BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

Sky's forthcoming summary of the 1995 Five Nations Rugby Championship was

dealt with in a promotions videotape broadcast up to six times a day in December

1994 and January 1995.

Mr Darcy complained to Sky Network Television Ltd that the promo was inaccurate

as it did not explain that the coverage of the Championship in 1995, when compared

with the coverage in previous years, had been reduced by about one half.

Explaining the promo correctly explained the coverage which would be given to the

Championship, and that the other matters in the complaint did not raise questions of

broadcasting standards, Sky declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with

Sky's response, Mr Darcy referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

After correspondence with Sky about its coverage of the Five Nations Rugby

Championships and the English Premier League, Mr Darcy complained formally about

Sky's promotion of the Rugby Championship during December 1994 and January

1995. He alleged that it was inaccurate as, without advice to viewers, only half the

amount of what was shown in previous years was broadcast in 1995.

He also argued, with regard to his on-going correspondence, that Sky had breached the

requirement in standard P3 of the broadcasting standards that an individual has the

right to express an opinion. However, as Sky's response to the contents of the

correspondence did not raise an issue of broadcasting standards, the Authority did not

accept it as a matter over which it had jurisdiction.

Sky assessed the complaint about the Rugby Championship promos under standard

P1 of the Sky Code of Broadcasting Practice which requires broadcasters:

P1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

On the basis that the promos accurately reported what was in fact broadcast, and that

there was no representation that the coverage would be similar to that in previous

years, Sky declined to uphold the complaint.

Alleging that he had been misled by a broadcaster who had not reported that the

coverage in 1995 would be reduced, Mr Darcy maintained – when he referred his

complaint to the Authority – that standard P1 had been contravened.

In its report to the Authority, Sky focussed on the aspect of the complaint which

referred to the material which had been broadcast. It said that the promos did not

claim that the coverage of the 1995 Championship was similar to that of previous

years and it repeated the point made to Mr Darcy that the coverage screened was

indeed the coverage advertised in the promos.

Having watched the promo, the Authority accepted that Sky promoted what would

be the coverage of the 1995 Championship. It did not refer in any way to the

coverage in 1995 or previous years. The Authority also noted that Mr Darcy, while

dissatisfied with the extent of the coverage, did not dispute the amount of coverage

actually shown. Accordingly, the Authority did not accept that the promo breached

the accuracy requirement of standard P1.

For the above reasons, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
17 August 1995

Appendix

L J Darcy's Complaint to Sky Network Television Limited - 7 April 1995

Mr Darcy of Timaru complained formally to Sky Network Television Ltd through the

Broadcasting Standards Authority. He alleged that Sky's promotion in December

1994 and January 1995 of Five Nations Rugby breached the accuracy requirement in

standard P1 as only half the amount of what was shown in previous years was

broadcast in 1995.

Mr Darcy also maintained that the requirement in standard P3 - to acknowledge the

right of individual's to express their own opinion - had been contravened as Sky had

not provided any satisfactory answers to his questions about its programming which

had been sent directly to Sky.

The Authority advised Mr Darcy that the complaint which raised standard P3 did not

refer to a broadcast and, accordingly, was not a matter within its jurisdiction. It

forwarded the alleged breach of standard P1 to Sky and asked it to respond directly to

Mr Darcy.

Sky's Response to the Formal Complaint - 11 May 1995

On the basis that its coverage of the Five Nations Championship matched the promos

advertising the coverage, Sky declined to uphold Mr Darcy's complaint under

standard P1. It wrote:

It is our view that none of these promotional broadcasts contained

representations that SKY coverage of the 1995 Five Nations Championship

would be the same as or substantially similar to our coverage in previous years,

or would include a replay of all or any particular matches in the championship.

Sky also rejected the allegation that the promos were designed to deceive subscribers

as to the level of coverage to be shown.

Mr Darcy's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 14 May 1995

Dissatisfied with Sky's response, Mr Darcy referred his complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

He maintained that in December 1994 - January 1995 Sky had heavily promoted its

coverage of Five Nations Rugby "knowing that coverage was to be reduced by 50%

from previous years". Expressing the opinion that he was in a direct buyer/seller

relationship with Sky as a subscriber service, he insisted that, as he had been misled,

standard P1 had been contravened.

Sky's Response to the Authority - 6 July 1995

In its report to the Authority, Sky said that Mr Darcy's complaint contained three

aspects: first, that the promos advised that Sky's coverage of the 1995 championships

would be the same as in previous years; secondly, that the coverage in 1995 differed

from that which the promos said would be covered; and, thirdly, that Sky at the time

of broadcasting the promos, knew that the coverage in 1995 would only be 50% of the

amount shown in previous years.

Dealing first with the third aspect of the referral, Sky argued that it did not refer to a

broadcast and, therefore, was not a matter to which standard P1 referred. Sky added:

It is more appropriately described as an accusation of an intention to engage in

misleading or deceptive conduct rather than a complaint about the nature or

content of a broadcast. We should point out, however, that SKY absolutely

rejects any allegations that, in its promotional broadcasts for coverage of the

1995 Five Nations Rugby Championships, we set out to deceive or mislead our

subscribers as to the level of coverage to be shown on SKY sport.

Sky also rejected an aspect of the first point on the basis that the frequency that a

promotional video was played had no bearing on whether the contents were truthful

and accurate.

As for the second point and remainder of the first point, Sky wrote:

... it is our view that there is nothing in the promotional videotape which you

have to hand which would give rise to any reasonable inference that our level of

coverage of the 1995 championships would be the same as or substantially

similar to our coverage in previous years, or that our coverage would include a

replay of all or any particular matches to be played in the 1995 championships.

There is no express or implied references to our coverage in previous years. Nor

are there any references to particular matches to be played between the Five

Nations countries which would be covered by SKY.

On the basis that the frequency of play could have some relevance to the complaint,

Sky recorded that the promo was broadcast up to six times a day in December and

January which it did not regard as being heavy or excessive. It noted:

As an aside, we make the observation that our actual coverage of the 1995 Five

Nations Championships was supported by SKY's official monthly magazine

"SkyWatch" which contained full details of our transmission schedule and the

extent of our coverage. Mr Darcy was a subscriber to SkyWatch throughout this

period.

Dealing with the relationship between the Mr Darcy - a subscriber - and itself, Sky

said it reserved to itself the right to determine the programming of the channels to

which customers subscribed and it concluded:

It is hopefully by providing programming which appeals to our subscribers that

we continue to retain their business. Having said that, however, not only does

SKY not accept that it deliberately mislead or deceived its subscribers into

believing that SKY would have full coverage of all matches in the 1995 Five

Nations Championships or coverage of particular matches, but, in addition, Mr

Darcy and our other subscribers had no contractual right to receive any

particular level of coverage of those championships.

Mr Darcy's Final Comment - 16 July 1995

Attaching some of his earlier letters to Sky, Mr Darcy wrote:

The complaint regarding 5 Nations Rugby coverage is just one example of Sky

reducing its coverage of a subject while not bringing to its purchasers its

intention to reduce the product.

That had also occurred with the reduction of Sky's coverage of the BBC news and

English Premier League coverage. While he did not object to a company reducing its

costs, Mr Darcy maintained that it was wrong to fail to inform purchasers of the

forthcoming reductions.

He commented:

My aim in these complaints to Sky TV and at a later date to your authority has

been to get Sky to change its promotions. If a product has been degraded by

50% then these facts should be made known to the purchaser. Sky knew it was

going to halve its 5 Nation coverage but its promotions as early as December

made no attempt to inform its purchasers of this.

Further Correspondence

In a letter dated 25 July, Sky replied to Mr Darcy's final comment. While

appreciating Mr Darcy's depth of feeling, Sky questioned the relevance of much of

Mr Darcy's letter of final comment to his formal complaint.