OTTAWA – A new version of a television show that asks contestants to call or text in their answers to on-screen puzzles did not breach contest standards, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) has determined.
Viewers of the show Call TV, which began airing on V in April 2010, were encouraged to call the on-screen 1-900 number or text (SMS) their solutions to the various puzzles that appeared on the screen in order to try to win cash prizes. The CBSC had previously ruled that an earlier version of the program did breach the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) Code of Ethics on the grounds that its lack of transparency rendered some of the games and contests neither fair nor legitimate. But the Quebec Panel of the CBSC found no breach in the new version of the program.
As was the case with the earlier version of the program, many of the complaints concerned the program in general or raised questions about matters such as telecom company billing, which do not fall under the jurisdiction of the CBSC. Of the 22 complainants whose files would have been eligible for consideration by the Quebec Panel, only two submitted Ruling Requests to the CBSC.
The Panel also said that it continues to disagree with the broadcaster’s characterization of Call TV as an infomercial.
“The Panel acknowledges that [Call TV] is paid programming, but not an infomercial; it considers that Call TV is nothing more or less than an on-air contest and fully subject to the rules of Clause 12 of the CAB Code of Ethics.” In response to the broadcaster’s assertion that as [translation] “an infomercial presented and paid for by Mass Response […] the latter is required to comply with all applicable regulations,” the Panel replied:
“There is, of course, no inherent problem in the broadcaster’s attributing responsibility to Mass Response, as long as that is not done in any attempt to deflect its own responsibility for what it has broadcast. While V appears to have directed the complainants to Mass Response and Mass Response’s website for answers and explanations, it has not, on these occasions as it has in the past, denied its own responsibility for the content it has broadcast. That is a marked improvement.”
The Panel also reviewed several contests contained in the show, but found no breach of codes regarding a lack of transparency.
“There was nothing obscure, tricky, misleading or requiring further explanation in order to achieve the required level of transparency that would satisfy Clause 12 of the CAB Code of Ethics”, it wrote. “As to the nature of the contests included in the two challenged episodes, the Panel finds no breach of Clause 12 by reason of a lack of transparency.”
The Panel also discussed issues related to “the principle of transparency” that it said were “understandably important to the complainants.” These related to “matters like the ‘luck lines’, the ‘hot buttons’, the allegedly random selection of callers/texters as on-air contestants, the allegedly genuinely lengthy periods without a single call from a contestant, and the allegedly coincidental timing of the late-in-the-program contestants". As to those issues, the Panel said:
“The Panel appreciates the complainants’ doubt about the randomness of the selection of participants. While the broadcaster’s representative has explained that there is no human intervention in the selection of contestants, this does not, of course, mean that there has been no creation of a computerized or programmed method of selection. The Panel simply has no method of verifying the true randomness, fairness and transparency of the contestants’ access to the contest process. […] While the presence in the process of an internationally-known accounting firm and the apparent application of Statement on Accounting Practices No. 70 […] breed a measure of confidence, even that must depend on what the firm is being asked to audit or verify. In other words, it is not clear to the Panel what the substance of SAS 70 is or how pertinent it is to the concerns expressed by the complainants. Moreover, no copy of SAS 70 has been supplied to either the complainants or to the CBSC.
"The bottom line for the Panel is that all of those concerns of the complainants, which leave an element of doubt or concern in their minds (and the Panel’s, to some extent), go to off-screen process issues, and such matters do not fall within the Panel’s jurisdiction. The Panel can do no more than express its understanding of the basis for the complainants’ concerns. […] In the absence of hard information on this point, the Panel has no basis to question the off-air issues, which do not fall within the jurisdiction of the CBSC. That said, there is no doubt that the provision by the producer and broadcaster of information that would confirm the pertinence of SAS 70 and the role of the respected accounting firm on the issue of transparency would be reassuring.”
