THE FACTS
Salut Bonjour is a public affairs program broadcast on the TVA network (CFTM-DT in Montreal) weekdays from 6:00 am to 10:00 am. During the four-hour program, there are many newscast segments. In between these, there are numerous segments dealing with subjects such as fashion, entertainment, recipes and other current events. There are often interviews. One recurring segment is entitled “C’est bon à savoir” (“Good to Know”). On February 20, 2023, that segment, hosted by contributor Jean-François Baril, was broadcast at 8:18 am.
The subject of the segment on February 20 was TurboTax, which is software that helps people do their tax returns. Jean-François Baril was standing in front of a window and a screen showing the Salut Bonjour logo. He said the following:
[translation]
Ah, this morning we’re talking about the inevitable period that’s coming in the next few weeks. And I’m talking about the time of year where we have to do our tax returns because, well yes, it has to be done again this year. There are more and more people who are deciding to do it themselves with various software, which, by the way, are getting more and more powerful. Like the number one software in Canada for the last twenty-five years, called TurboTax.
[The TurboTax logo appears in the left corner]
You might be hearing me and thinking, “Oh boy, should I do this all by myself? Taxes scare me.”
[The following words appear at the bottom of the screen: “TurboTax: The #1 tax software in Canada for more than 25 years”. Then, there are images of the TurboTax website on which different versions of the software are shown.]
But know that you can be assisted from A to Z, as there is a version, for example, called TurboTax Assist and Review where they put you in contact with a tax expert who will help you throughout the whole process and who can even review your return before you send it to the federal and provincial governments. If you choose to go ahead yourself without help, you’re still assisted. They’ll direct you to the right version for you because we all have different situations. There are people who have more complicated tax returns than others, so different versions exist. There is even a version for self-employed workers. So you’ll be assisted. They have the expertise. They’ve been doing this a long time. No worries. It will be fine for you, easy to do. And the goal, of course, is that you find the maximum tax refund you’re entitled to; after all, it’s your money. What’s also good to know is that there is help available for students aged twenty-five years and younger. This year it’s free for you. So you can download the version of TurboTax that’s best for you, but it’s only available until March 31, 2023. So that’s what’s good to know this morning.
On February 20, 2023, the CBSC received a complaint from a viewer who wrote,
[translation]
If TVA is paid for this segment or if this piece somehow endorses the sponsor, this constitutes an advertisement in disguise and it’s regrettable, as not all viewers will have the smarts to detect the scam. An ad is an ad and the viewer should be made aware.
The complainant wrote back on February 22 with the exact time of the segment and reiterated,
[translation]
What I object to is that they presented only one software product in the form of advice to the audience. An uninformed viewer can easily be led to believe that this is a recommendation made in a disinterested manner, so if TVA is paid or sponsored to do this segment, it’s an ad.
TVA responded to the complainant on March 17. TVA wrote that the network [translation] “takes all measures to ensure it conforms to the different applicable codes related to television broadcasting” and that it did not breach the codes administered by the CBSC. It argued that the “C’est bon à savoir” segment [translation] “is clearly presented as a window into promotional content made by and for our partners.” It explained its position:
[translation]
The purpose of the segment is to make listeners and viewers aware of products and services that could interest them or that they would find useful. To this end, the segment’s high production values highlight the appeal of certain products or services.
The comments made during the segment are not in any way untruthful or exaggerated. Moreover, the segment is not in any way presented as a newscast and it is not hosted by the newsreader of Salut Bonjour, but rather by a separate contributor.
The complainant submitted his Ruling Request on March 17. He disputed TVA’s position and maintained that the segment is not clearly presented as promotional content. He questioned the distinction between “partner” and “sponsor” that TVA seemed to be making in its letter: [translation] “Giving it a new name does not change the nature of the relationship.”
The CBSC asked TVA to clarify if the segment was sponsored or not. TVA wrote a second letter to the CBSC on April 20. TVA argued that the “C’est bon à savoir” segment is not a newscast and that Salut Bonjour in general is [translation] “a program covering a variety of lifestyle-related topics.” According to TVA, the code provisions concerning news were therefore not applicable in this case and, [translation] “even if they were applicable, TVA did not contravene them.”
TVA noted that the segment was hosted by a “contributor” and not a newsreader and that this contributor is neither an employee of the partner (namely, TurboTax) nor remunerated by the partner. TVA emphasized that the contributor [translation] “enjoys full and complete independence with respect to the editorial content” even if TVA receives “financial support from certain public or private partners in order to help finance its productions.” The partner cannot control or approve the segment before its broadcast. In addition, the program as a whole is not sponsored by the partner and the segment only lasts around two minutes in a program of many hours.
TVA also mentioned that the decor of the set during the segment is distinct from that of the newscasts. Moreover, with respect to the “C’est bon à savoir” segment, TVA noted that, on the program’s website, there is [translation] “an explicit mention of the fact that it is a window into promotional content made by and for our partners.” TVA, [translation] “without any admission or recognition of having breached any applicable provision”, committed to adjusting the presentation of future segments by including a verbal statement noting the “collaboration” with the partner as well as a visual super indicating that the segment is presented by the partner. TVA stated that it was “sensitive” to the concerns raised by the complainant and hoped that its adjustments would respond to those concerns. (The full correspondence is in the Appendix, in French only.)
THE DECISION
The French-Language Panel examined the complaint under the following provisions of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics and the Radio Television Digital News Association’s (RTDNA) Code of Journalistic Ethics:
CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 6 – Full, Fair and Proper Presentation
It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle shall apply to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs, magazine, talk, call-in, interview or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion, comment or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited guests or callers.
CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 14 – Advertising (Details)
RTNDA Code of Journalistic Ethics, Article 2.0 – Fairness
We are committed to impartial, unbiased journalism that serves the public interest through the free and open exchange of ideas, and respects the diversity of society.
[...]
2.2 We will clearly distinguish news content from advertising and other forms of sponsorship.
The Panel Adjudicators read all of the correspondence and viewed the segment in question. The Panel concludes that TVA breached Clauses 6 and 14(c) of the CAB Code of Ethics, but did not breach Clause 14(b) of the CAB Code of Ethics or Article 2.2 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics.
The questions submitted to the Panel about the “C’est bon à savoir” segment presented during Salut Bonjour were as follows:
1) Did the non-disclosure of the “partnership” with TurboTax constitute an incomplete, unfair and improper presentation under Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics?
2) Did TVA ensure that the segment was clearly distinguishable from the newscast under Clause 14(b) of the CAB Code of Ethics?
3) Did TVA ensure that there was no perception of influence by advertisers on public affairs under Clause 14(c) of the CAB Code of Ethics?
4) Did TVA clearly distinguish news content from advertising or other forms of sponsorship under Article 2.2 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics?
In its second response to the complainant, TVA submitted that the code provisions cited above regarding news are not applicable to a program like Salut Bonjour. The CBSC wishes to emphasize that, even if the “C’est bon à savoir” segment does not form part of the newscast segments, Salut Bonjour is a public affairs program based on the program categories used by the CBSC. Consequently, Clause 14 of the CAB Code of Ethics and Article 2.2 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics do apply, particularly in light of Clause 6 of the CAB Code of Ethics which necessitates a full, fair and proper presentation regardless of content genre. Furthermore, the CBSC has applied the aforementioned articles in numerous decisions involving similar facts.
TVA also emphasized that the segment takes place on a set with a different decor from that of the newscasts and that it is hosted by a separate contributor from the newsreader of Salut Bonjour; the contributor is not remunerated by the partner. In addition, TVA pointed out that the segment benefits from complete independence and the segment partner does not sponsor the program Salut Bonjour.
Finally, TVA indicated in its second response that [translation] “the contributor also invites the public to go to Salut Bonjour’s website which includes a description of the segment that makes an explicit mention of the fact that it is a window into promotional content made by and for our partners.”
The Adjudicating Panel notes that the set used for the “C’est bon à savoir” segment is the same for all non-newscast segments during Salut Bonjour. Furthermore, the remuneration of the contributor in this case has no influence on the issue of whether the nondisclosure on air constitutes an incomplete, unfair or improper presentation or whether TVA respected its obligation to ensure that there was no perception of influence by advertisers on the public affairs content.
Finally, the Panel wishes to emphasize that it is acceptable under the applicable codes to broadcast programs, segments or spots that are paid for by a sponsor or partner. What the code articles anticipate in such an instance is that the broadcaster will ensure that it discloses the existence of this financial support in a clear, transparent and unequivocal manner.
An example of this obligation is found in CFRB-AM re an episode of the Health Show (CBSC Decision 04/05-1171, December 5, 2005). This decision was the CBSC’s first opportunity to deal with the issue of paid or sponsored programming. The Health Show was a talk radio program on which the host and guests discussed health-related issues. Sometimes the guests were invited by the station, but other times the guests were representatives of a company that had paid to appear on the program. A listener complained that on those occasions where the guests had paid to appear, that fact was not adequately disclosed to the audience. He complained about one particular episode in which two representatives from a retirement residences corporate chain discussed elder care. Although an introduction stated that the program was “brought to you by Retirement Residences Group”, the Ontario Regional Panel concluded that broadcasters must provide “clear, transparent and unequivocal disclosure of the sponsorship of” a program and that CFRB had failed to do so in this instance. The Panel began by noting other countries’ rules relating to sponsored programming:
By its nature, sponsored programming such as that under consideration here is of a very different style. A sponsored program will generally, at least in its first broadcast, be live and unscripted, although the guests may well have prepared scripted bits to ensure that their words will be efficient, subtle, beneficial and “on message”, corporately speaking. [...] The sponsored program will more often be selling the expertise or services of the expert guest or the company for which he or she works. Finally, there will be no exclusivity of commercial messages. Advertising for other companies and products or services (although not directly competitive products or services) can be expected.
The bottom line is that potential confusion on the part of the listener (or viewer) is the concern. Just as text-heavy, story-styled full pages in newspapers are headed “[advertisement]” when they are thought to be at risk of inducing readers into believing that they are the objective news items or features prepared by the publication’s staff, broadcast equivalents that could be potentially confusing to radio or television audiences merit their own style of confusion avoidance.
[...]
[T]here must be disclosure of the fact that there is a link between some sponsor and the services or goods being promoted during the program. The Panel wishes to emphasize that there is nothing inherently wrong or problematic in providing expertise to audiences. Such information may indeed be extremely helpful and informative. The problem results only from the potentially incorrect audience expectation that an expert on a subject who is presented by a broadcaster has been chosen by the broadcaster on the basis of his or her expertise and not on the basis of having paid for the opportunity to access audience members listening in good faith and innocence.
It is not the intention of the Panel to attempt to write a set of specific rules that must apply to the broadcast of sponsored programming. The Panel considers that it is sufficient to lay down the principle that the broadcaster airing sponsored or paid programming must advise its audience of that sponsorship clearly, transparently and unequivocally. The disclosure must also be made at the beginning and end of the program and sufficiently frequently during it that persons tuning in after the start of the program will be able to listen to the broadcast on an informed basis, in terms of the relationship between the sponsor and the program content.
The Panel then commented on this particular broadcast:
The point is that the language was soft-pedalled and the host appeared to the Panel to avoid connecting the sponsorship with the guests, when that would have been the material issue for members of the audience. [...] In some respects, the burden on the broadcaster to provide more and clearer information is greater in circumstances where audiences may be used to programs where the guests are obviously independent and without financial interest in the episode being aired. [...] Indeed, the obligation may be still greater when the station broadcasting such sponsored programming is a news and talk station since that broadcast format consists primarily of spoken word. While all stations have the obligation to provide a clear, transparent and unequivocal disclaimer, listeners to a news and talk station could more easily confuse paid or sponsored content with regular news and information programming.
As the CAB Code of Ethics provides in Clause 6, broadcasters must provide a “full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial” in the context of public affairs, call-in, interview and magazine format programming. It is the full and the fair that are missing in the present instance. Moreover, the vagueness of the “disclaimer” presents a problem in terms of the required distinction between advertising content and news or public affairs, as anticipated by Clause 14(b) and in terms of the perception of influence by advertisers “on the reporting of news or public affairs, which must be accurate, balanced, and objective, with fairness and integrity being the paramount considerations governing its reporting. [Emphasis added]”
A second decision relating to sponsored programming was CHWO-AM re Sunday Showcase with Murray Segal (CBSC Decision 06/07-0999, April 14, 2008). Sunday Showcase consisted of various music and talk segments, including discussions with guests. One recurring guest was the owner of a local home improvement company who talked about different types of renovation projects. During the broadcast, the host frequently made comments, such as “give the good folks at Royal a call” because “they do excellent work”. He also provided the company’s telephone number and website. A listener complained to the CBSC that CHWO did not reveal that the company actually paid the station for the opportunity to appear on the program. She also argued that the host’s endorsement of the company was inappropriate. The station admitted that the segment was paid for and effectively constituted an advertisement, but did not announce this fact because “to do so would be stating the obvious”. The Ontario Regional Panel disagreed with the station’s assertion and found a breach of Clauses 6 and 14 of the CAB Code of Ethics:
Although the broadcaster and the complainant were at loggerheads on the issue of disclosure, they were in fact agreed on the essential fact, namely, that the challenged program was, in the words of the broadcaster, “a commercial bought and paid for by the advertiser.” And that is the issue for, assuming that the program was indeed a commercial, the question is whether an ordinary radio listener would have known that. While the apparent experience of the complainant in commercial radio enabled her to be aware of that fact, it is the reaction of the ordinary uninformed (in commercial radio practices) listener that counts. In the view of the Panel, such audience members could be expected to recognize 15- or 30-second commercial spots, but they would not know, without advice, that the challenged Sunday Showcase was nothing more or less than paid flattery. The failure to inform them is misleading and unfair.
[...]
In the matter at hand, in addition to the non-disclosure of the paid sponsorship of the program, the host insinuated himself to an undue extent in the “selling” of the product, namely, the services of the builder.
There are analogous circumstances anticipated in Clauses 5(3) and 14(b) of the CAB Code of Ethics. The news example, Clause 5(3), permits broadcasters to analyze and elucidate the news, but requires, on the other hand, that “such analysis or comment [must be] clearly labeled as such and kept distinct from regular news presentations.” So, too, broadcasters are “entitled to provide editorial opinion, which shall be clearly labeled as such” but any such opinion must be “kept entirely distinct from regular broadcasts of news or analysis.” The point about that news-opinion relationship is that broadcasters may not sow confusion. They must distinguish between news and opinion that might be misunderstood by audiences as a part of the news. Similarly, and for similar reasons relating to the concern about confusion on the part of the audience, in the advertising context, Clause 14(b) requires that “advertising material within a newscast is clearly distinguishable from the news information adjacent to it.”
In the sponsorship environment, broadcasters must correspondingly ensure that their programming will not be a source of confusion for their audiences. This can only be achieved by following the principle laid down by this Panel in the CFRB decision; namely, “The broadcaster airing sponsored or paid programming must advise its audience of that sponsorship clearly, transparently and unequivocally.” This was not accomplished in the matter at hand and the Panel concludes that CHWO has breached Clauses 6 and 14 of the CAB Code of Ethics.
Finally, in CFEL-FM re Arthur le midi (CBSC Decision 16/17-0031, February 14, 2017), the French-Language Panel examined a complaint about a talk show host doing an ad during his show. At the end of the first segment, host André Arthur said [translation] “Before going to the real commercial break, we’re going to do a fake commercial break.” He then proceeded to talk about a limited-time offer of a steak dinner at a local restaurant. His message was immediately followed by a block of pre-recorded commercials. After a second segment dealing with a variety of local topics, he wrapped up the show by again mentioning the deal at the “nicest steak house in Quebec City”, only this time he did not preface it with a comment about a “fake” commercial. A listener complained that Arthur had inserted an advertisement between news items without a clear demarcation. The station characterized Arthur’s comments as a “live” advertisement, but considered it sufficiently separated from the actual program content so that listeners would not have confused the informational aspects of the show with the advertising. The Panel agreed with the broadcaster, but did suggest broadcasters should ensure adequate distinction between informational and sponsored content:
With respect to Arthur’s show, it is an opinion-based program dealing with current events. The Panel Adjudicators therefore conclude that there was no violation of Clause 14(b) of the CAB Code of Ethics.
On the question of whether the broadcaster violated Clause 14(c) of the code in allowing Arthur to do live advertisements within the context of his talk show, the Panel Adjudicators find that it did not. The live ad for a Quebec City steak house read by Arthur after the first segment was preceded by Arthur’s declaration that he was about to do a [translation] “fake commercial break”. Furthermore, it marked a break between his personal comments and the advertising. The second live ad was read after the end of the program. The Panel concludes that, in both instances, Arthur’s reading of these ads in no way influenced the subjects discussed during his program, namely taxes in St-Augustin, photo-radar, the Videotron Centre and the Quebec City airport. The broadcaster, therefore, did not violate the above-mentioned Clause 14(c).
The Panel would, however, like to remind broadcasters of the importance of maintaining a distinction and segregation between actual program content and sponsored content.
In the view of the Panel, in light of the precedent decisions and after having watched the segment in question multiple times, there is no doubt that it constitutes an advertising spot. The applicable CBSC decisions require the broadcaster to clearly and unequivocally disclose “the fact that there is a link between some sponsor and the services or goods being promoted during the program.” Despite the fact that TVA never clearly responded to the CBSC’s question about whether the segment had been sponsored, TVA seemed to accept that it was promotional content since it made reference to the fact that the public was invited to go to Salut Bonjour’s website which includes a description of the segment with explicit mention that it is [translation] “a window into promotional content made by and for our partners.” In addition, TVA stated its intention to [translation] “adjust the presentation of future segments, in order to announce, explicitly and directly, the contributions of our partners.”
The requirement to clearly disclose the existence of a partnership or sponsorship is to avoid viewer confusion, as viewers might wonder if the segment is a real report about tax software. If it were, one would expect the host to present two or three different software products rather than only one with the headline [translation] “The #1 tax software in Canada for more than 25 years”. The obligation of clarity and transparence is all the more important in the context of a public affairs program that includes news reports since viewers of this type of content can more readily confuse paid or sponsored content with the normal news and public affairs programming.
This is why the Panel is of the view that the segment could reasonably be perceived by the public as a public affairs segment on tax software, particularly in the absence of clear and transparent notice that the segment is a sponsorship or partnership. Without such a notice, the segment could consequently influence the audience contrary to Clause 14(c) of the CAB Code of Ethics.
The Panel considers that, in this case, TVA did not disclose, in a clear and unequivocal manner, the partnership between TurboTax and the broadcaster. This is why the Panel concludes that the broadcaster breached Clauses 6 and 14(c) of the CAB Code of Ethics. The necessary clarity and transparence must occur on air and the fact that the host invites the public to go to Salut Bonjour’s website which includes a description of the segment with explicit mention that it is [translation] “a window into promotional content made by and for our partners” is insufficient for the purposes of the applicable clauses of the CAB Code of Ethics. Moreover, without any admission of guilt, TVA seemed to recognize that, in this case, a greater transparency was necessary and stated that, from now on, the segments would be clearly identified as partnerships.
Finally, the Panel considers that, if TVA clearly announces on air the partnerships related to the "C’est bon à savoir” segments in the same way it does on its website, that practice will be sufficient for the purposes of Clauses 6 and 14(c) of the CAB Code of Ethics.
With respect to the issue of clearly distinguishing a sponsorship like the “C’est bon à savoir” segment from the newscast, the CBSC examined this question in CFTO-DT (CTV Toronto) re CTV News at 6 report (Canada’s Drag Race) (CBSC Decision 20.1920-2210, November 18, 2020). The English-Language Panel examined a news report about a reality competition program available on the online video streaming service Crave. The report itself profiled a contestant from Kitchener, Ontario who combined the art of drag with mathematics by posting videos to video-sharing websites in which he explained mathematical concepts while dressed in drag. During the introduction to the report, the over-the-shoulder graphic included the name of the program and the words “crave original”. The anchor stated, “If you missed the debut on Thursday, the first episode of Canada’s Drag Race is now available on Crave.” Both CTV and Crave are owned by Bell Media. A viewer complained that CTV frequently featured Crave programs in news reports, effectively promoting the content of another service owned by its parent company. CTV pointed out that it covers entertainment stories about all distributors and production companies, not just content that airs on Bell-owned properties. It also stated that the decision to profile Canada’s Drag Race was made independently without any pressure from its parent company. The Panel accepted that there was no interference from the corporate owners into the decision to air the report, so it found no breach of Clause 5(2) of the CAB Code of Ethics or Article 3.0 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics. The Panel did, however, consider that the anchor’s phrasing of the introduction violated Article 2.2 of the RTDNA Code:
This provision requires that news content be clearly distinguished from advertising and other forms of sponsorship. The Panel considers that, when the news report begins with the promotion of the program and which online service offers this show, this can reasonably be perceived by viewers as an advertisement of both the show and the online service. It is certainly the perception of the complainant in this matter since he considered this as advertising of Bell Media’s affiliated Crave service and more specifically the program called Canada’s Drag Race. Accordingly, the Panel considers that the introduction to the news report amounted to advertising which was not clearly distinguished from the news content and that this constitutes a breach of Article 2.2 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics.
In this case, the Adjudicating Panel is of the view that the “C’est bon à savoir” segment was clearly distinguished from the newscast and therefore respected Clause 14(b) of the CAB Code of Ethics and Article 2.2 of the RTDNA Code of Journalistic Ethics. The content was distinct in terms of presentation, including a different set and a separate presenter from the newscast.
Broadcaster Responsiveness
In all CBSC decisions, the Panels assess the broadcaster’s response to the complainant. The broadcaster need not agree with the complainant’s position, but it must respond in a courteous, thoughtful and thorough manner. In this case, the CBSC appreciates all the points raised in TVA’s two responses, but questions TVA’s motivation for dodging the question about the sponsorship of the segment, even when the CBSC asked it that question directly. Nevertheless, in providing the two replies, the broadcaster fulfilled its obligations of responsiveness and, subject to the announcement of this decision, nothing further is required on this occasion.
DECISION ANNOUNCEMENT
TVA is required to: 1) announce the decision, in the following terms in audio and video format, once during prime time within three days following the release of this decision and once more within seven days following the release of this decision during the time period in which Salut Bonjour was broadcast, but not on the same day as the first mandated announcement; 2) within the fourteen days following the broadcasts of the announcements, to provide written confirmation of the airing of the statement to the complainant who filed the Ruling Request; and 3) at that time, to provide the CBSC with a copy of that written confirmation and with air check copies of the broadcasts of the two announcements which must be made by TVA.
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has found that TVA breached Clauses 6 and 14(c) of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Code of Ethics in its broadcast of Salut Bonjour on February 20, 2023. TVA lacked clarity and transparency regarding a commercial partnership in an occasional segment called “C’est bon à savoir”.
This decision is a public document upon its release by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.
La plainte
Le 20 février 2023, le CCNR a reçu la plainte suivante par l’entremise de son formulaire web :
Je viens de voir ce matin 20 février la capsule « C’est bon à savoir » à Salut Bonjour de TVA où on présentait le logiciel TurboImpôt. Si TVA est payé pour cette capsule ou si cette chronique vient appuyer le commanditaire, cela constitue une annonce déguisée et c’est regrettable, car les spectateurs qui regardent cette émission n'ont pas tous le « piff » pour déceler l’arnaque. Une annonce doit être une annonce et le spectateur doit en être informé.
Le CCNR a demandé au plaignant de fournir l’heure de l’émission. Il a répondu le 22 février :
Alors voici plus d’information:
C’est une capsule de Jean-François Baril le 22 février 2023 [sic, le 20] à TVA à l’émission Salut Bonjour à 8h48. Le lien ci-joint vous confirmera tout ça:
Soyez bien accompagnés pour votre déclaration d'impôt https://www.salutbonjour.ca/2023/05/31/soyez-bien-accompagnes-pour-votre-declaration-dimpot
salutbonjour.ca
Ce que je déplore, c’est qu’on y présente qu’un seul logiciel sous forme de conseil à l’auditeur. Le spectateur non averti peut facilement être amené à penser que c’est une recommandation dénuée d’intérêt alors si TVA est payé ou commandité pour qu’on fasse cette capsule, c’est de la pub.
La réponse du télédiffuseur
TVA a répondu au plaignant le 17 mars avec une lettre en date du 15 mars :
Le Conseil Canadien des Normes de la Radiotélévision (« CCNR ») nous a transmis pour analyse et réponse votre plainte datée du 28 février 2023 [sic, 20 et 22] portant sur la diffusion par le Groupe TVA (« TVA »), sur la chaîne TVA, de la capsule « C’est bon à savoir » durant l’émission Salut Bonjour du 20 février 2023 (la « Capsule »).
Afin de faciliter la lecture de notre réponse, nous reproduisons votre plainte ci-dessous :
« Je viens de voir ce matin 20 février la capsule "C’est bon à savoir" à Salut Bonjour de TVA où on présentait le logiciel TurboImpôt. Si TVA est payé pour cette capsule ou si cette chronique vient appuyer le commanditaire, cela constitue une annonce déguisée et c’est regrettable, car les spectateurs qui regardent cette émission n'ont pas tous le "piff" pour déceler l’arnaque. Une annonce doit être une annonce et le spectateur doit en être informé. » [sic]
D’abord, soyez assuré que notre équipe met tout en œuvre afin de se conformer aux différents codes applicables en matière de télédiffusion. Notre équipe procède dans chaque cas à une réflexion quant à la balance entre l’intérêt public, le droit public à l’information et la sensibilité des téléspectateurs.
Il nous apparaît donc important de clarifier certains faits tout en vous confirmant que TVA n'a enfreint aucun des codes supervisés par le CCNR.
D’abord, l’émission Salut Bonjour est un rendez-vous quotidien pour découvrir des sujets variés liés au style de vie : mode, beauté, maison, passions, mieux-être et recettes. La capsule « C’est bon à savoir », animée par notre collaborateur Jean-François Baril, est clairement présentée comme une vitrine sur du contenu promotionnel fait par et pour nos partenaires.
La Capsule a pour but de faire connaître aux auditeurs et téléspectateurs les produits et services qui pourraient les intéresser ou leur être utiles. À cet effet, la Capsule est une production de qualité supérieure qui valorise l’attrait de certains produits ou services.
Les propos tenus dans le cadre de la Capsule ne sont aucunement mensongers ni exagérés. La Capsule n’est pas ailleurs aucunement présentée comme un bulletin de nouvelles et elle n’est pas animée par le lecteur de nouvelles de l’émission Salut Bonjour, mais bien par un collaborateur distinct.
Dans ces circonstances, nous sommes d’avis que la Capsule n’a enfreint aucune disposition des codes supervisés par le CCNR.
Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps de nous écrire et vous prions d’agréer l’expression de nos sentiments distingués.
Correspondance afférente
Le plaignant a soumis sa demande de décision le 17 mars :
Contrairement à ce qui est avancé dans la réponse de TVA, la capsule « C’est bon à savoir », animée [par] Jean-François Baril, n'est pas clairement présentée comme une vitrine sur du contenu promotionnel fait par et pour les partenaires de TVA. Si cela avait été fait, je n'aurais jamais formulé cette plainte, car l'auditeur que je suis aurait [sic] alors compris qu'il s'agissait bel et bien d'une pub. J'aime bien d'ailleurs l'appellation partenaire utilisée dans la réponse et je m'interroge sur la distinction à faire avec un commanditaire. Ce n'est pas parce qu'on donne un nouveau nom que ça change la nature de la relation.
Le CCNR a demandé à TVA si cette capsule était une commandite. De leur part, TVA a demandé quels articles des codes sont pertinents à cette plainte. Le CCNR a expliqué que ce sont l’article 14 (b) et (c) du Code de déontologie de l’ACR et l’article 2.2 du Code de déontologie journalistique de l’ASNNR. Le CCNR a aussi souligné quelques anciennes décisions. TVA n’a pas répondu expressément à la question du CCNR à savoir si la capsule était une commandite. Par contre, TVA a répondu le 20 avril avec le suivant :
Nous vous soumettons respectueusement que les dispositions pertinentes identifiées dans votre courriel sont liées à des bulletins de nouvelles et des reportages de nouvelles et/ou affaires publiques. Or, tel qu’indiqué dans notre réponse du 15 mars 2023, la capsule « C’est bon à savoir » (la « Capsule ») est présentée ponctuellement durant l’émission Salut Bonjour, qui est une émission couvrant des sujets variés liés notamment au style de vie (mode, beauté, maison, passions, mieux-être et recettes).
Notre position est donc à l’effet que ces dispositions ne sont pas applicables à une émission telle que l’émission Salut Bonjour et que même si elles étaient applicables, TVA n’y a pas contrevenu pour les raisons antérieurement exposées et celles consignées aux présentes.
D’une part, la Capsule n’est aucunement présentée comme un bulletin de nouvelles et elle n’est jamais animée par un lecteur de nouvelles mais bien par un collaborateur distinct, membre de l'Union des artistes. Ce collaborateur n’est pas un employé du partenaire de la Capsule et n’est pas non plus rémunéré par le partenaire de la Capsule. Le collaborateur demeure libre de participer, ou non, à la Capsule, à sa discrétion.
Nous vous confirmons, par ailleurs, que TVA, lorsqu’elle agit à titre de producteur d’émission, peut recevoir, comme il est d’usage dans l’industrie de la production audiovisuelle au Canada d’un soutien financier de la part de certains partenaires publics ou privés aux fins de l’aider au financement de ses productions. Malgré ce qui précède, il est toutefois à souligner que la situation au sein de la Capsule est particulière puisque le collaborateur qui présente la Capsule jouit d’une indépendance complète et entière quant au contenu éditorial en lien avec les propos tenus et le contenu qu’il présente.
Contrairement aux contenus publicitaires, en aucun temps le partenaire de la Capsule ne peut contrôler ou approuver la Capsule avant diffusion. Le partenaire ne peut exiger des mentions ou des traitements spécifiques au sein de la Capsule. De surcroît, la Capsule est présentée en direct et n’est pas scriptée.
En somme, le collaborateur est libre d’y présenter les éléments et propos éditoriaux de son choix sans contrainte. Le partenaire de la Capsule ne peut donc aucunement imposer les propos tenus par le collaborateur ou connaître ou dicter le contenu de la Capsule ni approuver la Capsule avant sa diffusion en direct, contrairement aux contenus publicitaires.
Nous tenons également à souligner que l'émission Salut Bonjour n’est pas une émission commanditée par le partenaire, ne constitue pas une infopublicité, n’est pas diffusée en temps commercial et que la Capsule est d’une durée d’environ deux minutes au sein d’une émission de trois heures, contrairement aux émissions des décisions CFRB-AM concernant un épisode du Health Show (Décision CCNR 04/05-1171, 15 décembre 2005) et CHWO-AM concernant Sunday Showcase with Murray Segal (Décision CCNR 06/07-0999, 14 avril 2008).
Nous effectuons un parallèle avec la décision CFEL-FM concernant Arthur le midi (Décision CCNR 16/17-0031, 14 février 2017), afin de vous soumettre respectueusement que les sujets présentés durant l’émission Salut Bonjour sont totalement distincts et aucunement influencés par la Capsule. Cette distinction est d’ailleurs accentuée par le changement de décor du plateau de l’émission Salut Bonjour, laquelle se déroule dans un environnement dont la facture visuelle est distincte et séparée du reste du plateau usuel de l’émission Salut Bonjour. Cette distinction est également marquée par le recours à un collaborateur dédié et spécifique à la Capsule mais aussi par le traitement et la présentation au début de la Capsule.
Le collaborateur de la Capsule invite également le public à se rendre sur le site internet de Salut Bonjour lequel comporte, dans sa description de la Capsule une mention explicite qui indique clairement qu’il s’agit « d’une vitrine sur du contenu promotionnel fait par et pour nos partenaires ».
Malgré notre position et les motifs énoncés, nous tenons à souligner que TVA est sensible aux préoccupations soulevées par [le plaignant] au sein de sa plainte. TVA a donc convenu, sans admission aucune et sans reconnaissance d’avoir enfreint à quelque disposition applicable, d’ajuster la présentation des futures Capsules, afin d’annoncer de manière poussée et explicite l’apport des partenaires.
À cet effet, nous avons récemment convenu que soient effectués les ajustements suivants lors de la production des futures Capsules comme suit :
- Mention verbale explicite du collaborateur de la Capsule à l’effet qu’elle est présentée au public « en collaboration avec [nom du partenaire] ».
- Ajustement au bandeau en surimpression visuelle indiquant que la Capsule est « présentée par [logo / nom du partenaire] ».
Nous espérons que les précisions précitées et les récents ajustements sauront répondre aux préoccupations [du plaignant] et rassurer le CCNR de notre entière collaboration.
Nous vous remercions pour les suivis effectués dans ce dossier et nous vous prions d’agréer l’expression de nos sentiments distingués.