AppendixWord文件下载.docx

AppendixWord文件下载.docx

《AppendixWord文件下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《AppendixWord文件下载.docx（4页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

Appendix@#@Appendix@#@Case1–TelevisionAdvertisementfor“Whisper–RollerCoaster”（「護舒寶–過山車篇」廣告）broadcastontheHomeChannelofAsiaTelevisionLimited（ATV）andtheJadeChannelofTelevisionBroadcastsLimited（TVB）onAugust2,2009@#@Twomembersofthepubliccomplainedaboutthetelevisionadvertisementfor“Whisper–RollerCoaster”.Thesubstanceofthecomplaintswasthattheclaim“全港最薄嘅Whisper隱形護墊”（WhisperInvisible,thethinnestpantilinerinHongKong）wasfalse,incapableofbeingsubstantiatedandmisleadingtoconsumers.Theproductconcernedwasthinonlyalongtheedgesandtheabsorbentpadatthecentrewasthickerthanproductsofotherbrands.@#@TheBAnotedthattheadvertisementcarriedavoice-over“全港最薄嘅Whisper隱形護墊”（WhisperInvisible,thethinnestpantilinerinHongKong）,statingthatthebrand’snewpanitilinerwasthethinnestinHongKongandthecaption“與主要品牌比較（P&@#@GR&@#@DDec2008）”（comparedwithothermajorbrandsofpantiliners）wassuperimposedonscreenindicatingthedateofacomparativestudyconductedbytheadvertiser,Procter&@#@GambleHongKongLimited（P&@#@G）.@#@TheBAconsideredthattheclaim“全港最薄嘅Whisper隱形護墊”（WhisperInvisible,thethinnestpantilinerinHongKong）intheadvertisementwasafactualclaimwhichrequiredsubstantiation.Aftertakingintoaccounttheinformationandrepresentationsuppliedbythelicenseesandtheadvertiserinsupportoftheclaim,theBAconcludedthatthereportandtheinformationsubmittedbythelicenseeswasinsufficienttosubstantiatethesuperlativeclaimthatWhisperpantilinerwas“全港最薄”（thethinnestpantilinerinHongKong）asthestudyconductedbyP&@#@GinDecember2008indicatedthattheadvertisedpantilinerwasthethinnestmeasuredattheperipheralareaincomparisonwithsimilarproductsofothermajorbrands.@#@Regardingwhetherthelicenseeshadexercisedreasonablediligenceinascertainingthetruthfulnessoftheclaim,theBAconsideredthatastherelevantlicenseesshouldhavethesensitivitytoprobeintotheevidenceofafactualclaimandparticularlywhentheclaimconcernedwasasuperlativeclaiminanadvertisement,thelicenseesconcernedhadnotexercisedreasonablediligenceinthiscase.TheBAconsideredthecomplaintsjustified,ATVandTVBwerestronglyadvisedtoobservemorecloselytherelevantprovisions,viz.paragraph9ofChapter3andparagraphs1,6and7ofChapter4,oftheGenericCodeofPracticeonTelevisionAdvertisingStandards（TVAdvertisingCode）.@#@ @#@@#@Case2–NewsProgrammesbroadcastontheCableNewsChannelofHongKongCableTelevisionLimited（HKCTV）onNovember16and17,2009@#@TwomembersofthepubliccomplainedaboutthenewsprogrammesbroadcastontheCableNewsChannelofHKCTVonNovember16and17,2009.Thesubstanceofthecomplaintswasthatinthenewsitemaboutalocalswimmerbeingsanctionedfordoping,thestationwronglyidentifiedanotherswimmerasthedopingswimmerinagroupphotograph.@#@TheBAnotedthat–@#@（i）inthenewsitemaboutateenageswimmerbeingtestedpositiveforsteroidsaftertheHongKongInternationalOpenChampionshipsinSeptember2009,aphotographofagroupofswimmerswereshownandoneoftheotherswimmerswaserroneouslyred-circledastheswimmersanctionedfordoping;@#@@#@（ii）theconcernednewsitemwasrepeatedlybroadcastonCableNewsChannel,alocal24-hournewschannel,onNovember16and17,2009;@#@and@#@（iii）HKCTVadmittedthatitwasaninadvertentlapse.HKCTVhadnotmadeanycorrectiononairasthemistakewasdrawntotheirattentionquiteawhilelaterandboththemisidentifiedswimmerandHKCTVconsidereditmoreappropriatetomaketheamendmentinwritingthanon-screen.HKCTVhad,amongothers,apologisedtotheaffectedswimmerbothverballyandinwritingandtakenmeasurestoavoidrecurrenceofsimilarlapse.@#@TheBAconsideredthataccuracywasveryimportantinfactualprogrammesespeciallyinnewsprogrammes.Professionaljournalistsshouldmakeeveryefforttoverifythefactsoftheirnewsreports.TheconcernedlapsemightcauseembarrassmentandinconveniencetotheaffectedswimmerasHKCTVhadreportedaninnocentathletebeingsanctionedfordopingmistakenly.Sincethereportwasrepeatedlybroadcastinalocal24-hournewschannelfortwodays,theadverseeffectcouldbeaggravated.HKCTVwasunawareofitslapsesometimeafterthenewsbroadcastandprovidednotimelyrectificationannouncementtoreduceanyharmwhichmighthavebeencausedtotheconcernedswimmer.HKCTVhadnotmadereasonableeffortstoensuretheaccuracyofthefactualcontentsofnews.TheBAconsideredthatthecomplaintswerejustified.Takingintoaccount,amongothers,therelevantprecedentsandthatHKCTVhadnotcommittedsimilarlapsesinrecentyears,HKCTVwaswarnedtoobservemorecloselytherelevantprovision,viz.paragraph1AofChapter9,oftheGenericCodeofPracticeonTelev