Written on May 1, 2019.
This essay raises strong doubts about the involvement of Korean directors in NHK programs dealing with the Korean Peninsula, questioning public broadcasting in terms of fairness, historical accuracy, and consideration for Japan’s national interest.
Referring to the alias-name system, the opacity surrounding the backgrounds of production staff, Article 4 of Japan’s Broadcast Act, and the influence of Korean historical education, the author sharply asks why Korean directors were deliberately chosen to handle programs on Japan–Korea issues.

2019-05-01
It seems that questions had already been raised at the time of broadcast as to why NHK used Korean directors… Official hashtag ranking: No. 28 in Peru.

The chapter I posted on 2019-02-21 under the title “It Seems That Questions Had Already Been Raised at the Time of Broadcast as to Why NHK Used Korean Directors” has today entered the official hashtag ranking at No. 28 in Peru.
A little while ago, I discovered the following article, one that expresses the true value of the Internet.
NHK employees should make their origins clear, and alias names should be abolished!
Now that alias names themselves have become a breeding ground for crime,
has not the alias-name system, permitted only to certain foreign nationals, come to do more harm than good?
There may of course be various debates about this, but I would like the producers involved in making programs for NHK, a public broadcaster, to make their origins clear.
If a program involving the Korean Peninsula were produced by people whose origins lie on the peninsula, fairness could not be guaranteed.
Needless to say, I do not mean this in a discriminatory sense, and for example, if this were a program made by staff from Peru depicting the relationship between Japan and Peru, there would be no problem at all.
However, though it may hardly need saying at this point, the history of Japan and Korea as described by South Korea departs markedly from historical fact.
If resident Koreans in Japan who may have been influenced by that fabricated historical view are involved in programs on Japan–Korea issues on Japan’s public broadcaster, then to say that fairness and accuracy cannot be guaranteed may not be entirely mistaken, would it?
When people watch NHK, viewers are not checking the origins of the producers one by one.
It is also a grave fact that viewers come to know that certain persons involved were resident Koreans in Japan only when they commit crimes.
Omitted here.
Next, there is a director named Jeon Yong-seung.
He was a Korean director from Seoul, South Korea, and at the time was also a director for TV Asahi’s “Hōdō Station.”
He became the subject of a weekly magazine scandal over a violent incident.
An article from Shukan Shincho.
2004.05.20 [Article quotation]
A Korean director, Jeon Yong-seung (35), assaulted a Japanese director at a drinking gathering.
When questioned, he brazenly said, “It is true that there was a dispute, but it was nothing serious.”
The cause of the assault was a disagreement over how North Korea and South Korea should be reported on in the program.
He resorted to violence over a difference of opinion and showed no sign of remorse.
Viewers have high expectations for fair news programming produced by this model Korean individual. [End quotation]
Programs that Mr. Jeon Yong-seung handled at NHK.
He was in charge of the ETV Special series “Japan and the Korean Peninsula: 2000 Years,” which was part of “Project JAPAN,” in which NHK recently lost in court.
I truly find it difficult to understand why the examination of Japan–Korea issues must be entrusted to a Korean director.
This too is not a statement from a discriminatory point of view.
It seems that this work was made only eight years after he had come to Japan,
which means there can be no guarantee that he had freed himself from the anti-Japan education he had continuously received since early childhood in South Korea.
Simply from catching glimpses of opinions that the program had anti-Japan elements, and although I have not seen the program, I am arguing not at the level of its actual content but at the level of “risk,” that it is improper to appoint a Korean to produce a program on Japan–Korea issues.
NHK in particular is a public broadcaster supported by the money of the Japanese people, and therefore it must be cautious so as not to damage the national interest.
It seems that questions had already been raised at the time of broadcast as to why NHK used Korean directors.
At the time this program was broadcast, he had apparently been in Japan for eight years.
As for Mr. Ri Norihiko, I can find no other data except that he was in charge of a program called “Revived Bonds Across the Strait: 400 Years of Korea Envoys.”
However, whether a Korean person can truly view the “Korean missions to Japan” with a fair eye is a matter of very great concern.
He may in the end have portrayed it correctly, but I still think, “Why deliberately choose a Korean, and take that risk?”
As for the “state-authorized textbooks of South Korea” by which they are educated, if you search for that term, you can find related articles on the Internet and read part of the content showing just how fabricated and distorted they are.
As for NHK continuing to broadcast programs in violation of Article 4 of the Broadcast Act, I have dealt with that in various past articles, so I will not touch on it here, but I do want to say that especially in programs involving Japan–Korea issues, the appointment of Koreans is risky in terms of objectivity and historical accuracy.
I simply do not understand why Koreans must be appointed in the first place, or what necessity there is for it.