewers a strong impression that it was an editorial representing the stance of ATV.
Notwithstanding the strong public concerns which were expressed about ATV's broadcast of editorial-like programmes in such a format, the CA noted that the existing TV Programme Code did not expressly prohibit a licensee from expressing its views in a PVP and was silent on the format and the presentation of a PVP. Accordingly, the CA accepted that the Episodes could be regarded as a PVP, albeit a marginal case, and thus would not be subject to the rule of due impartiality applicable to news and current affairs programmes.
The above notwithstanding, the CA found that ATV had contravened Chapter 9 of the TV Programme Code governing PVPs by:
(a) failing to provide a suitable opportunity for response to the five Episodes – in breach of paragraph 17(c);
(b) failing to allow a broad range of views to be expressed on the national education issue – in breach of paragraph 17(d) which provides that licensees should be mindful of the need for a sufficiently broad range of views to be expressed in any series of PVPs;
(c) providing inaccurate or misleading factual content – in breach of paragraph 1A, which requires licensees to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the factual contents of news, current affairs programmes and PVP, are accurate; and
(d) making two factual errors in the two episodes broadcast on September 5 and 6, 2012 - in breach of paragraph 17(b) which provides that facts must be respected and that the opinion which is expressed in a PVP, however partial, should not be based upon false evidence.
Having considered the full circumstances of the case and the provisions of the TV Programme Code, the CA decided that ATV should be warned to observe more closely the relevant provisions in the TV Programme Code.
In reaching its decision, the CA is conscious of the strong public concern about the presentation of the five Episodes which gave viewers a strong impression that they were an editorial representing ATV's stance on the national education issue in which the views expressed were one-sided and partial. The CA on the other hand attaches great importance to freedom of expression and would respect licensee's editorial autonomy in programme production. For the reasons that the five Episodes were accepted as PVP (albeit marginally), the rule of due impartiality applicable to news or other factual programmes did not apply to the five Episodes in this case.
Nevertheless, as ATV holds a domestic free television programme service licence which allows it to use spectrum, which is a scarce public resource, to provide its broadcasting service, it should provide a television programme service which meets the aspirations of the community as a whole. Whilst the CA has adhered strictly to the relevant provisions of the TV Programme Code, as well as having regard to the need both to treat all parties fairly and to preserve freedom of expression, when considering the complaints, it remains mindful of the serious public concern about programmes presenting the views of a licensee in the form of a PVP. Accordingly, the CA will be reviewing the relevant parts of the TV Programme Code as a matter of priority in order to address the concern.
Further details of the case are at the Appendix.
As the CA has received an exceptionally high volume of complaints in this case, the CA will not issue an individual reply to each of the complainants. Members of the public including the concerned complainants are invited to note details of the CA's decision on the case which is published on the CA's website www.coms-auth.hk/filemanager/en/content_713/appx_20121205.pdf.
Ends/Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Issued at HKT 20:04
NNNN
