A Cabinet official in the Abe administration expressed alarm that the telecommunications ministry was being strong-armed by a senior adviser to the prime minister into policy changes that could stifle press freedom, documents show.

The records show how the adviser had pressed bureaucrats to change how broadcasters are judged on political neutrality--and even threatened a ministry bureau chief in the process--then pushed his demands up the chain directly to then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

A Cabinet public relations secretary raised concerns the new policy would intimidate news outlets and likened the way the ministry was treated to being bullied by a “loony yakuza” thug.

But her objections were ultimately rejected by Abe, who shared his adviser’s concerns about impartiality in political coverage.

The recently published internal government records, which set off a political firestorm after they were leaked to an opposition politician in the Diet, detail exchanges between the high-ranking officials and ministry bureaucrats involved that paint a picture of how the policy was changed behind closed doors.

BIGWIGS RANKLED BY TV SHOWS

According to the documents, it all started when Yosuke Isozaki, who served as Abe’s special adviser, called the ministry’s broadcasting policy department on Nov. 26, 2014, demanding a briefing from a top official who deals with the rules on adjudicating political fairness.

Three days before the phone call, Isozaki had watched “Sunday Morning,” a weekly current affairs panel program on Tokyo Broadcasting System Television Inc.

Isozaki tweeted at the time that he thought the program was biased because all the commentators voiced the same opinions about the upcoming election, which were critical toward the Abe administration.

The program that day was hosted by Hiroshi Sekiguchi, and the guests included Shigetada Kishii, a former chief editor of The Mainichi Newspapers, and Jitsuro Terashima, president of Tama University.

When Isozaki was briefed on Nov. 28, two days after he called the ministry, he raised concerns about the process for determining whether a TV program is being politically fair under the broadcasting law. At the time, the government would judge political fairness based on the broadcaster’s programming as a whole and not focus on the contents of a single program.

Isozaki told Tomohiro Ando, director-general for information and communication bureau of the ministry, “You say all the programming and not just a single program, but isn’t the standard vague?”

Isozaki and ministry officials began a series of in-depth exchanges after the briefing and aimed at changing the central government’s interpretation of the law.

In a document dated Dec. 18, 2014, Isozaki told ministry officials, “I will explain this to the prime minister in the new year."

Isozaki wanted to make it clear there could be a “case in which political fairness is lacking in a single program.”

On Jan. 9, 2015, ministry officials explained the rules would be breached in a specific case “where a broadcaster edits and airs a program that urges (viewers) to vote for a particular political party on the day before the election day during an election period.”

But Isozaki wanted more changes and ordered ministry officials to come up with a “more universal” example, where a broadcaster’s “political neutrality is in doubt.”

“Let me do it for once,” Isozaki said, and he wrote a draft of a new interpretation of the law, according to the documents.

On Jan. 29, after both sides tried to find common ground, ministry officials came up with “extreme” cases where a single program would be considered politically unfair.

Around the same time, ministry officials briefed Sanae Takaichi, the telecommunications minister at the time who held jurisdiction over the broadcasting law.

According to a document dated Feb. 13, ministry officials told Takaichi that Isozaki wanted to relay a message to her that, “This (issue) is not about changing the existing interpretation of the broadcasting law, but is about supplementing it.”

During the exchange, Takaichi shared her opinion, saying, “Is there a fair program on TV Asahi in the first place?”

Takaichi told ministry officials that their draft document was too weak when it talked about “extreme cases in a single program” and that would make it difficult to respond to questions in the Diet.

“Please tell the prime minister’s office that the telecommunications minister will be prepared,” Takaichi said.

CONCERNS VOICED, REJECTED

But Makiko Yamada, then Cabinet public relations secretary and a former bureaucrat in the telecommunications ministry, saw the changes as a problem.

“It affects the basis of the broadcasting law,” she said.

In a document dated Feb. 18, 2015, Yamada asked the ministry’s bureau chief if they had “consulted the legislative bureau” on the issue and suggested that under normal circumstances, there would have been an inquiry commission followed by a legislative revision.

Yamada said it seemed like the ministry was being picked on by a loony yakuza thug.

“I have no idea where the central government is coming from for doing this kind of thing,” she said. “Any media outlet would be intimidated by this. Isn’t it suppression of free speech?”

Six days later, on Feb. 24, the ministry’s bureau chief spoke with Isozaki and proposed they bring the matter up with Yoshihide Suga, Abe’s chief Cabinet secretary at the time.

But Isozaki was opposed.

“This thing is above a bureau chief’s pay grade,” he said. “This is something I and the prime minister will decide together.

“If you dare make me lose face, you are going to pay,” Isozaki said. “Your head will roll.”

The proposed changes started to gain momentum by March 5, when Isozaki and Yamada explained the issue to Abe.

Abe agreed to add the new interpretation and said the central government would not have to immediately answer questions about the matter in the Diet.

He said that a question-and-answer session should be held at a general affairs committee meeting and not a budget committee meeting, and that the telecommunications minister should be the one to defend the changes.

Yamada raised concerns about introducing the new interpretation, but Abe shut them down.

“It’s not about advantages and disadvantages,” he replied. “I’m not saying everything--but we should correct what should be corrected.”

The first time a Cabinet official publicly spoke about the new way the government would interpret political fairness under the broadcasting law was at an Upper House general affairs committee meeting held on May 12.

Masahito Fujikawa, a ruling Liberal Democratic Party member, asked the minister for examples, such as a program that closely covers particular candidates shortly before an election.

“I think it can be said that such a program, even if it is a single program, violates political fairness,” Fujikawa insisted.

Takaichi replied, “Even in a single program, if it were an extreme case, that would not be recognized as securing political fairness.”

(This article was written by Takashi Narazaki and Shohei Sasagawa.)