A critique of NHK’s News Watch 9 broadcast on July 31, 2020, arguing that employees of a public broadcaster behaved as though they were the best judges of national policy and attempted to guide public opinion while looking down on the citizens they were supposed to serve.
The essay examines the fundamental difference between elected politicians responsible for governing the nation and broadcasting employees who have never been subjected to a democratic election.

July 31, 2020
They are merely employees of Japan’s state broadcaster—in other words, effectively no more than public servants.
Yet, for some reason, they have begun behaving as though they were the people best qualified to govern Japan.
This is an extremely harmful—in other words, biased—characteristic of the people who control NHK’s news division.
To begin with, in Japan, a country that may fairly be described as an exemplary democracy, those who govern the nation as a whole are the political parties and politicians chosen directly by the Japanese people and entrusted with the administration of the government.
They present their policies to the public, and when those policies are not accepted, they lose elections—something that, in one sense, is equivalent to losing their livelihood.
They therefore follow an inherently demanding path as they assume responsibility for governing Japan.
All forms of information are gathered within the political process, and politicians analyse domestic and international circumstances before choosing the best possible course from a broad national perspective and governing the country without leading it astray.
The world itself knows better than anyone that Prime Minister Abe is the finest politician in the world today.
The people referred to at the beginning are, in practical terms, merely employees of Japan’s state broadcaster—in other words, public servants.
Yet they have somehow begun to behave as though they were the people best qualified to govern Japan.
On today’s Watch 9, the programme featured interviews with a certain Kamayachi of the Japan Medical Association, a man previously unknown to most Japanese people, and Keiichiro Kobayashi of some foundation or other.
As usual, both were people willing to say what those who control the programme wanted them to say.
Few things could be more foolish or unpleasant than Arima’s method of interviewing these two people, presenting their opinions as though they represented the best possible policy, and then interviewing Minister Nishimura from that predetermined position.
Doctors should, in the best sense of the expression, be outstandingly narrow specialists.
It is hardly an exaggeration to say that it is entirely inappropriate for them to presume to speak on politics.
Doctors are worthy of respect precisely because, in the positive sense, they devote themselves completely to an extremely specialised field.
The Japanese people must recognise that what these individuals are doing is looking down on them and attempting to indoctrinate and direct them.
The public must understand the absurdity of this behaviour and say NO to them.
To be continued.