Photo/Illutration Article 4 of the Broadcast Law says a broadcaster “shall be politically fair” when editing broadcasting programs and that “its reporting shall not distort the facts.” (The Asahi Shimbun)

The government appears to be stepping up its unjust intervention in news media to control information, the foundation for the lives and thoughts of the public.

Such suspicions deepened after telecommunications ministry officials admitted that internal documents on the controversial reinterpretation of the Broadcast Law, which were recently made public by a lawmaker, are in fact part of the ministry’s archive of administrative documents.

It is time to review the reinterpretation of the law that was made without going through transparent procedures.

During a Diet session in 2015, then telecommunications minister Sanae Takaichi unambiguously stated that the government’s judgment on the political fairness of a broadcaster’s programs could be based, in certain cases, on a single program.

Her statement constituted a substantial shift from the long-established principle that such judgments should be based on the entirety of the programs aired by the broadcaster in question.

The revised policy is extremely dangerous for democracy because it could stifle freedom of program editing, a basic ideal behind the Broadcast Law, and usher in de facto censorship.

The internal documents say Takaichi’s Diet response was in line with a strong demand from Yosuke Isozaki, a special adviser to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at the time.

Ministry officials have argued that they, in the capacity of officials of the competent authorities, only “briefed Isozaki on the matter because he had made inquiries about it.”

They said they were never coerced into arranging for Takaichi to make that statement in the Diet.

However, the documents evidently show ministry bureaucrats were at their wits’ end over how to handle the matter.

We also cannot but suspect the policy shift was steamrolled behind closed doors, bypassing open discussions in the Diet or elsewhere that were necessary.

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida dismissed as “unjustified” the argument that the revised interpretation of the law amounts to government intervention in the freedom of reporting.

But such a statement is hardly persuasive, given that the government went ahead with the questionable procedure. A third party should review the appropriateness of the process that led to the reinterpretation.

In light of the emergence of this background story, Takaichi should retract her Diet response.

The interpretation of the law, to begin with, should also be restored to its original version.

An interpretation of the law that could intimidate workers in the production of broadcast programs and undermine the freedom of expression should never be allowed to remain in effect.

The internal documents show that Isozaki began approaching telecommunications ministry officials on the matter six days after the ruling Liberal Democratic Party sent a document to Tokyo-based key broadcasters to call for neutral coverage of the 2014 Lower House election.

Around that time, the LDP called senior officials of broadcasters, including Japan Broadcasting Corp. (NHK), to a meeting to question them about the content of their TV programs. Abe also openly criticized the content of a TV program made by a separate broadcaster.

The interpretation was changed just as the government and the ruling party were increasing the pressure on broadcasting stations. The documents also imply that Abe was strongly pushing Isozaki’s proposal for the reinterpretation.

It appears appropriate to assume the responsibility for the change in interpretation lies not just with Takaichi and Isozaki but also with the entire government and the LDP.

When the Broadcast Law was enacted in 1950, an official told the Diet that the government would “never censor or supervise broadcast programs or take similar action whatsoever.”

Now is the time to end the alarming trend over recent years and return to the ideals behind the legislation.

--The Asahi Shimbun, March 12

Related News