▶Committee Decision #28

Opinion on Fuji Television’s “Tokudane!” - two special feature stories covering criminal cases

In July 2017, Fuji Television Network Inc.’s infotainment program “Tokudane!” introduced a completely unrelated man as the suspect behind a case involving a violation of the Medical Practitioners Act and went as far as broadcasting an interview with him. The following month, the same program introduced a man whose case it claimed to have been “referred to prosecutors” when in fact it hadn’t. The fact that the same program made an error twice on extremely sensitive information such as the identity of a suspect and the progress of criminal proceedings is a serious problem. The Committee therefore decided to start a formal deliberation.
The Committee concluded that both cases were a violation of broadcasting ethics because they provided viewers with false information that was not based on facts, infringing upon the basic code of broadcasting ethics and the JBA broadcasting standards. In both cases, there was a chance to notice and rectify the mistake before the broadcast, but the production staff failed to do so. The Committee demanded that the production staff reaffirm the rules of covering criminal cases and to strengthen communication and cooperation among the staff. It also reminded them that in today’s society where there is a flood of information, television has the advantage of being considered “accurate” and “in-depth,” so coverage must be done thoroughly and evidence collected carefully, but broadcast boldly.

Closing comments: After it became apparent that Fuji Television had falsely identified a man as the suspect of a crime and even broadcast an interview with him, the broadcaster admitted that their awareness on dealing with such sensitive information was low and that their checking process was not thorough enough to catch the mistake. The broadcaster set some rules as a recurrence prevention measure on how to check and handle images of people requiring extra attention such as the suspect and victim of a crime, and vowed to always communicate with affiliated stations in writing or email.
However, just one month after the broadcast, the same program broadcast a coverage on a suspect whose case it claimed to have been “referred to prosecutors” and who was “registered as a stalker” without having obtained sufficient evidence. Fuji Television decided that it would take short-term measures such as having the producer in charge of the broadcast email all the other producers the night before the program is aired, reminding them of precautions and issues to consider, and also medium-to- long term measures such as providing training to all the program staff.
Although measures such as building their power as an organization are important, it is also necessary to raise each person’s awareness about dealing with sensitive information involving criminal cases. For example, it would be effective to share concrete examples of past incidents and what happened when such information was mishandled, so that each person can actually see how grave the consequences of such mistakes are.
A program is the result of judgments made by each staff. Not only is it important to prepare a detailed manual on the procedures to be taken, but also to understand why it is important to follow them properly, so that the staff will know how to make the right decision when faced with other problems. This also serves as a recurrence prevention measure.

Infotainment programs have long been criticized for their tendency of repeatedly broadcasting the same stories and prioritizing the “fun” side of people and episodes in order to get good ratings, often deviating from the essence of the stories. That being said, many viewers watch these programs because they are easy to understand and arouse the viewers’ interest, and have become part of their daily lives. They have the power to tell the facts and events in an instant but that is exactly why the facts presented on these shows must be as accurate as those on news programs.
The miscellaneous information on the internet and those on existing media are now provided without any distinction of their accuracy or validation. Television has the advantage of being considered accurate and in-depth. Viewers often say, “It must be accurate if it’s broadcast on television.” It is this trust that is important.
The Committee strongly hopes that all those involved in broadcasting continue to challenge themselves in exploring the possibilities of television programs, always keeping in mind that coverage must be “accurate” and “in-depth,” evidence collected carefully, but broadcast boldly.

▶Committee Decision #29

Opinion on “Nazotoki Bouken Variety, Sekai no Hatemade itte-Q!” 2 Festival Projects

A weekly magazine reported that the “Thai Cauliflower Festival” broadcast in February 2017 and the “Laos Bridge Festival” broadcast in May 2018 on Nippon Television’s “Nazotoki Bouken Variety, Sekai no Hatemade itte-Q” were suspected of being “fabricated.” The Committee therefore began a deliberation.
It was concluded that 1) The festivals were fabricated for the program, but the production staff were not aware of the details; 2) The program underestimated the viewers’ scope of understanding, and made the narration sound as though the cast were challenging themselves in a festival deeply rooted in the region; 3) The declining popularity and interest in festivals themselves was what led to the simplified narration. The fact that the staff were not aware of such an important part of the production meant that the process was not properly kept in line, and by making viewers believe that the cast were taking part in a festival that already existed, the program broke their “promise” with the viewers and betrayed their trust. The Committee therefore concluded that although the violation was not too grave, there was indeed an ethical problem with both festival projects. That being said, the Committee also encouraged the production staff to continue making variety programs that mock society’s meaningless authorities and constraints, that expose discrimination and prejudices, and to keep having the grit to deliver new discoveries and laughter to the viewers.

Closing comments: During the deliberation, the Committee had the chance to watch several episodes of the program in question. The Committee members enjoyed watching comedians trying to shop in foreign countries with their limited English proficiency, laughed at the cast’s breakthroughs using unexpected ideas, and laughed at the sight of a handsome idol giving his all chasing after a pig in the “Thai Pig Festival” project. They couldn’t help but laugh. They also saw the playfulness which is the driving force behind catching the fans’ hearts and the passion created by the synergy between producers and cast of the show, which is also what many fans mention in their supportive messages submitted to BPO. In this world, there is so much taboo, discrimination, prejudice, constraints, and rules. This program dodges these limitations and even uses them for its own benefit sometimes, mocking society’s meaningless restrictions and delivering new discoveries and laughter to its audience. This is the flexibility and grit that the Committee hopes the production staff will continue to have. It also hopes that the production staff finds the right balance and distance between the audience and society, that they will not easily give in to public opinion, and that they think deeply, always questioning things, and continue to face new challenges. Because isn’t this what differentiates television from the internet or social network services? Nippon Television hopes to resume its “Festival Project” once it can present it to the audience with confidence. Once it does resume, the viewers will watch the program with stern eyes. The Committee is counting on the staff to present a new perfected “Festival” that will not only capture the viewers’ attention, but will leave no space for criticism.

▶Committee Decision #30

Opinion on “A Future that Starts with Work Reform”

A program titled "A Future that Starts with Work Reform," produced by an external production and funded by a company that paid for the air time, was handed to Nagano Broadcasting Systems, Inc. and was broadcast on March 21st 2019. The program was brought to the Committee’s attention because there was a high possibility that the program featuring the business of the company could mislead viewers to think that the program was an advertisement. The Committee decided that it was necessary to investigate whether the program had been properly examined so it began a deliberation and has held a series of discussion on this matter.

The program was sponsored by the Labor and Social Security Attorney Corporation X in Nagano Prefecture (hereinafter referred to as “Corporation X”). Apart from the mention “Corporation X presents” alongside the program title “A Future that Starts with Work Reform,” it was not evident that the company was the program’s advertiser. Although there were two minutes of commercials (unrelated to Corporation X) after the program was aired, there was not a single commercial during the 28-minute program. The program showed images of Corporation X supporting companies within Nagano that are tackling work reform, and included introductions of its seminars and businesses. As pointed out in the opinion submitted by a viewer, one cannot deny that the program seemed to be a PR video for the company.

The Committee concluded that the program was broadcast without having been properly examined, and that it had violated broadcasting ethics for the following reasons. Nagano Broadcasting failed to abide by Article 92 in JBA’s Broadcasting Standards which states that “It must be made clear when a broadcast is an advertisement.” It also failed to abide by JBA’s “Points to consider when dealing with products and services in a program” in which it lists some “factors to consider extra carefully in order not to mislead viewers into thinking that a program is an advertisement.”

Closing comments: The spread of video streaming services has accelerated the crustal deformation of media, and the environment surrounding terrestrial television is changing greatly.
At first, the Committee member in charge of this case surmised that maybe fully funded programs that would financially contribute to local stations, such as the program in question, were becoming more common considering the recent financial difficulties of local stations. However, when this was mentioned at the hearing at Nagano Broadcasting, each person said that there was no connection between their financial situation and this case. One staff denied any connection, saying that whatever their financial situation may be, they would not use the public airwave, acknowledging the highly public nature of television. The Committee member could sense his pride as a broadcaster.
While some harsh opinions were expressed at the Nagano Broadcasting’s program council deliberation held in May, some members suggested that “If Nagano Broadcasting made its own program with the same theme, it would be a much better program.” “Nagano Broadcasting should sit down and thoroughly research how work reforms affect the business world, and make a program that is more solid and meaningful.”
At the hearing, one staff mentioned that “the cardinal rule for regaining trust lost through a broadcast can only be regained through broadcast.” In the end, it was decided that they themselves would create a series on work reform in the local news program. The Committee was able to see Nagano Broadcasting’s sense of responsibility as a broadcaster. Even during financial difficulties, it is this grit and attitude of the staff that will open the way to the future.
True to their words, starting July 23rd, Nagano Broadcasting broadcast on its late afternoon news program “NBS Live News Everyone’s Shinshuu,” a 4-day series titled “Series: The Front Line of Work Reform.”
The Committee has often expressed in its written opinions and at workshops that whatever is lost through broadcasts should be regained through broadcasts. There is nothing else that needs to be said.

<< To further clarify the decision, the Committee Chair issued a statement (excerpt)>>
“Concerning the issue of a program being mistaken for an advertisement” October 30, 2020.

When having doubts about a final judgment, it is important to reconsider the root of the problem. Why is it necessary to distinguish between a program and an advertisement? How does this jeopardize the trust of commercial broadcasters and the value of media?
An “advertisement” is created by a sponsor in order to promote a service or product to the viewers and increase their purchasing desire. On the other hand, a “program” is created and broadcast under the premise that the content of the program has been objectively examined by the broadcaster before being aired. What happens when there are elements of an advertisement in a program and it becomes difficult to distinguish between the two? It will cloud the viewers’ judgment of the service or product and thus, they will lose trust in broadcasters and the content of the program. Considering the magnitude of influence broadcasting has on society, and from the perspective of protecting the viewers, we must ask and remind ourselves once again why it is so important to distinguish between a “program” and an “advertisement.” The programming department, production department, sales department, and program review department at each broadcaster will then be expected to perform a multifaceted and reciprocal check from each respective position.

▶Committee Decision #31

Opinion on “Kansai Joho Net ten. Mayotte Nanbo in Osaka Juso” – a sexual harassment comment

On May 10, 2019, Yomiuri Telecasting Corporation broadcast a segment in its late afternoon news/infotainment program “Kansai Joho Net ten.” in which comedians walk around town interviewing people randomly in search for an interesting story. On this day, they interviewed a person and insistently asked which sex they are, asking to check their ID, and even going as far as touching their chest before affirming that they are indeed male. After the video was shown, a commentator in the studio strongly criticized the interview. The other cast members on the other hand just sat there and said nothing, and the broadcast of the segment ended there. At the Committee Meeting held in June, the Committee members appraised the broadcaster’s swift autonomous and voluntary handling of the situation after the broadcast, but also saw the need to clarify how and why such an incident occurred, so the Committee initiated a deliberation and held a series of discussions on the matter.
The Committee concluded that the broadcast in question was problematic in terms of broadcasting ethics. The Japan Commercial Broadcasters’ Association Broadcasting Standards state that “(3) Personal information must be handled with care and broadcasters must be careful not to invade people’s privacy.” The broadcast also goes against the basic code of broadcasting ethics which state that “the appropriate language and images must be used, and an effort to use dignified expressions should be made.” The broadcast also failed to abide by JBA’s news guidelines which state the importance of “respecting human rights” and “using moderate and dignified expressions in news programs.”

Closing comments: “The deepest regret in the program’s 10-year history.”
Although the broadcast in question was clearly an ethical violation, the Committee appraised the commentator’s immediate reaction after the video was shown, and how the broadcaster dealt with the situation autonomously and voluntarily. All 13 members who attended the hearing expressed how they had sincerely regretted what had happened and that they were ashamed of themselves. They also expressed their honest concerns and how this incident even affected their families. The Committee saw that the members had all learned a lesson from this, and that they are determined to continue making better programs by using this lesson to increase their awareness on privacy, human rights, and minorities. On the other hand, the Committee also got a glimpse of the recent reality in program production. For example, the “negligence” of putting in infotainment/variety-like segments in news programs; the “exhaustion” among staff members on site; favoring smooth and easy coverage over those that require more attention to details; the obsession over “getting approval” for a project rather than its content; and the increasing importance of “cost performance” which would help to reduce costs. The above issues that came to light during the investigation of this case also highlight the increasingly vague border between news programs and infotainment/variety programs. With news programs, the staff must be extra cautious when it comes to respecting people’s privacy, human rights, and getting the facts. This should not be any different or taken lightly just because the program is an infotainment/variety program. Now that infotainment/variety programs take up political and social issues, they too must increase their awareness and strengthen their checking system. The disappearing border between the two program genres makes it all the more important for staff to share their knowledge and experience, and for broadcasters and the broadcast industry to aspire to make programs that are more sensitive to people’s privacy and human rights. Having said that, even when we think we have taken all the necessary precautions, mistakes still happen. What is most important is how sincerely we face the problem, and how swiftly and appropriately we handle it after it has occurred, and how each person takes the lesson to heart. A veteran program staff referred to the incident as the “deepest regret.” The staff had spent many years making an effort to raise the falling ratings and finally, after 10 years of trial and error, the program became “the” program that people choose to watch during major events such as typhoons or local elections. The program had earned the viewers’ trust, but this incident took them back to square one. The veteran staff repeatedly used the words “deepest regret.” There are times when one can lose the trust that took a decade to build in an instant. However, our “deepest regrets” are what allow us to take things to heart. Will this loss and “deepest regret” lead to building a deeper trust? The Committee sincerely hopes to see how the staff will use the lesson learned from this incident.

▶Committee Decision #32

Opinion on “Heartful Summit” and a Comment Concerning Korean People

In the broadcasts of Kansai Television’s variety program “Heartful Summit” on April 6th and May 18th 2019, a writer who appeared on the show as a guest commented on Korean people’s temperament, likening it to “an ugly woman cutting her wrist.” The Committee concluded that there was a need to investigate the events leading to the program’s apology, based on the fact that the Japan Commercial Broadcasters Association Broadcasting Standards prohibit racial and sexual discrimination, and that the program was not appropriately edited before its broadcast even though it was a recorded program.
During the questioning of the production staff, many mentioned that the program “tries to sail close to the wind to get the attention of viewers who like these kinds of provocative comments.” The production staff obviously lacked understanding of the fundamental danger and risks in taking this “sailing close to the wind” approach. The Committee determined that the production staff as a team that takes such an approach were not capable of objectively considering the ethical issues involved in the program.
The Committee concluded that there was a violation of broadcasting ethics in both broadcasts, pointing out that they go against Articles 5 and 10 in The Commercial Broadcasters Association Broadcasting Standards which state that: “(5) The race, sex, profession, background, or faith must not be discriminated against.” “(10) When treating issues involving race, ethnic group, or citizens, their feelings must be respected.” They also violate Kansai Television’s “Program Production Guideline,” or their corporate rules concerning broadcasting ethics, which states that “Nobody should be discriminated for their race, color of skin, language, or religion.”

▶Committee Decision #33

Opinion on “Vanished Hero” and its manipulated video

On August 11, 2019, TBS Television, Inc. broadcast a documentary/variety program “Vanished Hero,” showing a video of a national little league baseball tournament in which a pitcher struck out every batter, ending in a perfect game. However, the broadcaster reported to the Committee that it had in fact manipulated and fast-forwarded the video so that the speed of the ball would look faster. It also became apparent that videos of other sports including table tennis, figure skating, and soccer had been similarly manipulated in previous broadcasts (January 3rd and November 4th 2018). The Committee decided at its meeting held in September 2019 that manipulating the original footage of an event, which constitutes the essential part in a sports program, may be problematic in terms of broadcasting ethics, and that there was a need to investigate the production and checking processes. It began a deliberation and held numerous discussions on the matter.
The Committee concluded that there was a violation of broadcasting ethics. The program continued to broadcast the manipulated videos as the “actual” footage. This goes against the suggestion “Improvement of Program Ethics” proposed by NHK and JBA’s (Commercial Broadcasters Association) joint Program Ethics Committee, which states first and foremost the importance of the basics as a broadcaster, and that coverage and production must be based on facts. It also goes against Article 32 in The Commercial Broadcasters’ Association Broadcasting Standards which states that: “The purpose of the news is to serve the viewers’ right to know. Reports must be based on facts and must be fair.”

Closing Comments: If it weren’t for this pitching scene, this issue may still not be brought to light. The speed was 156% faster than it actually was. The speed in the other manipulated videos had ranged from 115% to 130%. Each producer adjusted the speed to “just the right speed so that it wouldn’t look like it is fast-forwarded but would look amazingly fast.”
This 156% increase in speed was in fact not the intention of the program producers. In order to maintain the viewers’ attention, the producer who edited the teaser decided to fast-forward the video that was shown right before the commercial break. Little did this producer know that another producer on his team had already fast-forwarded the video, thereby increasing the speed to 156%. One can therefore conclude from this fact that the manipulation was not done under anyone’s orders. This “fast-forwarding of the already fast-forwarded video” was what made the program an issue, which is the irony of this case.
During the questioning, producers as well as veteran producers who are now in management positions, mentioned that at a certain point when editing the same video and watching it over and over again, they lose sense of what makes a program entertaining enough or not. This mental state must lead to the temptation they feel during production.
There is obviously a lot of anxiety during the process of program production. Will the viewers enjoy the video? Will they change the channel? No matter how busy the production staff are, the recording date and the broadcast date will not change. Deadlines must be met and the program needs to get a good rating…and within a hand’s reach, they now have various advanced editing technologies.
Therefore, it is logical and somewhat understandable that they would be tempted to use this technology to relieve themselves of the worries and overwhelming pressure. As with any word, the word “actual” can be interpreted in any way. For example, the fast-forwarded video does not change the fact that the pitcher struck out every batter. The video is still showing what actually happened. However, the issue here is not the ethics of the interpretation of words, but the program itself. The question is, “Is it ethical to show this manipulated video to the audience who is watching this program?”
Technical innovations have lowered the psychological hurdle of editing videos, so we must use our moral to raise it and maintain our ethical standard. We must confront and find ways to coexist with technical advancements because for better or worse, they cannot be undone. Production staff must acknowledge this reality and do their best to overcome the challenges within this environment.

▶Committee Decision #34

Opinion on NHK WORLD-JAPAN‘s “Inside Lens” report about a “Rental Family Service”.

In November 2018, “Inside Lens,” a documentary program on NHK WORLD-JAPAN, NHK’s international broadcasting channel, introduced a segment “HAPPIER THAN REAL” about a service that rents out a family or a partner. On May 29th, NHK announced that three men in the program who were supposedly users of this service, were in fact employees of the company running the service. At the 141st Committee Meeting (held on September 13th 2019), the Committee members decided to start a formal deliberation in order to investigate the events leading up to the broadcast, including the possibility that the production staff may have failed to check that these “users” were not affiliated with the company. Numerous discussions on this issue were held among the Committee members. At the 146th Committee Meeting (held on February 14th 2020), an agreement in principle was reached on the context of the notice, and it was presented to the broadcaster and made public after it was finalized.
The Committee pointed out in their written opinion that the Basic Code of Broadcasting Ethics states that “News media must tell the facts objectively, accurately, and fairly, and make their best effort to close in on the truth,” and that NHK’s Broadcasting Guidelines also state that “NHK news and programs must be accurate.” By the above standard, there was an inaccuracy in the context of the broadcast because the three men were not real users of the service, and the broadcaster also failed to disclose this fact. NHK also did not perform an adequate check before the broadcast. Therefore, the Committee concluded that the broadcast of this program was a violation of broadcasting ethics.

▶Committee Decision #35

Opinion on Hokkaido Broadcasting Co., Ltd’s news program “Kyo Doki!” and its story on the Upper House proportional representation election

On July 3rd 2019, the day before the public announcement of the Upper House election, Hokkaido Broadcasting Co., Ltd.’s local program “Kyo Doki!” broadcast a close coverage of one of the proportional representation candidates. Some viewers contacted BPO, pointing out that the program did not mention anything about the other candidates and lacked consideration of fairness. The candidate, who has been taking part in political activities for many years now, was featured in this segment lasting 4 minutes and 40 seconds, in which he is shown training at the gym, going shopping with his family (also a member of the Diet), and preparing for the election which he referred to as his “last challenge.”
At the 141st Committee Meeting (held September 13th), the Committee members discussed the matter based on the report and DVD of the program submitted by the broadcaster. Proportional representation candidates are from various political parties and political organizations but the program only introduced one candidate who has ties to Hokkaido. The proportional representation election is not limited to Hokkaido, and broadcasting a story on a candidate with strong ties to Hokkaido could induce voters in the prefecture to vote for the candidate in question. Based on the above reasons, the Committee concluded that the program’s context lacked fairness and integrity toward the other candidates and that it may be problematic in terms of broadcasting ethics. The Committee started a formal deliberation to investigate the events leading up to the broadcast.
In the Upper House proportional representation election, voters can place their votes in any political party or organization no matter which prefecture they live in. However, the program in question which was broadcast a day before the public announcement, featured only one specific candidate for a duration of five minutes, and was edited in a way that left a strong impression on the viewers. It gave a false impression to the voters in Hokkaido and may have skewed the election. The Committee concluded that the program lacked fairness and integrity which are required in election coverage, and therefore, was a violation of the code of broadcasting ethics.

▶Committee Decision #36

Opinion on Ryukyu Asahi Broadcasting Corporation and Kitanihon Broadcasting Co., Ltd.’s feature programs

On September 21st 2019, Ryukyu Asahi Broadcasting Corp. broadcast a 55-minute local feature program on “The path and challenge of Seven-Eleven’s foray into Okinawa.” Some viewers contacted BPO, saying that it is hard to tell whether the program is a broadcast or an advertisement for the convenience store franchise. The Committee requested that the broadcaster submit a report and a DVD of the broadcast. The program was an introduction of a convenience store making its first foray into Okinawa, and showed images of the store preparing for its grand opening, including interviews with local people. The convenience store’s original food products were brought into the studio for the program presenter who tasted and praised them. The program was sponsored by the convenience store’s parent company.
Meanwhile, on October 13th, 2019, Kitanihon Broadcasting Co., Ltd. broadcast a 15-minute local feature program titled “Let’s enjoy our 100-year life! Choosing the best asset formation.” An opinion similar to the one on Ryukyu Asahi Broadcasting Corporation’s program was given by some viewers. The broadcast began by talking about asset formation in an aging era, but the program spent the majority of time introducing the consulting business of an investment trust company with headquarters in Toyama City. An advertisement for this company’s seminar was also broadcast right before the program was aired.
The Committee held a discussion on the two broadcasts in question at the 144th Committee Meeting (held December 13th). By the rules on advertisement set by JBA’s Broadcasting Standards (Article 92 and 93) and “Points to consider when dealing with products and services in a program,” a guideline that was set by JBA in 2017, the Committee members concluded that the context of both broadcasts could be mistaken for an advertisement and that there may have been a violation of broadcasting ethics. Members pointed out that for the general audience, both the tasting and praising of the convenience store’s original food products, and the advertisement for the investment trust company’s seminar right before the program, made the broadcasts look like advertisements. The Committee decided that an investigation into the events leading up to the broadcast was necessary, including how each broadcaster had reflected the Committee’s decision on another broadcaster’s program dealing with a similar issue that had been distributed to them in October. As the issue in these two broadcasts were similar, the Committee decided to start a formal deliberation on both, treating them as one case.
Although Ryukyu Asahi Broadcasting Corp. and the convenience store had not exchanged any advertising deal, it cannot be denied that the context and duration of display could make the broadcast appear like an advertisement. JBA’s “Points of consideration” regarding advertisements do not apply only to advertising deals that involve payments but to the program as a whole. The “Points of consideration” guideline states that a broadcaster must be especially careful as to not make the audience misperceive a program as an advertisement. Therefore, the Committee concluded that there was a violation of broadcasting ethics in Ryukyu Asahi Broadcasting Corp.’s program.
In Kitanihon Broadcasting Co., Ltd.’s program, it is hard to tell whether the second half of the program is completely independent of the sponsor’s intention or business, so the audience may misperceive the broadcast as an advertisement. Judging from Article 92 in JBA’s Broadcasting Standards and the “Points of consideration” guideline that states that a broadcaster must be especially careful as to not make the audience misperceive a program as an advertisement, the Committee has concluded that the context and staging of the broadcast in question created a misleading impression on the audience, and that this was a violation of broadcasting ethics.

▶Committee Decision #37

Opinion on TBS Television, Inc.’s program “Crazy Journey” and its “Reptile Hunter” segment.

TBS Television Inc. announced that there was an inappropriate staging in its variety program “Crazy Journey” which was broadcast on August 14th 2019. According to the broadcaster’s report, the segment “Reptile Hunter” within the program in which an expert “reptile hunter” visits Mexico to find and catch rare animals, had made it look as though the “reptile hunter” had miraculously found and caught some rare reptile species when in fact they had been prepared beforehand by the program staff. This became apparent after an outsider pointed out some holes in the program. After an internal investigation, it was revealed that 4 out of the 6 animals that were introduced had been caught beforehand by a collaborator in Mexico and released near their habitat before filming. It also became apparent that 11 species that were introduced in 7 other “Reptile Hunter” segments had also been prepared beforehand.
At the 142nd Committee Meeting held on October 11th,the Committee members watched the DVD of the broadcast in question and held a discussion based on a report submitted by TBS Television, Inc. Committee members pointed out that there may be a problem in terms of broadcasting ethics; the program may conflict with Article 32 of The Broadcasting Standards set by JBA that states that it is the responsibility of the news media “to report news based on facts and remain fair,” and by distorting those facts, the program had betrayed the viewers’ trust. TBS Television, Inc. was still conducting their investigation on the collaborator in Mexico at the time, so the Committee decided to continue their discussions. At the 143rd Committee Meeting held on November 8th, TBS Television, Inc. submitted their report on the investigation in Mexico. After examining the additional report, the Committee began their deliberation based on a suspicion that the program in question may conflict with The Broadcasting Standards set by JBA.
The Basic Code of Broadcasting Ethics that NHK and JBA set up in 1996 states that “In order to gain the viewers’ and citizens’ trust in broadcasting, broadcasters must always stand firm, maintain an autonomous and independent position, and keep the process of coverage and production in line.” The “Reptile Hunter” segment focused on hunter “X” who uses his unique abilities to find and catch all sorts of rare species, but in fact, the program had used animals that were either “borrowed” from a collaborator or caught elsewhere. This fact was kept from some of the production staff which means that the production process was not kept in line. The viewers believed that these animals were caught by the hunter’s extensive knowledge and instincts on wilderness. The broadcast clearly betrayed their trust.
The Committee has therefore concluded that there was an ethical problem with the broadcast in question.

▶Committee Decision #38

Opinion on TV Asahi’s news program “Super J Channel” report on “GYOMU supermarkets.”

On March 15, 2019, TV Asahi Corporation’s news program “Super J Channel” broadcast a feature story on customers shopping at a “GYOMU supermarket” (supermarket for business / professional use). However, TV Asahi Corporation admitted that the 4 “customers” among the people who were interviewed were in fact the program director’s acquaintances, and held a news conference to make a formal apology. According to the report submitted by the broadcaster, the feature story introduced a supermarket that sells food for business or professional use, and interviewed people who come to the supermarket for personal use, asking them about their lifestyles and why they shop there. A director who was dispatched to an affiliate production company did the location coverage by himself. The 4 “customers” who were the main people featured in the story were the director’s acquaintances and had been told about the location schedule ahead of time.
Discussions were held at the 143rd Committee meeting (November 8th) based on the DVD of the broadcast and the report submitted by the broadcaster. Committee members pointed out that there is a high possibility that the director had stakeholders appear in the feature story not by negligence but with a deliberate intention. Based on a suspicion that there may have been a breach of broadcasting ethics, the Committee saw the need to investigate the events leading up to the actual broadcast, so decided to begin a formal deliberation.
The Committee has concluded that there was a breach of broadcasting ethics in this feature story. The Basic Code of Broadcasting Ethics that was drawn up by The Japan Commercial Broadcasters Association (JBA) and NHK in 1996 states: “News media must tell the facts objectively, accurately, and fairly, and make their best effort to close in on the truth.” It also requires that “the coverage and production process be kept in line.” The Broadcasting Standards set by JBA also state that “news must be accurate and speedy,” and Article 32 states that it is the responsibility of the news media “to report news based on facts and remain fair.” It is hard to say that the coverage process of this feature story was in line. The content was not accurate or fair, having misled viewers to believe that the 4 “customers” just happened to be shopping at the supermarket, which is clearly a breach of broadcasting ethics.

▶Committee Decision #39

Fuji Television Network, Inc. “The Ninety-nine Walls” Opinion on the casting of unqualified extras participating in the quiz.

“The Ninety-nine Walls” is a quiz variety program broadcast on Fuji Television Network, Inc., in which one “challenger” is chosen out of 100 participants to challenge 99 “blockers” by answering questions on a subject that they are proficient in. If they answer five questions correctly and faster than the 99 “blockers,” they can win one million yen. On April 3, 2020, Fuji Television Network, Inc. made a public announcement on the program’s official homepage, admitting that it had been casting extras to sit in but not actually participate in the quiz whenever they could not gather the required 100 participants, and apologized for derailing substantially from the show’s concept which is to make “1 person challenge and win against 99 people,” and for betraying the viewers’ trust.
In the Committee‘s preliminary discussions held at the 148th Committee Meeting (May 15th) which were based on the report and videos of the actual program submitted by the broadcaster, there were various opinions saying that although the program is aspiring, it may have been a bit of a stretch to begin with. Some also pointed out that the background and issues in question are similar to those of another program on Fuji Television Network Inc. in which parts of the program were edited and falsified, and on which the Committee gave their opinion back in April 2014 (Committee Decision #20). The Committee saw the need to clarify why the broadcaster hadn’t applied the lessons that they had previously learned, and whether recurrence prevention measures had actually been taken. Given the possibility that there may have been similar ethical problems from episodes #1 to #25 (broadcast from October 20, 2018 to October 26, 2019), the Committee decided to formally begin a deliberation on the case.
The Committee concluded that there was a problem in terms of broadcasting ethics. It stated that by casting extras who did not actually have the right to participate in the quiz, the program betrayed the viewers who had believed that the quiz was between “1 person and 99 people.” It also failed to abide by the Basic Code of Broadcasting Ethics that Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) and The Japan Commercial Broadcasters Association (JBA) set up in 1996, which states that “In order to gain the viewers’ and citizens’ trust in broadcasting, broadcasters must always stand firm, maintain an autonomous and independent position, and keep the process of coverage and production in line.” Some very important information on the production process was not sufficiently shared amongst the production staff of “The Ninety-nine Walls,” which means that they had failed to “keep the production process in line” as stated in the Code of Broadcasting Ethics.

▶Committee Decision #40

Opinion on Fuji Television Network, Inc.’s use of fictitious data in a series of public opinion polls

On June 19th, 2020, Fuji Television Network Inc. announced that some fictitious data were used in the “FNN (Fuji News Network) and Sankei Newspaper’s Joint Public Opinion Polls” that were conducted 14 times from May 2019 until May 2020. The research company that was entrusted by Fuji Television Network, Inc. had in fact subcontracted another research company to conduct the surveys. It became apparent that fictitious data that were obtained over phone calls that weren’t actually made were included in the poll results. Fuji Television Network Inc. suspended the public opinion polls, voided the poll results reported in 18 news programs from May 19th 2019 until June 1st 2020, and cancelled any related broadcasts. According to the report submitted by the broadcaster, 1886 samples (approximately 12.9% of the entire survey) included fictitious data that were created by changing the attributes and answers of the valid samples.
Discussions were held at the 150th Committee meeting (July 10th 2020) based on the report and DVD of the broadcasts submitted by the broadcaster. Some harsh feedback and opinions were given at the meeting. Members pointed out that the 18 news programs that broadcast the fallacious results inevitably must have affected other opinion polls held during that time, that people use opinion poll results as important information to base their decisions on, and the fact that the validity of the results was not verified is a serious problem. Others said that this case had grave consequences, undermining the credibility of all opinion polls conducted by broadcasters and newspapers. The Committee saw the need to discuss this issue further, so waited for the broadcaster’s submission of it report on recurrence prevention measures, and additional reports on its polling system and data checking system.
At the 151st Committee meeting (August 7th 2020), further discussions were held based on the additional reports. Fallacious public opinion poll results were broadcast 18 times and Fuji Television Network Inc. was not even aware that the other research company had been subcontracted, revealing a lack of supervision on their part. The Committee entered a formal deliberation in August 2020 based on a suspicion that there was a breach of broadcasting ethics in those 18 broadcasts.
The Basic Code of Broadcasting Ethics that was drawn up by The Japan Commercial Broadcasters Association (JBA) and NHK in 1996 states: “News media must tell the facts objectively, accurately, and fairly, and make their best effort to close in on the truth.” The Broadcasting Standards set by JBA also stress the importance of “respecting public opinion” and “accurate and speedy news.” Furthermore, Article 32 states that it is the responsibility of the news media “to report news based on facts and remain fair.”
The surveys were left entirely up to the subcontracted research company and false results were broadcast for over one year, betraying the people’s trust and inevitably affecting the credibility of other public opinion poll results. The Committee has therefore concluded that there was a grave breach of broadcasting ethics with the broadcasts in question.

▶Committee Decision #41

Opinion on Nippon Television Network Corporation’s “Sukkiri” and the discriminatory remark on the Ainu.

On March 12th 2021, Nippon Television Network Corporation’s infotainment show “Sukkiri” broadcast a segment “Weekend recommendations on Hulu” in which a documentary about an Ainu woman was introduced. The Ainu are an indigenous people from the northern region of Japan. A comedian who appeared on the show made a riddle involving the documentary. “What does one say when they find an animal in this work?” “Ah! Inu!” (“Ah! A dog!”). As soon as the program was aired, Nippon Television Network Corporation was faced with a flood of criticism. They apologized on their evening news “news every.” the same day, saying “We deeply apologize for the hurtful and inappropriate statement that was made about the Ainu people. We will take the necessary recurrence prevention measures.” An apology was also posted on Nippon Television Network Corporation’s website and the program website. At the beginning of “Sukkiri” the following Monday, the cast made a full-scale apology, saying “The production staff lacked awareness that the statement in question was discriminatory, and the checking process before the program was aired was insufficient.”
Following discussions based on the report and DVD that were submitted by the broadcaster, the Committee decided to enter a formal deliberation and held a series of debates on this matter. The Committee concluded that there was a violation of broadcasting ethics, stating that the remark made in the broadcast was clearly discriminatory, that the final checking process of the recording by the staff before the broadcast was much too lenient, and that the staff lacked sufficient knowledge about the Ainu people and the issues involving their discrimination. The Committee also pointed out that the broadcast goes against Articles 5 and 10 in The Commercial Broadcasters Association Broadcasting Standards which state that: “(5) The race, sex, profession, background, or faith must not be discriminated against.” “(10) When treating issues involving race, ethnic group, or citizens, their feelings must be respected.”

▶Committee Decision #42

Opinion on the fabrication of the questions from viewers on “Oshita Yoko’s Wide! Scramble”

Outline: On October 21, 2021, TV Asahi Corporation admitted and apologized in its infotainment program “Oshita Yoko’s Wide! Scramble” and on the program website, for fabricating some of the questions that were broadcast in the program from March until October 2021, and making them look as though they had been sent in by actual viewers. The program starts by introducing the day’s theme, and asking viewers to send in their questions during the broadcast through the program website. Their questions would then be read out at the end of the show and answered by specialists. However, it became apparent that many of these questions that were supposedly sent in by viewers, had been fabricated by the production staff. In some cases, they used the actual questions but changed some of the words and expressions, and changed the attributes of the viewer, creating a fictitious person in order to avoid receiving complaints.

Fabricating questions and opinions from viewers could influence the public opinion, and judging that there was a possibility of a breach of broadcasting ethics, the Committee started a formal deliberation in November. It has since then held numerous discussions on the case. The Committee concluded that there was indeed a breach of broadcasting ethics. It pointed out that questions introduced in programs such as those in this case, reflect the interests and trends among the viewers, and that it is unacceptable that the production staff distorted such important information. Although the questions introduced in the program are not necessarily the opinions of those who submitted them, changing the attributes of the viewer means that the opinion becomes unattributable which goes against The Commercial Broadcasters’ Association Broadcasting Standards Articles 32 and 35 which state that: “(32) The purpose of the news is to serve the viewers’ right to know. Reports must be based on facts and must be fair.” “(35) When opinions are introduced in the news, their attributes must be disclosed.”

Closing comments: In this digital age where anyone can express their opinion through various media such as the social networking services, broadcasters are also putting in an effort to include “audience participation” or “interactive” aspects in their programs. This case was an example of such recent trend. Viewers want to know what people in certain areas and certain age groups are interested in. The attributes are therefore important pieces of information. For those who made a submission, these attributes and the context of the questions are what allow them to recognize their own question when it is being read out. There is an implicit trust here between the broadcaster and the viewers. However, when this trust is broken, what is left for the program?

One day, after this incident came to light, a production staff was packing away all the materials that were used in the question segment. The incident had already been reported in the news, and there were many comments on the internet, such as “It’s no surprise. Television programs often do these kinds of things.” It was hard enough seeing such comments. However, there was a comment on the program website saying, “I sent in a question every day and watched your program with such excitement, hoping that one day my question would be chosen.” “I’m so sad to hear that such wrongdoing was going on.” One can tell how hurt this avid fan was after their trust was betrayed. It is this pain that the broadcast industry must face with sincerity.

Moreover, it became clear that the staff’s perception of the atmosphere on the production site differed greatly depending on the staff’s position and employment status. Many people from various production companies and of various employment status are involved in program production these days. There are also temporary staff and freelance staff. For these people who are in different positions, an instruction given in a loud voice could be taken as a reprimand, or that proposing an idea would be disobeying instructions. Even if they are told to express their opinion, some revealed that they fear losing their job if their opinion antagonizes their superior, due to their vulnerable position. Then came the pandemic.

Taking infection prevention measures, there were no longer staff meetings after the broadcast. The executive staff would call in the production staff one by one, so some felt that there was no longer a place or opportunity to hold any discussions. The complex and intricate positions of the production staff and the never-ending busyness are preventing healthy and open-minded communication on the production site, where the staff’s comprehensive strength needs to be exerted the most. Then came Covid-19 out of nowhere. This situation cannot be solved by just one individual’s talent or ability. It is not only the broadcast and broadcaster in question, but also the broadcast industry as a whole that must work to resolve these issues. Only by doing so will it be able to give a sincere response to the disappointed viewers who had “watched the program with such excitement.”

▶Committee Decision #43

Opinion on NHK BS1’s documentary program on the Tokyo Olympics

On December 26th 2021, NHK broadcast a special documentary “The Tokyo Olympics Through the Eyes of Naomi Kawase” on its broadcasting satellite channel (BS1). However, it became apparent that the truth behind some of the subtitles that appeared in the latter half of the program had not been confirmed. On January 9, 2022, NHK made an official announcement and apology on its homepage and the documentary’s official site. The program was a documentary on Naomi Kawase, the official Tokyo Olympics film director, and the production team. During the scene where a man is being interviewed, the subtitles “A man participating in the anti-Olympic protests” and “He confessed about being paid to participate in the protest” appeared on the screen. After the program was aired, many viewers contacted NHK asking whether these were based on facts. When NHK checked with the man, they were not able to verify whether he had participated in the protest, bringing this issue to light.
The Committee members expressed some harsh opinions, stating that there may have been a problem in each step of the production from coverage, editing, preview to investigation, and decided at their February meeting to begin a formal deliberation and held a series of discussions on this matter. The Committee’s findings were as follows: 1) The documentary presented a man who hadn’t participated in the anti-Olympic protests as someone who had. 2) Proof could also not be obtained for the rest of the man’s statements. 3) The staff used the man’s statement on another protest and edited it to make it sound like it was about the anti-Olympic protests. 4) The staff did not provide sufficient explanation to the man. The program gave the wrong impression to the viewers that the protestors were paid to participate and that they were faceless people gathered to chant the organizers’ slogans and as a result, the broadcast also diminished the meaning and value of the protest itself. The Committee concluded that there was indeed a serious breach of broadcasting ethics, pointing out that the program had violated the basic code of broadcasting ethics and NHK’s broadcasting guidelines.

Closing comments: The public opinion about holding the Tokyo Olympics during the Covid-19 pandemic was divided. Broadcasters were therefore expected to present the issue from various angles by not only “setting the mood for the games” and “thinking first and foremost about the athletes,” but also listening to the voices of those opposed to the games and reflecting those opinions in their programs. However, even before this incident, there had been a lot of criticism on how NHK was reporting the Tokyo Olympics. Therefore, people suspected that this documentary was broadcast with a certain intention, further increasing their distrust not just toward the producers of the program, but to NHK as a whole.
In November 2015, the Committee issued an opinion on NHK’s “Today’s Close-up” and its report on the “priest fraud.” (Committee Opinion #23) The Committee concluded that the case was a serious violation of broadcasting ethics in which the staff failed to perform a basic step in their coverage and broadcast something that was factually inaccurate. In May 2015, NHK implemented the “Anonymity Check Sheet” as a recurrence prevention measure. That was only several years ago, but once again, a similar incident has occurred.
Also, in November 2018, NHK World-Japan’s “Inside Lens” broadcast a report about a “rental family service.” The program presented three men who were supposedly “users” of this service, but they were in fact employees of the company running the service. The program review department failed to notice this fact, and the program was broadcast. (Committee Decision #34, March 2020)
How and why did these incidents where factually inaccurate content was broadcast occur so often over the course of several years? Is there not a structural problem? For example, the “Anonymity Check Sheet” is supposed to be used when double / triple checking that an interviewee is made anonymous or that their face is properly pixelated. However, this time, it was not used. It became apparent that this sheet is not used for scenes that do not constitute the core of the program. Such a recurrence prevention measure that only further burdens the production staff who are already busy as it is, will obviously be avoided. The fact that the same kind of mistakes have been made repeatedly indicates that there is a problem with the present production system. It does not suffice to strengthen “management” and “compliance.” NHK must go back to their basics as journalists whose role is to report issues fairly and from various angles without misrepresenting the facts.
Moreover, the production staff must also bear this responsibility by showing interest and educating themselves on the issues surrounding the protests so that they can pass on accurate information to the viewers. Otherwise, there is the risk of misrepresenting the public opinion. Broadcasters have the role of contributing to the healthy development of a democratic society. NHK also declares in its programming standards that it will “spread the democratic ethos as best they can.” NHK must fully respect the citizens’ freedom to express themselves, the foundation of democracy, by ensuring the freedom of speech and expression in broadcasting. The Committee pointed out that there was a problem in each step of the production: coverage, editing, and preview. It also noted that the way the broadcaster handled the investigation after the incident was inappropriate, but that the underlying reason may also have been their unconscious prejudice toward or preconception of protests and protesters.
Producing programs that are based on facts that have been verified is the most basic of basics in production. Production staff must always respect the interviewees and society. This incident has taught the entire broadcast industry that this respect is the basis of trust with the viewers which is key in the development of a healthy democratic society.

▶Committee Decision #44

Opinion on a broadcast of NHK’s “NEWS WATCH 9” regarding bereaved families of people who died after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination

In May 2023, NHK broadcast in its program “NEWS WATCH 9,” a 65-second video titled “One week after downgrading COVID-19 to infectious diseases Category 5: various thoughts on the gradual return to the normal life.” Included in the video were interviews with three members of bereaved families who were each introduced with on-screen captions such as “Mr./Ms. XX who lost their father.” From the context of the video, any viewer would assume that their family had died after being infected with COVID-19. However, they had all in fact died after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination.
The Committee decided that it was necessary to investigate why and how this broadcast, which covered bereaved families taking action against deaths following the COVID-19 vaccination, misled viewers to think that they had lost their loved ones to the coronavirus itself, and began a deliberation in June. After numerous interviews and exchanges with involved parties, the following facts were acknowledged: 1) The video editor who covered the story and their direct superior had inappropriately considered that there was no difference between deaths following the vaccination and those caused by COVID-19 itself, in a broad sense that they had all died because of the coronavirus. 2) The person who covered the story did not clearly explain to the bereaved families that the broadcast would not be covering the issues surrounding vaccines, therefore failing to follow the basic rules as a reporter. 3) Despite their insufficient experience in reporting, they had not received the necessary internal support. 4) The check during the preview before broadcast was inadequate.
Considering the above facts, the Committee concluded that the broadcast did not follow the Basic Code of Broadcasting Ethics and NHK’s broadcasting guidelines, and that there was a violation of broadcasting ethics.

Conclusion: Improving the support system The roots of “NEWS WATCH 9” go back to 1974 when “NEWS CENTER 9” first began its broadcast. Since then, NHK’s 9 PM slot news programs that cover domestic and foreign news of the day have remained popular. (There were periods when the broadcast was at 10 PM) The broadcast in question ended up losing the audience’s trust which the flagship show had earned through years of hard work. The problem was caused by the buildup of numerous failures to act on the part of the person who covered the story and their superior, as well as the poor organizational structure. The broadcast in question exemplifies how these buildups have irredeemable consequences. Recently, NHK has repeatedly broadcast factually incorrect content every few years due to their inadequate coverage. (Committee decision #23, #34, #43) Since then, NHK has strengthened its checking functions by implementing the “Anonymity Check Sheet” when news coverage needs to be anonymous, and including more people at the preview by requiring the presence of staff who are not involved in the coverage/production. But unfortunately, NHK once again broadcast factually incorrect content. What is necessary in order to prevent future recurrence of such mistakes? Is it the reinforcement of checks and management such as the “Anonymity Check Sheet” or the preview by multiple staff? The necessity of reinforcing adequate checks and management goes without saying. However, what the Committee would like to point out in this case, is the lack of awareness of the production staff who were dealing with the feelings of bereaved families of people who had lost their lives after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination. The Committee fears that there is a progressive decline of knowledge and interest in the real world and problem awareness, all of which people who are involved in journalism should naturally have. Therefore, before considering the reinforcement of checks and management, NHK’s priority should be to raise the level of awareness and sensitivity amongst the production site staff toward various news and educate them on what it means to be involved in journalism. Meanwhile, the Committee would also like to emphasize that this case should not cause a “chilling effect” at the production site. The broadcast in question was a project directed by someone whose main job is video editing, not by a reporter or director who is used to on-site reporting, which is valuable in a sense that people in various divisions and positions have the opportunity to propose projects. Reporting news from various perspectives and taking various approaches are especially vital in journalism, and the diversity in production staff can leverage trust. The Committee hopes that this case will not create an atmosphere where the staff feel like they can no longer make challenging and ambitious proposals. Even if a person does not have much experience or is a novice, NHK will hopefully make an effort to expand the support system surrounding their coverage and production. Broadcast journalism is made possible by the multiple people who are involved in various ways. The Committee sincerely hopes that this case will not take away the energy from the production site, and that the broadcaster will take this opportunity to heighten its staff’s awareness and create an even stronger organization.

▶Committee Decision #45

Opinion on an investigative report broadcast on TBS’s “news23” concerning JA (Japan Agricultural Cooperatives) Group’s employees’ “self-destructive sales”

In January 2023, TBS Television Inc.’s “news 23” broadcast in its “Investigative Report 23” segment, a story on JA (Japan Agricultural Cooperatives) Group’s employees and their families being forced to sign unnecessary contracts for JA’s cooperate insurance in order to reach their excessive sales quota. The report was based on a testimony by an employee whose face was blurred and whose voice was changed. After the broadcast, BPO was contacted by a person who had supposedly met this employee before, and said that they could immediately identify the employee. It came to the Committee’s attention that the reporters’ privilege, a basic rule in journalism, had been undermined and a deliberation began in August the same year to investigate the details of the coverage and events leading up to the broadcast.
After the Committee conducted numerous interviews with involved parties and careful examinations of related documents, the following points became clear. First of all, it became apparent that the coverage for the broadcast in question hinged on the whistleblower’s consent, and prioritized the appearance of images rather than considering the whistleblower’s delicate situation or intent, neglecting the news organization’s responsibility to protect the source’s confidentiality. It also became apparent that the staff had forgotten their promise with the whistleblower, and had used footage that they had been asked not to use. This could have been avoided had the staff put the whistleblower’s confidentiality above all else. Furthermore, the director who conducted the interview had also edited the video of the coverage himself, so prior check was insufficient and the final preview did not function as the last bastion.
The Committee concluded that the above points were problematic because the broadcast had not adhered to the reporters’ privilege rule, and that by going against “(4) of 2. Press Coverage Stance” in the “JBA (Japan Commercial Broadcasters Association) News Guidelines,” there was a violation of broadcasting ethics.

Conclusion – Learning from mistakes and moving forward! Upon reading this opinion, many in the broadcast industry may have thought, “Oh, here we go again,” or thought that some staff at another unrelated broadcaster had yet again made a misstep. Others may have thought, “This was bound to happen,” that it happened because investigative reporting is highly risky considering the amount of time and human resources it requires.
Or others may have just flipped through the pages, not thinking much of this incident, and reached this section.
The Committee would like those people especially to read the following conclusion.

“Television news cannot be trusted.”
“All they do is cut and paste parts for their own benefit.”
“Broadcasters are just gauging the feelings of the government, authorities and sponsors, and don’t cover key issues.”

There are countless critical posts on social media, expressing distrust in conventional media, saying that the truth is only told on the internet.
Those working in television production have surely experienced feeling disappointed after reading such posts. News production sites are always busy. Many can hardly take days off. Some may even think that work reforms do not apply in the world of news production. No matter how hard they work to cover and report a story, the criticisms do not stop. What an unrewarding job, one may think.

However, take a breath and think again.
Even in this age when online information has reached new heights of prosperity, the influence that television broadcast has is huge. Television transmits information instantly, keeping people aware of what is going on in the world.
Meanwhile, there may be some who, whilst feeling a sense of mission as television news reporters, are having doubts deep inside. They may be concerned that they will lose trust if the news simply relies on press release announcements, or that unless they dig more deeply and cover more about the complex reality of society rather than reporting superficial news about the government and companies, they won’t be able to respond to viewers’ expectations. The Committee assumes that inside the hearts of many creators in broadcasting, there is this sense of ambivalence and self-contemplation.
In fact, a TBS employee who was interviewed about the investigative report in question stated the following.
“Some may think that investigative reporting is beyond our capacity, and maybe it is, but reporting news that we simply obtain by sitting in the press club is like being told by society that we’re not even needed. The only way we can confirm the meaning of our existence in this internet age where there are so many news outlets, is to go out and find our own stories and raise questions about them, and that’s why we don’t want to stop investigative reporting.”

As mentioned in the introduction, investigative reporting does not rely on announcements made by authorities or companies through press releases, and involves finding and setting a coverage theme of public interest, raising questions about the issue, covering the story at one’s own risk, and widely bringing up the issue in society. While the agenda or issue to be solved is already set in announced news, it is the news organizations’ responsibility to set the agenda in investigative reporting. Behind these news organizations are the audience and citizens who rely on their stories, so they assume the role of bringing to light and correcting social injustices and acts of omission by those who possess powerful authority.
Many may not be aware, but there are many cases where the truth came to light for the first time or society took action following an investigative report.
For example, in 2019, NHK broadcast the investigative report “Failure to disclose misidentification of remains of the war dead.” For many years after WWII, the Japanese government had continued to collect the remains of Japanese soldiers who died while being detained in Siberia, but NHK’s report revealed that numerous remains buried at the Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery were identified as not being Japanese, and that the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare was hiding this fact from the public. In 2021, Television Nishinippon Corporation did an investigative report campaign titled “A life that could have been saved” and delved into the police’s inappropriate handling in the “Dazaifu housewife assault and death case.” In 2011, Akita Broadcasting System broadcast “The mowed dream – Ogata Village – the model farming village’s 40 years” which showed the consequences of political patchwork and the farmers who had to pay the price, and questioned the existing agricultural policies. In 2007, Nippon Television Network Corporation broadcast “Internet café refugees – the drifting indigent people” in which increasing problems in labor and poverty were highlighted.
The broadcast in question by TBS also uncovered how regional employees of such a huge organization as JA are being forced into “self-destructive sales,” and had a big impact on society.
Isn’t this the reason why broadcasters have set up organizations and programs devoted to investigative reporting in recent years? Despite strict criticisms from the audience, broadcasters are doing their best to obtain their support and trust by going back to the basics and reevaluating the fundamental role of journalism. The Committee sincerely hopes that broadcasters continue to commit themselves to this challenge.
However, the audience is also casting a critical eye on how broadcasters cover their stories. Even if a story rocks society, the audience will condemn broadcasters that cannot ensure the protection of whistleblowers.
That is why the Committee urges TBS to make an effort to turn this big misstep into a meaningful lesson, and for other broadcasters to take this opportunity to reexamine their own positions.
There may be a lot of hardships and burden at news production sites, but there are people who are counting on the power of journalism to correct the injustices, acts of omission, and inequity in society. “It was a wonderful program” “That news triggered society to take action.” In order to receive more of such appraisal, the Committee asks that broadcasters do not give up or abandon their mission, and continue working with their heads held high.