HereS a breakdown of the article and the statements,focusing on the core conflict:
The core Issue:
Public Television Channel (Gongshi) commissioned a variety show called “Happy Party” from the production company “Tianzhiye” (Heavenly Academics) for 18 million yuan. The show was supposed to have 20 episodes,but only 6 were recorded. Gongshi terminated the contract, citing low production quality (host, set, guest caliber). Tianzhiye disputes this and claims Gongshi’s review process was unfair and that Gongshi itself hindered the production. The matter has gone to court.
Public Television Channel’s (Gongshi) Stance (as reported and stated):
Reason for Termination: Production quality did not meet standards.
Specific Criticisms (reported by Mirror Weekly): “Host low,” “set Yangchun” (meaning a cheap or uninspired set), and artist guests not being prominent enough.
Claim: Tianzhiye recorded 6 episodes without Gongshi’s consent and failed to meet program review standards, violating the contract. Gongshi sent a letter requesting enhancement and re-recording.
Tianzhiye’s (Heavenly Academics) Stance (from their statement):
Accusation against Gongshi: The sample review meeting on February 7, 2013, was a “bully review” using both “soft and hard” tactics to pressure Tianzhiye into withdrawing.
Demand for Transparency: Tianzhiye asks Gongshi to publish the complete recording of the review process to prove its claims about “host LOW,” “set spring,” and “artists are not big enough.” They argue that as a taxpayer-funded entity, Gongshi should be obvious.
Criticism of Gongshi’s Supervision: Tianzhiye claims Gongshi’s production supervision lacked SOP quality control and was handled by unprofessional, inexperienced individuals whose “one-sided subjective opinions” were used as the basis for review, questioning gongshi’s claim of being “fair and objective.”
Denial of “Studying” Opportunity: Tianzhiye refutes Gongshi’s claim that they recorded without consent or had an opportunity to “study” (improve).they state that Gongshi controlled the studio access, recording times, and regulations, making it impossible for them to record without Gongshi’s knowledge or control.
Damage to Goodwill: Tianzhiye asserts that Gongshi’s public statements alluding to “false accusations” like “unconsent” and “video recording” have seriously damaged their company’s goodwill, and they are issuing their statement to prove their innocence.
Key Points of Contention:
Review Process fairness: Tianzhiye alleges Gongshi’s review was biased and a form of bullying, while Gongshi claims they followed proper procedures.
Control over Production: Tianzhiye argues Gongshi had complete control over the production environment and schedule, making their claims of unauthorized recording or lack of improvement opportunity baseless.
Transparency: Tianzhiye demands Gongshi release review records to support their claims.
Contractual Violations: Both parties accuse the other of violating the contract, with Gongshi citing quality issues and Tianzhiye citing unfair review and obstruction.The article highlights a important dispute between a public broadcaster and a production company over a failed television program, with accusations of unfair practices and a legal battle ensuing.
