▶Committee Decision #65

“Complaint against an entertainment news story.”

On December 29th 2017, TBS Television, Inc. broadcast “7 Days Newscaster Deluxe! Entertainment News Ranking 2017” (hereinafter referred to as “the program”). The program introduced various entertainment news that made the ranking. The complaint in question involves the beginning of the news that was ranked 14th (hereinafter referred to as “the broadcast”).
The broadcast began with a narration, “Ranking number 14, Shigeru Hosokawa, contract issues with agency.” It was then followed by a video of the complainant saying, “Whatever people say, I will continue being my wild self” (hereinafter referred to as “the wild statement”). Another narration followed saying, “After being told by his agency that his contract will be terminated due to his power harassment late last year, Shigeru Hosokawa faded from the limelight this May, after his contract ended.” The broadcast lasted 31 seconds.
Regarding the excerpts that were used, the above narration “After being told (…)” is ambiguous. Although the Committee cannot go as far as to say the broadcast concluded that Shigeru Hosokawa was guilty of power harassment, the use of the wild statement and the telops in the broadcast made it look as though the allegations were probably true. In that sense, the broadcast does indeed lower the complainant’s social esteem.
The Committee has the function of determining whether a case is a violation of human rights or a violation of broadcasting ethics. For the below reasons 1 to 3, the Committee decided that instead of determining whether this is a case of defamation or not, it would be more beneficial to treat this case as an ethical problem, because that would help raise the issue of damages caused by media reports as well as the importance of accuracy and ethics in broadcasting.

1. 1)

   The duration of the broadcast was short, and the context of the narration and telops were generally true (although as stated in (a) below, there was a failure to mention an important factor). The broadcast did not mock the complainant, nor did it conclude that there was any case of power harassment, so the impact that the broadcast itself had on the complainant’s social esteem was small.

2. 2)

   Although one can understand the extent of the complainant’s emotional damage, TBS did not have any bad intentions.

3. 3)

   TBS admitted that there was a problem with the broadcast and had agreed to talk to the complainant from an early stage, which may have made it possible for TBS to take damage recovery measures.

There are ethical problems with the two following points. (a) By failing to mention the provisional ruling on this issue by the Tokyo District Court which had acknowledged the complainant’s claim, the broadcast lacked fairness and accuracy that are required when dealing with cases that could involve discrepancies between the parties involved. (b) The use of “the wild statement” video lacked consideration for the complainant’s honor. The broadcast was a year-end special program and considerable time had passed since Shigeru Hosokawa’s contract trouble incident. Members of the Committee agreed that facts were not sufficiently verified. However, there were differences of opinion regarding whether this would be considered an ethical problem or not.
The broadcast was a segment within an entertainment news program. The production staff may have thought that the audience wouldn’t take everything so seriously and that even if there were some inaccurate information, celebrities should be tolerant to some extent. This may apply in some cases, but considering how the complainant had taken legal action because he felt that his career had been put on the line, the broadcast should have been more cautious.
TBS has admitted that there was “lack of clarity” and showed regret, but there is a need to examine the factors that contributed to this “lack of clarity.” The Committee hopes that TBS takes this decision seriously and that it takes a step further by delving more deeply into the problems mentioned in this decision, and putting what they learn to use in future program production.

▶Committee Decision #66

“Complaint against a news report based on information obtained through the Information Disclosure Law.”

On January 21st 2019, NHK Akita’s local news program “News Komachi 845” broadcast a story on actions taken against faculty members at national and public universities who were accused of sexual and academic harassment over the past five years (hereinafter referred to as “the broadcast”). The information was obtained through the Information Disclosure Law.
In September 2016, university authorities issued a warning against the complainant for academically harassing a student. A narration in the broadcast first introduced a case of sexual harassment at the complainant’s university, then went on to say, “Meanwhile, another faculty member (the complainant) was given a warning in September 2016 for insulting and academically harassing numerous students. Along with the narration, the broadcast showed images of students walking around the campus; a telop that read “Male faculty member at University “A” (the actual name was used in the broadcast) given warning for academic harassment”; and a close-up shot of phrases such as “Insulting remarks and threatening behavior toward students” and “Even elementary and middle school kids can do it” which were written on the report obtained through the Information Disclosure Law.
The complainant claimed that the context of the broadcast was factually inaccurate, and that the university authorities’ decision was unfair. However, putting aside the veracity of the authorities’ finding, a warning was issued against him for academic harassment, a fact that even the complainant himself admitted to.
The warning given to the complainant was reported within the faculty council. It was also announced to the other staff and students via the university intranet. Although the complainant’s name was not disclosed, applications for the complainant’s research class was cancelled for a year, so many faculty members, staff, and students within the department were able to identify the complainant. However, this was because the warning was announced on the intranet, and not because of the broadcast in question.
As this is a case which involves an action taken by the university for a faculty member’s misconduct, if viewers could identify this “male faculty member,” then that would have lowered his social esteem. However, apart from stating the name of the university and that it involved a “male faculty member,” the broadcast did not include any personal information on the complainant. It is highly doubtful that the general audience who are not members of the faculty and staff or students at the university, could have identified the “male faculty member” as the complainant. Therefore, the Committee concluded that this is not a case of defamation.
As stated above, the broadcast reported this news story based on information obtained through the Information Disclosure Law. People have the right to know about such cases, and the Committee believes that news media should continue to make positive use of the Information Disclosure Law. That being said, however, if news media simply reported the context as it is, it would not differ from news based on press releases. The media not only needs to determine the public value of reporting the disclosed information, but they also need to ask questions and thoroughly examine the facts.
Regarding the broadcast in question, the NHK reporter contacted the university authorities on numerous occasions via email or telephone to check whether there hadn’t been any changes to the measures being taken against the complainant. Broadcasting ethics require that news media make such efforts to close in on the truth and accuracy of the facts. The Committee therefore concluded that there were no ethical problems with the broadcast.

▶Committee Decision #67

“Complaint by a member of a religious cult regarding portrait rights. ”

On May 16, 2018, TV TOKYO Corporation’s news program “YUGATA SATELLITE” broadcast a story on Aleph, Aum Shinrikyo’s succeeding group, from 4:59 PM until 5:06 PM, in which the complainant made a brief appearance.
In mid-March 2018, 7 former members and the guru of Aum Shinrikyo, Asahara Shoko, who had been given the death penalty, were each transported to their respective locations. The news reported the moves of the successor group Aleph during this time.
TV TOKYO obtained information that Aleph was going to gather its followers for an “intensive seminar.” As the crew was about to film the cult’s establishment from a parking lot across the street, the complainant and another follower approached TV TOKYO’s reporter. The broadcast showed TV TOKYO’s cameraman coming out of the van and filming the Aleph followers even though they had refused to be filmed, and also showed an Aleph member filming the TV TOKYO crew. Even after the complainant’s refusal to be filmed, TV TOKYO’s crew continued rolling the camera. This scene in which the complainant was shown using strong language as he protested against the crew was broadcast for about one minute.
The complainant’s face was obscured and his voice had been changed, but there was a 10-second segment in which his real voice was used. The same scene was shown again right after but this time the voice had been changed. TV TOKYO explained that this was a result of a mistake in the editing process in which a segment is supposed to be cut out, edited, and then overwritten on the original segment. However, in this case, the cut-out segment had been inserted after the original segment.
The complainant filed an official complaint to BPO, claiming that the broadcast made it possible for people to identify him including the fact that he was a follower of the Aleph cult, and that this was an invasion of privacy. The complainant also claimed that the crew continued rolling the camera even after he refused to be filmed, which was an infringement on his portrait rights, and that there is an ethical problem with TV TOKYO’s reporting and editing methods.
After thorough examination, the Committee concluded that there was no infringement of privacy or portrait rights, nor any problems in terms of broadcasting ethics. However, the Committee decided that it would request that the broadcaster strengthen its recurrence prevention measures.
The complainant’s face was only mildly airbrushed and his real voice was broadcast during one short segment. Those who know that the complainant is a follower of the Aleph cult who is usually in this building may have been able to identify the complainant from the broadcast. However, the news report on the recent moves of the Aleph cult was highly relevant because of its public nature, and the only people who could have identified the complainant would have been those who already know that the complainant is an Aleph follower. The Committee therefore concluded that there was no invasion of privacy.
The public nature of the purpose of this news coverage was also recognized by the Committee. The reporters continued to roll the camera in order to avoid trouble with the complainant or the Aleph cult, so their action was not illegal and was not an infringement on the complainant’s portrait rights.
Although the broadcaster’s editing error may have allowed a limited group of viewers to identify the complainant, the mistake was not deliberate. The complainant’s face was also airbrushed and the only people who could have identified him would be limited to those who already know that he is an Aleph follower. The editing error was corrected right after the broadcast and the broadcaster has taken recurrence prevention measures, so there was no ethical problem with the broadcast or the reporting methods.
Although the public nature of the news story was recognized, the complainant does not have a specific position in the cult so his appearance did not have any special meaning. Even if the nature of the story is highly relevant to the public, it is important to take privacy seriously and to take thorough measures to protect the privacy of individuals, which would not by any means contradict or defeat the purpose of the story.
The Committee requested that the broadcaster strengthen its recurrence prevention measures, pointing out various problems that need to be worked on: technical problems such as their airbrushing and voice changing methods; scheduling problems such as the fact that the editing only finished right before the broadcast, leaving no time to double check; and the staff’s insufficient awareness of privacy protection.

▶Committee Decision #68

“Complaint from a former councilman against the news report on his court case.”

On April 11th 2019, Television Saitama’s early evening news program “NEW545” (hereinafter “the program”) reported as a top story, the preliminary oral argument of the action for damages (hereinafter “the broadcast”) brought to the Z branch (the actual name of Z was used in the broadcast) of Saitama District Court by former councilman X from Y city (the actual names of X and Y were used in the broadcast; same applies below).
Former Y city councilman filed a complaint to BPO, pointing out 3 problems about the broadcast. However, after thorough investigation, the Committee has concluded that none of the 3 problems in question led to the complainant’s defamation nor were they problematic in terms of broadcasting ethics.

1. 1)

   The complainant claimed that the title “Sexual Harassment Case Involving Former Y City Councilman” used in the broadcast was defamatory, making it look as though the complainant was being sued for sexual harassment when in fact, it is the complainant who filed the lawsuit against a female staff who had accused him of sexual harassment.
   However, unlike newspaper headlines, the general audience would not conclude anything just from the title, so the impression that the broadcast gave to the audience should be judged based on the overall context of the broadcast. The broadcast made it clear at the beginning of the program that it was “a case that former Y city councilman had brought to court against the female staff who was accusing him of sexual harassment.” The case was brought to court in order for the complainant to confirm that he does not have any obligation to pay the consolation money that was being demanded by the female staff, and for him to seek compensation from the female staff. It also reported that the complainant had presented a statement to the court claiming that the sexual harassment accusations were not true. Therefore, it is unlikely that the general audience watching the broadcast would think that the complainant was being sued for sexual harassment, so the broadcast was not defamatory in any way.
   Furthermore, although the title “Sexual Harassment Case Involving Former Y City Councilman” had room for ingenuity in terms of accuracy and fairness, its display was only a part of the broadcast, and the context of the complainant’s requests and that of his statement to the court were clearly reported, so the Committee has concluded that there were no ethical problems.

2. 2)

   The complainant resigned from his position before a third-party committee’s recognition of sexual harassment. He claimed that when explaining the background of events, a narration in the broadcast had made it sound as though he resigned after the third-party’s decision, giving the general audience the false impression that the complainant had admitted to the accusation and resigned after the third-party’s decision. The complainant claimed that this injured his reputation.
   Although there is a possibility that the general audience may have misunderstood that the events had occurred in that order, it was reported in the broadcast that the complainant had denied the accusation, and that he had given a statement to the court saying that the reason why he resigned was not because he was admitting to the accusation, but that he did not want to get the city council involved. Therefore, the Committee does not see how the broadcast could have given the impression that the complainant had admitted to the sexual harassment accusations or how it could have led to his defamation, and for the same reason, does not see any ethical problems with the broadcast in question.
   The complainant had requested that the wording in the narration be corrected right after the report was broadcast, but it was not until the day after the election day that an apology and correction were made. The Committee understands that the program was not able to do so during the broadcast due to the time constraint. Although the program could have made the apology and correction in the same program aired at the same time the following day before the official announcement of the local election, the wording in the narration was already corrected when reported later in the evening news on the same day as the broadcast, making it clear that his resignation was before the third-party’s decision. The Committee also does not see how the broadcast could lower the complainant’s social reputation, so has concluded that it cannot go as far as to say that there were any ethical problems.

3. 3)

   The complainant is also claiming that the broadcast’s mention of his running in the next local election made him look like “the former councilman who hadn’t learned a lesson despite just having resigned and having a third-party recognize numerous incidents of sexual harassment.” He claimed that this was campaign obstruction.
   However, it was the complainant himself who said that he was running in the election, and it was a widely-known fact. The broadcast had also mentioned the elections after having reported the story on the case that he brought to court and the context of his statement to the court. The mention of his running in the election would not lower his public esteem, nor would it give the impression that he had not learned his lesson. The Committee has therefore concluded that it would also not be a problem of defamation or a case of campaign obstruction.

▶Committee Decision #69

“Complaint against a special news program on the Aum Shinrikyo incident and the execution of its members.”

The complaint was filed against Fuji Television Network Inc.’s “FNN Special News Program on the execution of Aum Shinrikyo’s Chizuo Matsumoto and former members” (hereinafter referred to as “the program”), which was broadcast on July 6th 2018. The special program which was broadcast live, was a report on the execution of Aum Shinrikyo’s guru, Chizuo Matsumoto aka Shoko Asahara, and 7 other former senior members of the cult who had been sentenced to death for the subway sarin attack and related incidents, and covered facts as each person’s execution was confirmed.
Matsumoto’s third daughter filed the complaint, saying that the program had turned an execution, an act of taking a person’s life, into a form of entertainment. The program used a flip board displaying the photos of the condemned members, and attached stickers that said “EXECUTED” on them after each member’s execution. She said that her father’s death was exploited and that the program’s use of a statement by anti-cult lawyer Yoshiro Ito saying, “If Matsumoto were allowed to live, his existence would only be a bad influence on society” had caused “damage” to her memory of her late father. She submitted her complaint to BPO, demanding an apology from Fuji Television Network, Inc. However, Fuji Television Network Inc. explained that the program had paid sufficient attention to human rights and representation, and that it had used the most comprehensible and fastest way of reporting information on multiple executions within the time and technical limitations of a live program.
Firstly, the purpose of the program was to report the execution of the mastermind and those who played a significant role in the most serious incident in the history of crime after WWII because of its public nature and also for the public welfare.
In terms of a violation of human rights, the issue is whether the complainant’s “memory of her father” has been impinged upon or not. Whether there was an illegal impingement on this “memory” will depend on if the impingement was within the socially acceptable limits (tolerable limit) by considering all the factors involved.
Although the method of attaching the “EXECUTED” stickers on the flip board may have added to the complainant’s grief, the program’s use of this method is justifiable because it is the most comprehensible and fastest way of reporting information on multiple executions within the time and technical limitations of a live program. Thought was put into the size and color of the font, so the use of the stickers was appropriate in this case.
The scene showing the “EXECUTED” sticker on each person’s photo was shown only once and the time duration was very short, and nobody on the program brought any unnecessary attention to that act, so it would not have left a strong impression on the general audience.
For the reasons given above, the method of using the flip board and stickers did not impinge upon the complainant’s memory of her late father beyond the “socially acceptable limits” even though the program was broadcast right after the execution.
The same can be said with regards to the claim that the use of the lawyer’s statement had violated human rights. The point of Ito’s statement was that Matsumoto still had an influence over the cult’s successors and that considering that there was a possibility that they would commit similar indiscriminate mass killings, Matsumoto would continue to have a bad influence if the execution were to be held off any longer. Moreover, the general audience understood that Ito’s statement also meant that unless Matsumoto is executed, he would continue to cause pain and anxiety to the victims and their bereaved families. Based on the knowledge of the Public Security Examination Committee and the Public Security Intelligence Agency, there is enough basis to believe that Matsumoto had considerable influence on the cult’s successors. Also, considering that Ito’s statement was made on behalf of the victims and bereaved families of the most serious incident in the history of crime behind which Matsumoto was the mastermind, the Committee cannot say that the statement was inappropriate. Even though the statement was made right after the execution, it did not impinge upon the complainant’s memory of her late father beyond the “socially acceptable limits.”
The program did include some inaccurate information such as the name of the prison where the former condemned convicts were transported to and the positions they held within the cult. Such mistakes do sometimes occur in programs that are being broadcast live. However, most of the inaccurate information was revised and restated, correcting the mistakes verbally by the end of the program, so they cannot be blamed for turning the execution into a form of entertainment.
In terms of ethical problems, the complainant claimed that the program turned the executions into a form of entertainment, showing neglect for the human life and causing an unpleasant feeling for the general audience, and claimed that this goes against JBA’s Broadcasting Standards and the Basic Code of Broadcasting Ethics. However, as stated above, the program was broadcast because of its public nature and for the public welfare. The method of using the “EXECUTED” stickers was not in any way to turn the executions into a form of entertainment and cannot be considered as a problem in terms of broadcasting ethics.
The Committee has therefore concluded that there was no violation of human rights or any ethical problems with the program in question.

▶Committee Decision #70

“Complaint against the news report on the prohibition of group jump roping.”

On August 30, 2019, Fuji Television Network Inc.’s morning show, “Tokudane!” introduced a story on a cram school’s students reciting names of historical figures while group jump roping, and how the local government had put up a sign in the park forbidding the use of jump ropes following a series of complaints from the neighbors. One of the residents who were interviewed filed a complaint to BPO, and was reported as stating: “When I feel like reading a book or concentrating on something, I find the students to be a bit loud.” Her interview was broadcast for a duration of 17 seconds.
The complainant claimed that while walking her dog in the park one early evening, a young woman came up to her from behind, and without mentioning the name of the broadcaster or the program or the purpose of the interview, started filming before properly asking for the complainant’s permission. Furthermore, the complainant claimed that she had never even seen these students jump roping, and that the interview was a fabrication based on leading questions. The complainant stated that she is extremely resentful at the fact that the interview made it look as though she was complaining against the cram school who she is on friendly terms with. She submitted her complaint to the Human Rights Committee, demanding that Fuji Television Network Inc. apologize for the falsification and retract her interview.
Meanwhile, Fuji Television Network Inc. argued that the producer who conducted the interview told the complainant twice, that she is from the program “Tokudane!” on Fuji Television Network Inc., and that before she started the interview, had made the purpose of the interview clear by asking the complainant what she thought of the sign prohibiting the use of jump ropes. The complainant had also consented to the filming / broadcast of the program (including her appearance on camera). The producer stated that there were no leading questions and that the interview was broadcast without any editing of the footage, and objected to the complainant’s claim that the interview was falsified.
Based on the written documents including the filed complaints and the hearing, the Committee has decided that it cannot conclude that the broadcast unjustly violated the complainant’s human rights or portrait rights, because there is not enough evidence to prove that the filming or the interview were conducted without the complainant’s permission. There was also no evidence of “leading” questions that would have forced the complainant to say anything against her will, nor any “falsified” answers. For the same reason, the Committee cannot conclude that there were any ethical problems with the way the interview was conducted or edited, including the initial interview negotiations.
However, in cases such as this broadcast in which vox pops are conducted, the people are not accustomed to mass media interviews and news reports. The person conducting the interview must therefore make every effort to clearly state which broadcaster they are from, which program the interview is for, and what the purpose of the interview is, including how their interview will be used, and make sure that the interviewees fully understand and consent to the terms and conditions.

▶Committee Decision #71

Complaint about a news coverage and report on the former Eugenic Protection Law (1948 – 1996) by the state compensation applicant.

On Friday, April 26 2019, “Dosanko Wide 179” - a late afternoon news program broadcast by The Sapporo Television Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “STV”) - covered a story on a newly passed law (hereinafter referred to as “the state compensation law”), compensating victims of forced sterilization under the now-defunct Eugenic Protection Law. The program (hereinafter referred to as “the broadcast”) introduced the complainant as the first victim in Hokkaido to apply for this compensation.
The complainant claimed that he initially did not wish to apply for this compensation, but that STV’s reporter approached him and talked him into submitting the application, which he ended up doing against his will. The complainant filed an official complaint, stating that the broadcast’s extensive coverage led to a violation of human rights such as defamation, and that there were problems in terms of broadcasting ethics. STV objected to this claim, saying that the broadcast was based on mutual trust, and that the coverage and report were fair. Upon investigation, the Committee has decided that there was no violation of human rights such as defamation, and that there were no problems in terms of broadcasting ethics.
　The complainant is one of the plaintiffs who has filed a separate group lawsuit against the central government demanding state compensation for being forcibly sterilized under the former Eugenic Protection Law.
First of all, the claim that the broadcast was a violation of human rights does not hold true. If we go by the general audience’s level of attention and their ways of watching television, the broadcast simply introduced how the complainant applied for a compensation based on the new compensation law and therefore legal, so this would not lower the complainant’s public esteem in any way. The broadcast also shed light on the complainant’s mixed feelings and worries, and even included some critical narration against the government, thereby empathizing with the victims like the complainant. So even if the viewers were aware of the complainant’s critical opinion of the new compensation law, the broadcast still would not have lowered the complainant’s public esteem.
　Secondly, the Committee has concluded that there were also no ethical problems with the broadcast. If STV had distorted or fabricated facts in order to create a news story that they wished to report, then there would be a problem. Or, in this broadcast’s case, if the reporter had forced the complainant to submit the application against his will simply so that the reporter could get an exclusive coverage, then the news gathering activity would be deemed unfair and unethical. Also, had the reporter deprived the complainant the opportunity of seeking advice from the defense lawyers in the ongoing group lawsuit about the advantages and disadvantages of applying for this compensation based on the new law, then the coverage would be considered a problem in terms of broadcasting ethics. However, based on the written reports and hearing from both sides, although it was the reporter who had told the complainant that the applications had started, it was the complainant himself who made a phone call to the Hokkaido Government Office after the conversation with the reporter, to make sure that the application would have no effect on the ongoing lawsuit, indicating that it was his own wish to apply for the compensation. Meanwhile, there was no evidence that the reporter prevented the complainant from seeking advice from the defense lawyers. It was also the complainant who made the phone call to the reporter to discuss and finalize details of the coverage scheduled for the next day. After the broadcast, the complainant withdrew his application in May, but resubmitted it in February 2020 with the help of the defense lawyers. Based on the above facts, the Committee has concluded that there is no evidence that STV’s reporter made the complainant submit the application against his will or deprived him the chance of discussing the matter with the defense lawyers. The Committee also cannot go as far as to say that the coverage was excessive because there does not seem to have been any distortion or fabrication of facts.

▶Committee Decision #72

Complaint against reality show from the bereaved family member of a cast

The complaint in question was filed against “TERRACE HOUSE TOKYO 2019-2020” (hereinafter referred to as “the program”), broadcast on May 19th 2020 on Fuji Television Network, Inc. Kyoko Kimura, mother of Hana Kimura who was a professional wrestler and a cast member who died after the program was aired, claimed that her daughter’s death was caused by the program’s excessive staging which triggered the flood of defamatory comments on social media, and that this was a violation of human rights. The program, a reality show, followed six men and women who were selected to temporarily live in the same house. A group of studio commentators watched the show, giving their opinions and commentaries as the show unfolded. The program was first streamed on Netflix and aired a few weeks later on terrestrial television.
Halfway into the season, an incident occurs between Hana and a male cast member. The male cast member accidentally washes and tumble-dries Hana’s important wrestling costume which she had left in the washing machine. Hana becomes furious because she can no longer wear the costume which had shrunk. She yells at him in front of all the other members, tells him to “stop wearing his ridiculous hat,” takes it off and throws it on the floor. This incident became known as the “Costume Incident” and triggered viewers to make numerous defamatory comments on social media.
This “Costume Incident” was first shown on Netflix on March 31st. Hana started harming herself immediately after. On May 14th, an “unreleased video” was uploaded on to the program’s official YouTube channel in which Hana is shown trying to justify herself after being told by the other female cast members that she is also to be blamed for the incident. This led viewers to post more defamatory comments on the internet. On May 19th, the episode was aired on terrestrial television, and on May 23rd, Hana committed suicide.
The Committee has made a conclusion on three issues that were claimed by Kyoko Kimura, the complainant, to be a violation of human rights. Firstly, the complainant claimed that the broadcaster is responsible for the program’s violation of human rights mediated through viewers’ actions because it was well aware that the program would cause a flood of defamatory comments on the internet. Generally speaking, this claim cannot be accepted because freedom of speech should be respected. However, this case is particular because the initial streaming of the program on Netflix had already caused viewers to post defamatory comments on the internet and had led to grave consequences such as Hana harming herself. Therefore, in this case, if the initial distribution is already causing harm and the broadcaster is aware of this but proceeds to broadcast the same content irresponsibly without taking any special measures, then there may be a possibility that it is held responsible for a violation of human rights because it intentionally broadcast the content knowing exactly what and how grave the consequences would be.
However, Fuji Television Network, Inc. did provide a certain level of mental health care to Hana after it became apparent that she was harming herself, so her well-being was not completely neglected, and the decision to broadcast the program was not made unthinkingly. Therefore, the Committee cannot recognize this incident to be a violation of human rights.
Secondly, the complainant claimed that Hana’s words and actions were instructed by using an extremely one-way consent and commitment form as a threat, and that this was a violation of self-determination rights and personal rights. Although Hana was young, she was over the age of 20 and had chosen to apply to the program herself. Instructions given by the production staff would only be illegal if they had deprived her of the freedom of making any decision for herself. The production staff may have had a strong influence on her words and actions; however, this cannot be recognized as a case of violation of self-determination rights.
Thirdly, the complainant claimed that Hana’s words and actions in “The Costume Incident” are things that people usually don’t want others to hear or see, and that this was an invasion of privacy. However, Hana knew that she was going to be filmed and had given her consent, so there is no illegal invasion of privacy in this case.
On the other hand, the Committee did see problems in terms of broadcasting ethics and has made the three following conclusions. Firstly, considering the background of events after the initial streaming of the program and the obvious psychological damage that the subsequent broadcast would cause Hana, the Committee concluded that there were ethical problems because the broadcaster assumed that it would be okay for them to broadcast the same content without sufficient consideration for the cast member’s mental health. In reality shows, cast members’ words and actions are shown as they are, and it is the empathy and objections that viewers feel that draw them to the program. Compared to dramas and fictional programs, all the praise and censure are directed toward the cast members themselves, whether or not their words and actions reflect their true feelings. Also, although writing and commenting about the cast members’ words and actions, appearance, and personality on social media is one of the ways of enjoying reality shows, one could say that the risk of cast members bearing the psychological burden is a lot higher than in other programs. Therefore, although it goes without saying that broadcasters must consider the well-being of cast members’ physical and mental health, it is even more important in reality show production. In this case, there was lack of such consideration, so the Committee has concluded that there were problems in terms of broadcasting ethics.
Secondly, the complainant claimed that the excessive editing and staging had aroused the viewers’ emotions even more. However, there was not enough evidence of this, and because Hana’s anger in this scene seemed appropriate considering how furious she was, the Committee does not recognize a problem in terms of broadcasting ethics in this case.
Thirdly, although there were concerns about Fuji Television Network Inc.’s verification of this incident being limited to an internal investigation, the Committee cannot state an opinion on this matter, for it is beyond the scope of the Committee jurisdiction.
Lastly, the Committee would like to point out that there is a problem in the way reality programs are produced and broadcast, and that this is something that the entire broadcasting industry must work on to improve. The Committee urges Fuji Television Network, Inc. to take this committee decision seriously, to act on the corrective measures that it implemented after Ms. Kimura’s death, and to tirelessly reflect on their work and the progress of those measures in order to prevent the recurrence of such an incident. The Committee requests that the gist of this decision be broadcast on television.
The Committee also recommends the entire broadcasting industry to learn from this case and committee decision, and to voluntarily take measures to prevent a tragedy such as Ms. Kimura’s death from happening ever again.

▶Committee Decision #77

Complaint against a news report on the Miyazaki arson murder case.

The Committee concluded that there was no violation of human rights or problems in terms of broadcasting ethics.
The complainant, who is the victim’s younger brother, claimed that the news report had mentioned that there was “some kind of financial trouble” between his brother and the suspect, and that this had defamed his brother, the victim, by making him look like he was also to be blamed for the incident. Furthermore, the complainant claimed that the news report had impinged upon his “memory of his brother.”
If the phrase “some kind of financial trouble” were used without any context, it may be possible that some viewers would interpret it in the same way as the complainant; however, the news report did not say that the complainant’s brother is also to be blamed, nor did it strongly suggest so. Therefore, when considering the general audience’s interpretation of this phrase in this context, it is unlikely that the broadcast in question lowered the complainant’s brother’s public esteem.
In this situation, both the victim and the suspect are both dead, making it difficult to grasp the background behind this incident. Therefore, after obtaining some information through investigators which are backed by evidence, the news reported the necessary information to present the police’s perspective, including how there was “some kind of financial trouble” between the two, and how their relationship may have triggered the incident. Such information is an important element of news reporting and is not inappropriate in any way.
The news report was also highly relevant to the public and public welfare because it was becoming increasingly possible that this incident was an arson and not an accident.
Concluding from the above and even after considering the complainant’s shock and grief after the sudden and tragic loss of a family member, the news report did not impinge upon the complainant’s “memory of his late brother” beyond the socially acceptable limits.
The complainant also claimed that the phrase “some kind of financial trouble” was problematic in terms of broadcasting ethics. He stated that ① the use of the phrase suggests that his brother was also to be blamed and ② that he was not told about this piece of information obtained through the police, and that the news program had aired it without his permission.
Concerning ①, as mentioned previously, the news report did not say or strongly suggest that his brother was also to be blamed. As for ②, both parties are no longer alive, so after obtaining well-grounded information though investigators, the news program reported the incident from the police’s perspective, revealing that there was “some kind of financial trouble” between the two. Neither is problematic in terms of broadcasting ethics.
That being said, however, words such as “trouble” could be interpreted in many different ways depending on the context, the viewer’s position in a situation, or how the viewer is watching the news. It is important for broadcasters to bear in mind that such words should not be used readily and lightly as a standard word/phrase when reporting criminal cases.

▶Committee Decision #78

Complaint from a pet salon owner on a news report regarding a dog's death

On January 28, 2021, Nippon Television Network Corporation’s infotainment “Sukkiri” broadcast a story on a German Shepherd dog that died after being shampooed at a pet salon on January 12th. The complainant, the pet salon owner, said that the broadcast gave the impression that she had abused and killed the dog which is contrary to the facts, and that this was a case of defamation.
It was reported in the broadcast that the owner had strapped the dog’s collar to a handrail (metal fittings) in the sink and for approximately two hours, had pressed the dog down against the sink while shampooing them. The dog was brought to an animal hospital but died. The program also introduced interviews with involved parties who revealed the owner’s everyday conduct such as telling employees that they can “just quit” if they ever tried to go against her. Although the pet salon owner explained to the dog’s owner that their dog’s death was accidental, the dog’s owner told “Sukkiri” that a student who was helping with the shampooing had admitted that the dog was abused. During the report, the caption “Sudden death of beloved dog – abusive shampooing by pet salon owner?” was displayed on screen, and during the following talk in the studio, almost all the commentators one-sidedly condemned the complainant.

The report was broadcast before the program staff was able to interview the complainant directly. Therefore, in addition to the issue of defamation, the Committee considered whether the broadcast ran counter to broadcasting ethics, taking into consideration the following points:

1. ・Although the broadcast left the pet salon and its owner’s names anonymous, the coverage was based on information that had already been spread on social media, so their names were easily identifiable.
2. ・After watching this broadcast, the general audience would think that there was abuse during the shampooing and that this is what led to the dog’s death, which would lower the pet salon owner’s social esteem.
3. ・Therefore, it is a matter of whether Nippon Television Network Corporation can defend the veracity of the report or whether there are reasonable grounds to the report.
4. ・The expression of ”abuse” in this case refers to the act of attaching the dog’s collar to a handrail and pressing them down against the sink for two hours while shampooing and repeatedly showering their head leading to their death (causal connection).
5. ・The complainant claimed that she had only stepped in to help with the shampooing. However, the broadcaster explained in detail to the Committee how they had obtained consistent information from involved parties and the dog owner needed for their coverage. There is nothing suspicious about the content of the coverage and there was at least sufficient evidence for the broadcaster to believe that the information they had obtained were facts.

Based on the above points, the Committee concluded that this is not a case of defamation.

Next, the Committee considered whether the broadcast ran counter to broadcasting ethics considering that the broadcaster went ahead and aired the program without having directly interviewed the complainant.
The Committee has repeatedly stressed that in principle, it is necessary to make the intention of a news story clear to the subject of concern and to hear their side of the story.
On the other hand, speed is also an important factor in news reporting, so prohibiting broadcasters from reporting or broadcasting a story until the subject of concern agrees to an interview is not reasonable. If, for example, a broadcaster makes a sincere effort in requesting an interview with the subject but is unable to meet them or the subject doesn’t comply, and if appropriate alternative measures (such as showing the press release issued by the subject concerning the matter in question or introducing the subject’s claims or arguments by other means) are taken, or the story needs to be reported urgently, then a direct interview with the subject should not be a necessary requirement as long as the coverage includes highly accurate and credible information.
In this case, Nippon Television Network Corporation requested an interview with the subject and called the subject’s cell phone twice. Although broadcasters must be cautious when reporting civil disputes that are dependent on either party’s claims, the reporters in this case were able to obtain convincing confessions from five people related to the pet salon including those who were with the salon owner when the dog was being shampooed.
Also, although it cannot substitute a direct interview with the subject, the broadcast introduced the entire text posted by the owner on the salon’s homepage apologizing and refuting the claims made against her, which is of some significance.
In addition to reporting the fact that “the pet salon’s shampooing had caused a dog to die,” the context of the broadcast included criticism toward the salon owner’s conviction on disciplining animals which lowers the complainant’s social esteem. Although it would have been preferable for the broadcaster to have taken one step further in their effort to obtain the chance to directly interview the salon owner, judging from the overall circumstances stated above, the Committee stopped short of saying that this case runs counter to broadcasting ethics.

The Committee concluded that the broadcast in question is not a case of defamation, nor is it problematic in terms of broadcasting ethics.
However, based on the fact that this case is one in which it would have been preferable to obtain comments from the subject of concern, the Committee requests Nippon Television Network Corporation to reaffirm the importance of interviewing subjects directly in future productions.
END

▶Committee Decision #79

Complaint from a female cast of a local late-night show.

Summary of decision
The complainant is a freelance announcer and was a member of the cast on i-Television, Inc.’s late-night show “TSURU-Tsuru” (the program in question), broadcast once a week for six years until March 2022. The complainant claimed that she was humiliated by sexual remarks and behavior by the other cast members, and that the broadcasts had violated her human rights by tarnishing her image, and that they were problematic in terms of broadcasting ethics. While the complainant claimed that she had told the broadcaster of her distress when the show first began its broadcast, i-Television, Inc. stated that the complainant appeared on the show well aware of the program’s taste and intent, and denied that she was in distress.

The summary of the Committee’s decision is as follows:
The complainant’s claim that the sexual remarks and behavior during the broadcasts had been the cause of distress for many years is very sincere. However, the broadcaster will only be held responsible if it had been aware of the fact that the show went against the complainant’s will, or if its failure to notice this fact was a case of negligence on its part. In November 2021, the complainant told the producer of the show of her distress and her intention of leaving the show, and a transcript of this recorded conversation indicates that the producer was surprised and that it was the first time he was made aware of the complainant’s distress. Therefore, it is likely that i-Television, Inc. came to know the complainant’s intention in November 2021 for the first time. The complainant stated that because she had accepted the job, she was determined to maintain her dignity as an announcer and hide her distress. Also, judging from her emails to the program staff and her blogs, the complainant seemed to be enthusiastic and positive about the show even if they had merely been a façade, so it cannot be said that i-Television, Inc. was at fault.
Following the complainant’s talk with the program producer in November 2021, i-Television, Inc. immediately told the other cast members to stop making sexual remarks and did not broadcast any parts of the show the complainant had felt uncomfortable filming, so there was no problem with the way the broadcaster handled the situation.

If there had been sexual remarks or behavior that went beyond the social conventions of a late-night show or that denied the complainant’s dignity, then this could be a case of violation of human rights whether or not i-Television, Inc. was aware of the complainant’s distress. There were several strong opinions on the issue of the sexual remarks and behavior being directed specifically to the complainant, but the Committee cannot focus on the details of what was said and hold the broadcaster responsible, for that may result in restricting the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. Therefore, the Committee should refrain from asserting that this case is a violation of human rights. Although there are some disgraceful remarks and behavior in the program, they do not constitute a violation of human rights. From the above, the Committee concluded that the program in question did not violate the complainant’s human rights.
In terms of broadcasting ethics, the Committee first reviews expressions in accordance with “The Japan Commercial Broadcasters Association Broadcasting Standards” when judging whether a program is problematic. However, considering that the program in question is broadcast in the late hours when young children and youths are generally not watching television, and is a “talk show” where talk among the cast members is the main “performance” of the show, it is reasonable for the Committee to hold back from concluding that the program is problematic in terms of broadcasting ethics just by focusing on what was said.
As the show progressed, the cast members became more comfortable with one another each time, and the range of “how much they can say to one another” became wider, making them think that as long as it’s a joke, they could make sexual remarks toward the complainant. Rather than questioning whether each remark or behavior is ethically problematic, it is reasonable to consider this as a structural problem at the production site.
Furthermore, by social conventions, broadcasters must naturally care for cast members’ physical and psychological well-being; if they fail to do so, it would be problematic in terms of broadcasting ethics. In this regard, i-Television, Inc. took the appropriate measures as mentioned above, so in terms of broadcasting ethics, i-Television Inc. did not lack consideration toward the cast members. From the above, the Committee concluded that it would not go as far as to say that this case is problematic in terms of broadcasting ethics.
Lastly, the Committee made a request concerning the structural problem at the production site. Considering the difference in position of a freelance announcer and a television broadcaster, and from a gender perspective of a female’s position in a male-centered work place, the complainant is in a predominantly weaker position. However, i-Television, Inc. lacked this perspective. The Committee requests that i-Television, Inc. continuously makes an effort to create an improved system by establishing a gender-balanced environment and workplace where rather than considering quitting their job, cast members feel comfortable consulting the staff regarding their worries or distress without being punished or suffering damages, and that the broadcaster takes care of their physical and psychological well-being.
The matters pointed out above apply to the entire broadcast industry, and the Committee hopes that each company considers this case as an opportunity to improve their work environment and corporate structure.
END