This essay examines media coverage of the Kakei issue and constitutional revision debates in light of Article 4 of Japan’s Broadcast Act, which mandates political fairness and factual accuracy, and questions the public responsibility of NHK and national broadcasters.

All broadcasting stations that failed to meet these conditions committed violations of Article 4 and should rightly be held accountable.
2018-01-23
The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
Article 4 of the Broadcast Act requires that broadcast content maintain political fairness, not distort facts, and clarify points of contention from multiple angles regarding opposing opinions.
All broadcasting stations that failed to meet these conditions committed violations of Article 4 and should rightly be held accountable.
The responsibility of NHK is particularly heavy.
This is because, based on Article 64, Paragraph 1 of the Broadcast Act, it collects reception fees—effectively a form of taxation—from the public.
With the exception of the Sankei Shimbun, why have almost all nationwide media outlets adopted biased reporting resembling an anti-Abe administration and anti-government campaign?
I feel that the trigger may have been Prime Minister Abe’s constitutional revision statement on May 3.
Prime Minister Abe proposed retaining Articles 9, Paragraphs 1 and 2 as they are, while explicitly writing the Self-Defense Forces into the Constitution.
Although the proposal drew criticism from both conservatives and liberals, the Prime Minister’s statement undoubtedly revitalized discussions in the Constitutional Review Commission, which had seemed dormant until then.
That was precisely the Prime Minister’s aim, I believe.
However, it is possible that the suddenly invigorated constitutional revision debate caused a sense of crisis among liberal forces, including Asahi.
Beginning May 9, Asahi ran editorials for three consecutive days marking the 70th anniversary of the Constitution’s enforcement.
“The Danger of Revising Article 9,” “Do Not Use Education as a Pretext,” and “The Prime Minister’s Self-Indulgence Has Gone Too Far.”
The June 27 editorial titled “Prime Minister’s Constitutional Remarks: Aiming to Distract the Public?” criticized the constitutional remarks as intended to divert public attention from the Kakei Gakuen issue, which had caused a sharp drop in cabinet approval ratings.
On July 1, under the headline “Debate on Collective Self-Defense Is Not Over,” it criticized the government interpretation approved three years earlier under the Abe administration permitting the exercise of collective self-defense.
On September 1, in an editorial titled “Defense Budget Requests: Debate with ‘Limits’ in Mind,” it warned that “requests have increased for six consecutive years” and that “excessive arms competition could instead destabilize the region.”
It is laughable.
Does Asahi not wish to see the military expansion of neighboring China, which is watching our country?
To be continued.