Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. Broadcasting Complaint Decisions

Transcription

1 Broadcasting Authority of Ireland Broadcasting Complaint Decisions November 2012

2 Broadcasting Complaint Decisions Under the Broadcasting Act 2009, viewers and listeners can complain about broadcasting content which they believe is not in keeping with the broadcasting codes and rules. In line with the complaint process, the viewer or listener should direct their complaint to the broadcaster in the first instance with regard to the broadcaster s Code of Practice for Handling Complaints, a policy which each broadcaster has available on its website. If a viewer or listener is not satisfied with the response from the broadcaster or if the broadcaster does not respond within 21 days of receipt of complaint, the viewer or listener can refer the complaint to the BAI for consideration. In assessing complaints, and having regard to the codes and rules, the BAI considers the material submitted by the relevant parties together with the broadcast material. Complaints are assessed at Executive level and/or by the Compliance Committee of the Authority. The details of the broadcasting complaint decisions reached by the BAI are detailed in this document. This publication records the decisions of the Compliance Committee s meeting of October The Compliance Committee upheld five complaints. 2

3 Contents Upheld by BAI Compliance Committee TV3 Psychic Readings Live: 23 rd June Ocean FM Sunday Spirit: 8 th July TV3 Psychic Readings Live: 30 th July TV3 Psychic Readings Live: 11 th August TV3 Psychic Readings Live: 27 th August

4 Upheld by BAI Compliance Committee Complaint made by: Mr. Conan Doyle Ref. No. 68/12 Station: Programme: Date: TV3 Psychic Readings Live 23 June 2012 Complaint Summary: Mr. Doyle s complaint is submitted under the Broadcasting Act 2009, section 48(1)(d)(General Commercial Communications Code (GCCC): sections 3.1 (protecting the individual and society), (service for entertainment purposes only) and (predicting future events). The complainant states that the presenter of the show advised a woman that she would be married in Asia in three years. He also stated that in 18 months or so her flat would burn down. The complainant also states that the presenter also inquired into whether the caller was insured and when she confirmed that she was, he then said that it was ok, because the insurance would cover it. The complainant argues that the presenter cast fear into the caller s heart. The complainant also states that this broadcast is not entertainment or a commercial presentation. The complainant further states that the broadcast amounts to mental and financial exploitation of the vulnerable and that it is a shocking broadcast that preys on the vulnerable and extracts their money. Broadcaster s Response: Initial response to complainant: Psychic Readings Live meets all regulatory requirements for a service of this nature, from both the broadcasting and telecommunications regulators. The broadcast is clearly identified as an Entertainment Service at all times. As this is the first time a service of this nature has been broadcast in the Republic of Ireland, TV3 notes that there may have been a few teething problems with the broadcast for the first few nights. These have now been addressed. TV3 has taken steps to ensure that viewers are aware of the nature of the service. The information strap clearly sets out the cost per minute and other relevant information relating to the service, including the web address where viewers can read the terms and conditions relating to the broadcast. The service is for 18+ only and is broadcast late at night so it is evidently for an adult-only audience. Any callers who seem to be particularly distressed or vulnerable are provided with the helpline numbers of organisations that may be in a position to assist them after the on-air call. Through the information provided during the broadcast and the call, as well as on the website, TV3 are making sure that viewers make an informed choice about whether to partake of the service. 4

5 Response to BAI: TV3 states with respect to the service generally, they have made every effort to ensure that the service complies with the relevant BAI and ComReg Codes. TV3 notes that Section 8.10 of the GCCC states that Claims that future events may be predicted, other than as a matter of opinion, are not permitted. The psychic clearly stated that the prediction to which Mr. Doyle referred to was being made in his opinion. TV3 regrets that Mr. Doyle believed it necessary to complain about this service. It is TV3 s intent to take all customer feedback into consideration with regard to ensuring that the service meets viewers expectations, enjoyment and protection. Decision of the Compliance Committee: Mr. Doyle s complaint is submitted under the Broadcasting Act 2009, section 48(1)(d)(General Commercial Communications Code (GCCC): sections 3.1 (protecting the individual and society), (service for entertainment purposes only) and (predicting future events). The complainant states that the presenter of the show advised a woman that she would be married in Asia in 3 years. The complainant also states that the presenter stated that in 18 months or so the caller s flat would burn down. The complainant states that the presenter also inquired as to whether the caller was insured and then said that it was ok, because the insurance would cover it. The complainant states that the presenter cast fear into the caller s heart. He further states that the broadcast is not entertainment or a commercial presentation but is instead mental and financial exploitation of the vulnerable. The Committee considered the broadcast and the correspondence from the complainant and the broadcaster. Following a discussion, the Committee has decided to uphold the complaint. In reaching this decision, the Committee took into account the following:- The BAI General Commercial Communications Code permits both teleshopping as well as commercial communications for fortune tellers, psychic and other such services; Notwithstanding this, commercial communications of this nature must comply with both the General Principles of this Code as set out in section 3, as well as the specific rules pertaining to fortune teller and psychic services as set out in section 8.10 of this Code. Upon review of the broadcast, it was the Committee s view that it failed to meet these requirements. In particular: - Section of the General Commercial Communications Code states that commercial communications for fortune teller and psychic services are acceptable only where the service is evidently for entertainment purposes and this is made clear in the communication. Section of the Code states that such communications may only make claims that future events may be predicted as a matter of opinion. Both rules recognise that there exists an entertainment industry that revolves around so-called fortune tellers and psychics. However, this section of the Code prohibits such communications from selling a service that is not simply for entertainment purposes but which also purports to foretell future events as a matter of fact. Such service are prohibited on the basis that any such claim is considered to be untrue and misleading. 5

6 While noting that at points during the broadcast the presenter made reference to their comments being their opinion, and while also noting that there were onscreen strap-lines stating that the service was for entertainment purposes, it was the Committee s view that the broadcast as a whole conveyed the message that the service was more than an entertainment service. - In this regard, it was evident to the Committee that throughout the broadcast, and in particular during the segments between callers, that the presenter made consistent and repeated claims pertaining to the ability of the psychics and fortune tellers to foretell future events. In this regard, the broadcast included references to the very high accuracy of the psychic, and an offer to provide real psychic readings from a natural psychic. Other references made were to the ability of the psychic presenting the broadcast such as references to his very special gift, very special talent and a comment that what he says comes true. When taken as a whole, it was the Committee s view that these references undermined and contradicted the strap-lines and conveyed the message that the service was more than an entertainment service and was in fact purporting to be foretelling the future in contravention of the General Commercial Communications Code. Section 3.1 of the Code requires that all commercial communications be prepared with a sense of responsibility both to the individual and to society. It also requires that such communications not prejudice the interests of either. For this reason, all commercial communications shall be legal, honest, decent and truthful and protect the interests of the audience. Having reviewed the broadcast, it was the Committee s view that it did not meet the requirements of section 3.1 and that the broadcast was incompatible with the basic requirements of the BAI s General Commercial Communications Code. 6

7 Complaint made by: Mr. Barry McSweeney Ref. No. 71/12 Station: Programme: Date: Ocean FM Sunday Spirit 8 July 2012 Complaint Summary: Mr. McSweeney s complaint is submitted under the Broadcasting Act 2009, section 48(1)(a)(fairness, objectivity & impartiality in current affairs). The complainant states that the latter part of the broadcast, which dealt with legislation on abortion, was not presented in a fair, objective and impartial manner and was contrary to the requirements of the 2009 Act. It is his opinion that it was difficult, upon listening to this programme, to see any difference between the presenter s views and those of the interviewee. For example, the complainant highlights a part of the programme where, in his opinion, the presenter guided the debate by putting words into the interviewee s mouth by saying so you see no need for legislation for the ABC case? The complainant further states that the fact that the programme is a religious programme should not remove the obligation for objectivity and impartiality, as contended by the broadcaster in their response to the complaint. He also states that Youth Defence are not a religious organisation and that the question of whether Irish law needs to be changed to reflect decisions by the European Court is a political issue, even if the arguments are sometimes expressed in religious terms. Broadcaster s Response: Initial response to complainant: The complainant ed the station seeking advice on their Code of Complaints Handling, but the station did not respond. Response to BAI: Ocean FM states the presenter, Dermot Leydon, who has many years broadcasting experience on Ocean FM and other stations, conducted an interview with a member of Youth Defence on her beliefs on the issue of abortion. It was clear that both Dermot Leydon and his interviewee held strong beliefs regarding the issue. The question is whether on a specialist programme that is plainly focused on themes of a spiritual and religious nature, a pro-choice view should have been sought and used to balance the content. Ocean FM states they would not expect a specialist religious programme to do anything other than air a religious perspective. They do, however, take the issue of objectivity and impartiality very seriously in their news and current affairs coverage and have always respected the spirit and the letter of the Code. Ocean FM states the Code of Practice on Complaints can be found in the Contact Us section of their web site. They also state they did not receive any s from the complainant. On a further search, one was found in their spam file. They have asked their IT advisors to look into this to see if they can avoid such an occurrence in the future. 7

8 Decision of Compliance Committee The complaint is submitted under the Broadcasting Act 2009, section 48(1)(a)(fairness, objectivity & impartiality in current affairs). The complainant states that the programme included an interview with a representative of the organisation Youth Defence that dealt with legislation on abortion. The complainant states that the interview was not presented in a fair, objective and impartial manner and was contrary to the requirements of the 2009 Act. The complainant further states that the fact that the programme is a religious programme should not remove the obligation for objectivity and impartiality, as contended by the broadcaster in their response to the complaint. He also states that Youth Defence are not a religious organisation and that the question of whether Irish law needs to be changed to reflect decisions by the European Court is a political issue, even if the arguments are sometimes expressed in religious terms. The Committee considered the broadcasts and the correspondence from the complainant and the broadcaster. Following a discussion, the Committee has decided to uphold the complaint. In reaching this decision, the Committee took into account the following: In considering complaints of this nature, the Committee will take into account the type of programme. In this regard, the Committee noted that the programme that was the subject of the complaint is a religious programme. While programmes that deal with topics of a religious nature may not have to comply with the requirement for fairness, objectivity and impartiality, this will depend on the specific content featured. In this regard, programme content may focus on an issue that is of relevance to a community of believers while also simultaneously being a matter of current public debate or controversy i.e. news and current affairs. The Committee noted that the discussion during the programme focussed predominantly on the issue of whether it is necessary for the Irish Government to legislate for abortion on foot of a decision from the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee considered this issue to be a matter of current public debate and controversy and therefore current affairs content. Accordingly, the programme makers were required to ensure that the discussion was undertaken in line with the statutory requirement that such content be fair, objective and impartial. Upon a review of the broadcast material, it was the Committee s view that the programme segment did not meet these statutory requirements. In this regard, the Committee noted that the discussion permitted the representative from Youth Defence to detail, unchallenged by the presenter, the views of her organisation on this current affairs issue. The Committee also noted that no other perspectives were provided on this current affairs issue throughout the duration of the interview. In addition, the Committee also took into account a closing editorial statement by the presenter of the programme. In this statement, the presenter set out his views on the issue under discussion. In particular, the presenter outlined his view that it would be undesirable if the Irish Government were to legislate for abortion in Ireland. The Committee considered this input by the presenter to be clearly lacking in fairness, objectivity and impartiality. 8

9 Complaint made by: Mr. Brian J. More Ref. No. 75/12 Station: Programme: Date: TV3 Psychic Readings Live 30 July 2012 Complaint Summary: Mr. More s complaint is submitted under the Broadcasting Act 2009, section 48(1)(d)(General Commercial Communications Code) (GCCC): sections (service for entertainment purposes only) and (predicting future events). The complainant states that the psychic is giving definitive predictions and not qualifying them as for entertainment purposes. Mr. More provides a number of examples from the programme, which he states illustrate his complaint. These examples relate to questions from callers on a range of issues, including real life problems, some of a serious nature. He states that such issues are not appropriate for entertainment purposes. Examples provided include:- Questions from callers such as:...is my life going in a certain direction? Can I keep my home?, will [I] marry my partner, or not and Will I have more children? In each case, the complainant states that they psychic replied with a definitive yes response and it was not evident that the views offered were the opinion of the presenter. Mr. More also states the on-screen presentation needs attention. He states that the audio is regularly saying phone this number and the presenter indicates a number on screen. The complainant argues that this number is three to four times larger and also bolder than other pertinent information. The other information has a varying background and/or scrolling. Broadcaster s Response: Initial response to complainant: TV3 states with regard to Mr. More s comments about section , they note that it was stated at regular intervals during the show that the predictions being made were in his opinion i.e. the psychic. They regret that Mr. More was dissatisfied with the frequency of this statement and, as such, they have requested that it be stated at more frequent intervals by the psychics. With respect to Mr. More s comments about section , TV3 points out that the show is at all times identified as an Entertainment Service using a strap in the left hand corner of the screen. This meets the requirements of both the BAI s Code and ComReg s Premium rate Service Code of Practice. Furthermore, to ensure that viewers are fully informed, the strap at the bottom of the screen states that it is a commercial presentation and when callers ring the service they are informed that calls are for entertainment purposes and are recorded. 9

10 Response to BAI: TV3 states that Psychic Readings Live meets all regulatory requirements for a service of this nature, from both the BAI and ComReg regulators. a) With respect to Mr. More s specific complaint regarding predictions being made in the psychic s opinion, TV3 notes that this is repeated at regular intervals by the psychics. However, as it is a live broadcast they may not remember to state it at all times. In order to assist with viewers being made completely aware of the nature of the service, they have requested that the following text be included in the information test at the bottom of the screen: All statements are matter of opinion and not fact. b) With regard to Mr. More s complaint that the psychic does not qualify his predictions as being for entertainment purposes, under section of the BAI s GCCC and section 4.3 of the ComReg PRS Code, it must be made clear that the service is for Entertainment Purposes. TV3 notes that a strap at the top of the screen states at all times that this is an Entertainment Service. This is also included in the scrolling text and callers are informed of this by automated message when they call the service. c) With respect to Mr. More s comments regarding the size of the font, section of the ComReg PRS Code of Practice states that the font which is used for the user information i.e. helpline number etc. must be either 1/3 the size of the font of the call to action, or size point 9 font, whichever is larger. The service is fully compliant with this rule. Decision of the Compliance Committee: Mr More s complaint is submitted under the Broadcasting Act 2009, section 48(1)(d)(General Commercial Communications Code) (GCCC): sections (service for entertainment purposes only) and (predicting future events). The complainant states that the psychic is giving predictions and not qualifying them as for entertainment purposes. Mr. More provides a number of examples from the programme, which he states illustrate his complaint. These examples relate to questions from callers on a range of issues, including real life problems, which he states are of a serious nature. The complainant also queried whether the on-screen presentation of call-cost information was sufficiently clear for viewers to the broadcast. The Committee considered the broadcasts and the correspondence from the complainant and the broadcaster. Following a discussion, the Committee has decided to uphold the complaint. In reaching this decision, the Committee took into account the following: The BAI General Commercial Communications Code permits both teleshopping as well as commercial communications for fortune tellers, psychics and other such services; 10

11 Notwithstanding this, commercial communications of this nature must comply with the specific rules pertaining to fortune teller and psychic services, as set out in section 8.10 of the General Code. Upon review of the broadcast, it was the Committee s view that it failed to meet these requirements. In particular: - Section of the General Commercial Communications Code states that commercial communications for fortune teller and psychic services are acceptable only where the service is evidently for entertainment purposes and this is made clear in the communication. Section of the Code states that such communications may only make claims that future events may be predicted as a matter of opinion. Both rules recognise that there exists an entertainment industry that revolves around so-called fortune tellers and psychics. However, this section of the Code prohibits such communications from selling a service that is not simply for entertainment purposes but which also purports to foretell future events as a matter of fact. Such service are prohibited on the basis that any such claim is considered to be untrue and misleading. - In this regard, it was evident to the Committee that throughout the broadcast, and in particular during the segments between callers, that the presenter made consistent and repeated claims pertaining to the 'ability' of the psychics and fortune tellers to foretell future events. This includes references by the presenter to a very powerful psychic, to himself as being really accurate and as a person who knows everything and who is always right. Other references included references to a powerful and strong clairvoyant and to the provision of real psychic readings. More generally, the Committee was of the view that the segment of the broadcast offering to provide responses to callers questions with only a yes or a no response created the impression that the views being provided by the presenter were predictions concerning matters of fact rather than matters of opinion. - While noting that there were on-screen strap-lines stating that the service was for entertainment purposes, it was the Committee's view that these references, when taken as a whole, undermined and contradicted the straplines and conveyed the message that the service was more than an entertainment service and was in fact purporting to be foretelling the future in contravention of the General Commercial Communications Code. As regards the complaint with regard to the font size of the phone numbers in relation to the other on screen information, as this matter is regulated by ComReg the Committee did not consider this element of the complaint. 11

12 Complaint made by: Mr. William Nolan Ref. No. 76/12 Station: Programme: Date: TV3 Psychic Readings Live 11 August 2012 Complaint Summary: Mr. Nolan s complaint is submitted under the Broadcasting Act 2009, section 48(1)(d)(General Commercial Communications Code) (GCCC): section (predicting future events) and in particular section (pertaining to health matters). The complainant states that the Code forbids discussion of matters relating to health issues in section The complainant states that on at least three occasions the host directly commented on health issues as follows:- A caller asked if she would ever conceive. The host proceeded to give a reading stating that, not only would the caller conceive, but would conceive twins. The complainant states that at no point during this call was it evident that this was in the host s opinion. The complainant states that two more calls of a similar nature occurred over the next ten minutes, during which the host predicted more conceptions. The complainant states that only once was it suggested that they were not allowed to comment on medical issues, yet answers were still given. The complainant states this content is nothing more than blatant exploitation of people in a vulnerable position. He states that these callers should not have received readings of such a serious nature on air. The complainant argues that this content is in breach of the Code and that it is also morally wrong to give people, who are more than likely having trouble conceiving, falsehope on the basis of a deck of cards. Broadcaster s Response: Initial response to complainant: TV3 states the provision of psychic services is not an exact science and while care is taken to ensure that the psychics do not provide advice that is not permitted (i.e. on health matters), the reality is that in a live broadcasting environment, some questions which are very general, such as those in relation to childbearing, can touch on health issues as well as relating to general matters such as relationships. The broadcaster comments that it is clearly stated throughout the show that it is an Entertainment Service and that calls are for entertainment purposes only. Furthermore, the broadcaster comments that it states at the banner at the bottom of the screen that health issues may not be discussed and this is reiterated regularly by the psychics. TV3 has made every effort to ensure that viewers are aware of the nature of the service and have all relevant information prior to making the decision to call the psychics. 12

13 Response to BAI: TV3 states with respect to the service generally, they have made every effort to ensure that the service complies with the relevant BAI and ComReg Codes. With regard to Mr. Nolan s specific complaint regarding health issues being discussed, TV3 notes that pregnancy is not strictly considered to be a health issue. They believe that it is a relationship and family issue. It is their understanding that the Code prohibits health issues being discussed to ensure that callers do not rely on predictions relating to their health to their detriment. That said, in order to ensure they are fully compliant with the Codes, they have requested that the psychics refrain from making predictions relating to pregnancy. With regard to Mr. Nolan s comments regarding predictions being made in the psychic s opinion, they would note that this is repeated at regular intervals by the psychics. However, as it is a live broadcast they may not remember to state it at all times. In order to assist with viewers being made completely aware of the nature of the service, they have requested that the following text be included in the scrolling text at the bottom of the screen: All statements are matter of opinion and not fact. TV3 also points out that a strap at the top of the screen states at all times that this is an Entertainment Service. This is also included in the scrolling text and callers are informed of this by automated message when they call the service. Decision of the Compliance Committee: Mr. Nolan's complaint is submitted under the Broadcasting Act 2009, section 48(1)(d)(General Commercial Communications Code: section (predicting future events) and in particular (pertaining to health matters). The complainant states that the Code forbids discussion of matters relating to health issues in section , and that on at least three occasions the host directly commented on what the complainant considered to be serious health issues, namely the conception of children. The complainant also states that the presenters did not make it clear that the predictions were only a matter of opinion. More generally, the complainant states that these callers should not have received readings of such a serious nature on air. The Committee considered the broadcast and the correspondence from the complainant and the broadcaster. Following a discussion, the Committee has decided to uphold the complaint. In reaching this decision, the Committee took into account the following:- The BAI General Commercial Communications Code permits both teleshopping as well as commercial communications for fortune tellers, psychic and other such services; Notwithstanding this, commercial communications of this nature must comply with the specific rules pertaining to fortune teller and psychic services as set out in section 8.10 of this Code. Upon review of the broadcast, it was the Committee's view that it failed to meet these requirements. 13

14 In particular: - Section of the Code states that such commercial communications may only make claims that future events may be predicted as a matter of opinion. The rule acknowledges that there exists an entertainment industry that revolves around so-called fortune tellers and psychics. However, section 8.10 of the Code prohibits such communications from selling a service that is not simply for entertainment purposes but which also purports to foretell future events as a matter of fact. Such services are prohibited on the basis that any such claim is considered to be untrue and misleading. - While noting that at points during the broadcasts the presenters made reference to their comments being their opinion, and while also noting that there were on-screen strap-lines stating that the service was for entertainment purposes, it was the Committee's view that the broadcast as a whole conveyed the message that the service was more than an entertainment service. - In this regard, it was evident to the Committee that throughout the broadcast, and in particular during the segments between callers, that the presenter made consistent and repeated claims pertaining to the 'ability' of the psychics and fortune tellers to foretell future events. This included references by the presenter to the fact that she was a natural psychic who would use the gifts that she states she was blessed with at birth. She also made reference to her gift being one that runs in her family. Other comments included references to the genuine psychics available to callers, a reference to a naturally gifted clairvoyant. More generally, the presenter s promoted her use of tarot cards as a means to seek the truth and made reference to her powerful energy. She committed to providing concrete answers to concrete questions that will take away the worries of callers. - It was the Committee's view that these references, when taken as a whole, undermined and contradicted the strap-lines and conveyed the message that the service was more than an entertainment service and was in fact purporting to be foretelling the future in contravention of the General Commercial Communications Code. - Section of the Code prohibits the inclusion in commercial communications for fortune teller and psychic services of matters relating to health. While noting that the programme is live and that there is an element of uncertainty concerning what a caller may ask the presenter once put on-air, it was evident to the Committee from its review of the broadcast that the presenter discussed issues relating to pregnancy in a manner that did not have regard to the restriction on discussions concerning health matters. In this regard, the Committee considered pregnancy to be a health matter and not only a family and relationship issue, as articulated by the broadcaster. 14

15 Complaint made by: Ms. Leah Burgess Ref. No. 78/12 Station: Programme: Date: TV3 Psychic Readings Live 27 August 2012 Complaint Summary: Ms. Burgess complaint is submitted under the Broadcasting Act 2009, section 48(1)(d)(General Commercial Communications Code) (GCCC): sections (pertaining to health matters). The complainant outlines a conversation that took place during the programme about which she is complaining. The complainant states that a caller asked the presenter when she would have her next grandchild. The psychic told the caller yes a grandchild would be coming but he was not sure if it would be a boy or girl. The psychic also commented but I think your daughter is pregnant right now. He then ended the call. A few moments later he then said, after hearing something through his ear piece Nobody told me that, I cannot talk about pregnancy. Is it a rule from the show? The complainant states that on 30 th July, the same psychic received a call asking, was the caller pregnant? The psychic responded by stating he could not answer it as it was a health question. This indicated that he was aware, during the programme broadcast on the 27 th August, of the fact that health and pregnancy are not to be discussed. The complainant states that for these reasons the discussion of pregnancy during the programme about which she complains broke the rules pertaining to health issues. Broadcaster s Response: Initial response to complainant: TV3 states the provision of psychic services is not an exact science and, while care is taken to ensure that the psychics do not provide advice that is not permitted (i.e. on health matters), the reality is that in a live broadcasting environment, some questions which are very general, such as those in relation to childbearing, can touch on health issues as well as relating to general matters such as relationships. It is clearly stated throughout this show that it is an Entertainment Service and that calls are for entertainment purposes only. Furthermore, it states at the banner at the bottom of the screen that health issues may not be discussed and this is reiterated regularly by the psychics. TV3 has made every effort to ensure that viewers are aware of the nature of the service and have all relevant information prior to making the decision to call the psychics. Response to BAI: TV3 states with respect to the service generally, they have made every effort to ensure that the service complies with the relevant BAI and ComReg Codes. With regard to Ms. Burgess specific complaint regarding health issues being discussed, TV3 notes that pregnancy is not strictly considered to be a health issue. They believe that it is a relationship and family issue. 15

16 It is their understanding that the Code prohibits health issues being discussed to ensure that callers do not rely on predictions relating to their health to their detriment. That said, in order to ensure they are fully compliant with the Codes, they have requested that the psychics refrain from making predictions relating to pregnancy. TV3 also points out that a strap at the top of the screen states at all times that this is an Entertainment Service. This is also included in the scrolling text and callers are informed of this by automated message when they call the service. Decision of the Compliance Committee: The Committee considered the broadcast and the correspondence from the complainant and the broadcaster. Following a discussion, the Committee has decided to uphold the complaint. In reaching this decision, the Committee took into account the following:- The BAI General Commercial Communications Code permits both teleshopping as well as commercial communications for fortune tellers, psychic and other such services; Notwithstanding this, commercial communications of this nature must comply with the specific rules pertaining to fortune teller and psychic services as set out in section 8.10 of this Code. Upon review of the broadcast, it was the Committee's view that it failed to meet these requirements. In particular: - Section of the Code prohibits the inclusion in commercial communications for fortune teller and psychic services of matters relating to health. While noting that the programme is live and that there is an element of uncertainty concerning what a caller may ask the presenter once put on-air, it was evident to the Committee from its review of the broadcast that the presenter discussed issues relating to pregnancy in a manner that did not have regard to the restriction on discussions concerning health matters. In this regard, the Committee considered pregnancy to be a health matter and not only a family and relationship issue, as articulated by the broadcaster. 16

17 17