BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

Beyond 2000 used to be screened on the Discovery channel, and Next Step is currently

broadcast on that channel.

Mr Romaniuk complained to Sky Network Television Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

title of these items, in themselves, implied that the material they contained was "up to

the minute". Moreover, he said, that impression was confirmed by the material in

"Skywatch". However, he was now aware that the programmes were repeats and

could be two or more years old. Failure to advise viewers of this fact, he wrote,

breached the broadcasting standards.

Explaining that broadcasts remained relevant as they contained material for the lay

viewer about recent technological developments, and that no broadcaster preceded the

broadcast of a documentary with the date the programme was made, Sky declined to

uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with Sky's decision, Mr Romaniuk referred the complaint to the

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

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed sample programmes of the items

complained about and have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix).

On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The absence, at the time of broadcast, of the date when the material was compiled was

the basis of a complaint from Mr Romaniuk. He considered that it was implied that

Next Step and Beyond 2000 had been made recently, whereas the programmes might

have been made several years ago. For that reason, Mr Romaniuk complained to Sky

that the broadcasts were inaccurate and deceptive. In a later letter, he referred

specifically to an item on computer technology. As the programme was two to three

years old, Mr Romaniuk argued that it could not, as implied, have dealt with the

cutting edge of technology.

Sky assessed the complaint under standards P1 and P7 of the Broadcasting Code for

Pay Television. They require factual accuracy and the avoidance of the use of any

deceptive programme practice.

On the basis that viewers did not assume that all programmes screened were made

very recently, and as it would be impractical to broadcast the date on which a

programme had been made, Sky declined to uphold the complaint. It later explained

that the technology dealt with in Next Step and Beyond 2000 was highly experimental,

and was aimed at giving viewers a glimpse of possible future developments. The

programmes were not aimed at scientists and thus, Sky added, they did not have a

restricted shelf life.

Section 6(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act requires broadcasters:

(a)  To receive and consider formal complaints about any programme broadcast

by it where the complaint constitutes, in respect of that programme, an

allegation that the broadcaster has failed to comply with section 4 of this Act;

This complaint referred to two series – rather than a programme – and, moreover, Sky

advised that it no longer broadcasts Beyond 2000. Consequently as the complaint

does not readily fall within the standards set out in s.4(1) of the Act, or under the

issues laid down in s.21(1)(e), the Authority considers that complaint is not clearly a

matter of broadcasting standards. Accordingly, the Authority concludes that its

appropriate action on this occasion is to decline to determine the complaint in all the

circumstances, under s.11(b) of the Act.

For the reasons above, under s.11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority

declines to determine the complaint in all the circumstances.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
15 December 1997

Appendix

H M Romaniuk's Complaint to Sky Network Television Ltd – 21 August 1997

Mr H M Romaniuk of Auckland complained to Sky Network Television Ltd, through

the Broadcasting Standards Authority, about the broadcast of Next Step and Beyond

2000. Both programmes, he wrote, suggested that they showed the latest in

technology. However, he had now become aware that the programmes were repeats

of quite old material.

Because the broadcasts failed to carry a preface to this effect, Mr Romaniuk

considered that the broadcasts were inaccurate and deceptive.

Sky's Response to the Formal Complaint – 8 September 1997

Assessing the complaints under the nominated standards, P1 and P7 of the Pay Code

of Broadcasting Practice, Sky declined to uphold the complaint.

Viewers of Sky channels did not always assume that programmes were of recent

origin, it wrote, and it was not practical to preface each such programme with the

information as to the date it was made and any updates since that time.

Mr Romaniuk's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority –

11 September 1997

Dissatisfied with Sky's decision, Mr Romaniuk referred the complaint to the

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

Next Step and Beyond 2000, he stated, were incorrectly and deceptively presented as

being up to date technical information.

Sky's Report to the Authority – 22 October 1997

As Sky no longer broadcast Beyond 2000, it enclosed a copy of a programme made in

1992 and screened in 1995. A copy of Next Step, made in 1995 and screened in 1997,

was also enclosed. Sky stated that they were typical of the genre.

Pointing out that Mr Romaniuk considered that the items implicitly suggested that

they were up to date, Sky explained that Next Step took a light-hearted look at various

developments in technology. Beyond 2000, it continued, provided a more serious

look at new and developing technology.

Sky explained that most of the technology explored on the programmes was highly

experimental. The broadcasts were aimed at providing lay viewers with a glimpse of

possible technology in the future. They were not aimed at scientists and therefore,

Sky wrote, the programmes did not have a short shelf life.

As all broadcasters screened documentaries which could date back some time, Sky did

not accept that the standards were breached. It was not aware of any broadcaster

which prefaced the screenings of documentaries with advice that they might have

been made several years earlier. Furthermore, it added, it did not believe that viewers

expected such information.

Mr Romaniuk's Final Comment – 6 November 1997

Referring to information about Next Step contained on the Discovery Channel, Mr

Romaniuk maintained that the wording strongly implied that the programme

contained the latest technology.

Mr Romaniuk noted that computers were dealt with as part of the broadcast on 4

November 1997 and, he argued, two or three year old computer technology was

certainly not cutting edge and, he maintained that it was misleading to say so.