Published on August 30, 2017.
This article examines the severe deterioration of bias in Japanese television reporting, now worse than during the security legislation debates. Using the Kake Gakuen issue, it exposes how wide shows relied solely on speculative testimony while ignoring key facts, and highlights Japan’s abnormal lack of broadcasting accountability compared with international standards.

2017-08-30

The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.

Wide Shows Add Fuel to the Fire

Ogawa

I previously investigated television coverage related to the security legislation, but the bias seen this time is even worse than before.

The entire program is constructed around Maekawa’s testimony.

Abiru

In fact, the most important point in the closed-session hearings was that it became clear that Mr. Maekawa never directly heard the proper noun “Kake Gakuen” from anyone.

Even in his exchanges with Advisor Izumi, whom Maekawa described as the “chief mastermind,” Maekawa himself acknowledged that Izumi never mentioned the Prime Minister or Kake by name.

It became clear that “after all, Maekawa simply assumed on his own that there was the Prime Minister’s intention involved.”

However, this was not reported.

Ogawa

To begin with, Mr. Maekawa was the highest-ranking administrative official responsible for the establishment of a new veterinary school.

If he truly believed the administration was being distorted, he should have acted at that time to correct it, but looking at both the Ministry of Education documents and his testimony, he did nothing. That is why all of the information amounts to hearsay and speculation.

On the other hand, Mr. Kado is a genuine party involved. If you listen to his account, this was a long-standing battle between Ehime Prefecture and the Veterinary Association over entrenched regulations, and neither Prime Minister Abe nor the Kake chairman were central figures.

Once this becomes clear, the narrative promoted by those who made the Kake issue such a major topic collapses.

That is why it was necessary for them to continue reporting only Maekawa’s speculation.

Sakurai

This is also from materials provided by Mr. Ogawa, but there is international comparative data related to broadcasting laws.

In the UK, the US, France, Germany, and even South Korea, program standards are established, and violations result in orders for corrective reporting or fines.

Japan, however, has none.

The idea is that broadcasters should operate autonomously, but in reality, this is not being achieved at all.

Wide shows in particular broadcast for two or three hours every day.

News programs are presumably structured through editorial meetings where reporters from the social and political desks bring together information.

The same applies to anchors. Even though news program anchors may be biased, they still seem to exercise some degree of caution in what they say.

However, wide show hosts avoid using proper names but speak freely and sharply, gaining popularity in the process.

This is extremely problematic.

Abiru

The same applies to commentators.

They lack expertise and detailed knowledge.

They are merely speaking reflexively.

I believe they cause a hundred harms and not a single benefit.

Hanada

In the end, it all comes down to whether ratings can be obtained.

Because public sentiment had aligned with Maekawa, they tailored images and narration accordingly.

Even if they interviewed Mr. Kado, if they did not obtain the “desired testimony,” they simply did not use it.

To be continued.