Why Did NHK Fail to Report the Okinawa Gubernatorial Election? — Japan’s Public Broadcaster Must Explain

Today was a newspaper holiday, so there was no morning edition, and for once I decided to watch NHK’s 7 p.m. news.
The reason goes without saying.
In yesterday’s Okinawa gubernatorial election, Genta Koja defeated incumbent Governor Denny Tamaki by a wide margin and was elected for the first time.
Koja received more than 420,000 votes, defeating Tamaki by approximately 147,000 votes.
This was no narrow victory.
It was an election result in which the people of Okinawa clearly expressed their will.
Moreover, it brought about a change in the course of Okinawa prefectural government for the first time in twelve years.
It was an extremely important election for Japan’s future, involving the relocation to Henoko, national security, the defense of the Nansei Islands, the promotion of Okinawa, and the future of Japan-U.S. relations.
Yet, as far as I could see while watching NHK’s News 7 tonight, NHK did not report the result of this critically important Okinawa gubernatorial election.
I could hardly believe my ears.
NHK itself had reported on the day the election was officially announced that “the result of the election is also expected to affect the national government’s security policy.”
NHK itself had acknowledged that the election was that important.
Then the election actually resulted in the first change of prefectural government in twelve years, with the incumbent governor suffering a decisive defeat.
Why, then, did NHK fail to report the result on its nationwide 7 p.m. news the following day?
NHK owes the Japanese people an explanation.
This is not an issue that can simply be dismissed as a matter of selecting which news stories to include.
If a public broadcaster has the “freedom to report,” then it also has a responsibility to answer to the public as to whether its editorial decisions were appropriate for a public broadcaster.
If it gives extensive coverage to news that suits its own preferences while refusing to cover news that does not, that is not journalism.
It is an act of steering public opinion in a particular direction.
Moreover, tonight NHK devoted considerable coverage to the issue of the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant.
I am not saying that NHK should not report on Hamaoka.
If it is an important issue, then of course it should be reported.
What I am asking is one simple question: Why did NHK devote time to the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant while failing to report nationally on the historic result of the Okinawa gubernatorial election, which NHK itself had characterized as an election capable of affecting Japan’s national security policy?
What also gave me a powerful sense of discomfort in tonight’s broadcast was the repeated use, in reference to Chubu Electric Power, of language to the effect that it held “peculiar views.”
If a news organization characterizes the subject of its reporting in such terms, it has a responsibility to clearly explain the objective basis for that characterization.
By what standard was it judged to be “peculiar”?
Compared with whom was it “peculiar”?
Was it “peculiar” merely because its views differed from those of NHK itself?
Unless NHK explains this, it amounts to nothing more than imposing the news organization’s own value judgments on viewers under the guise of news reporting.
And I want to say this to NHK.
Before describing views different from your own as “peculiar,” why not examine your own reporting practices?
You omit from a nationwide news program an election result through which the people of Okinawa expressed an important democratic decision.
At the same time, on another issue, you repeatedly use expressions that suggest a particular value judgment.
Is this not, in itself, an extraordinarily abnormal form of editing for a public broadcaster?
Furthermore, tonight NHK reported an approval rating of 53 percent for the Takaichi Cabinet.
I have serious questions about this figure as well.
Of course, opinion poll results can vary depending on the organization conducting the survey, the wording of the questions, the sampling method, the response rate, the ratio of landline to mobile-phone respondents, the age distribution of respondents, and the methods used to adjust the results.
That is precisely why I ask NHK to explain itself.
Instead of simply broadcasting the figure of 53 percent and leaving it at that, NHK should clearly explain, in a manner that allows the public to examine the result, why its figures differ significantly from those of other polling organizations.
Who exactly was surveyed?
How many people were called, and how many actually responded?
How many respondents were contacted through landlines and how many through mobile phones?
What was the age distribution of the respondents?
How many people declined to answer?
What adjustments, if any, were made in compiling the results?
What exactly was the wording of the questions?
If NHK calls itself a public broadcaster, it should make not only the results but also, as far as possible, the process by which those figures were produced transparent to the public.
I am not demanding ideological control of NHK.
Quite the opposite.
Precisely because NHK is a public broadcaster, I am saying that it must report facts of importance to the Japanese people equally, regardless of political position.
Which candidate one supported in the Okinawa gubernatorial election is not the essence of this issue.
Whether Genta Koja had won or Denny Tamaki had won, if this was an important election affecting Japan’s national security, then the result should have been conveyed to viewers throughout the country.
Is that not the most basic responsibility of a public broadcaster?
Moreover, NHK occupies a completely different position from that of a private broadcaster.
It collects receiving fees from the public and maintains an enormous organization in its capacity as a public broadcaster.
That is precisely why greater fairness, transparency, and accountability are required of its journalism than of private broadcasters.
Before describing the views of others as “peculiar,” NHK should first ask itself:
Why did you fail to report the result of the Okinawa gubernatorial election on tonight’s News 7?
Who made that editorial decision?
According to what standard of newsworthiness was the story excluded?
And how is that decision consistent with NHK’s own previous reporting that the election could “affect the national government’s security policy”?
NHK must answer these questions.
If members of the Japanese public feel that NHK’s reporting appears to overlap with political positions advanced by foreign powers such as China, South Korea, or North Korea, it is not enough for NHK simply to say that no such influence exists.
NHK must demonstrate its political independence through its daily reporting and through thorough transparency.
I have no intention of asserting without evidence that NHK is controlled by foreign powers.
However, if NHK continues to make editorial decisions like those seen today, it will itself invite precisely those suspicions.
The issue is not whether NHK is on the right or the left.
The issue is whether it is fairly reporting the facts as a news organization.
A public broadcaster is not an organization that tells the people what they should think.
It must be an organization that provides the facts necessary for the people to make their own judgments, without selecting or suppressing those facts according to political likes and dislikes.
Watching News 7 today, I was once again convinced of something.
What is being questioned is not merely the editing of a single NHK news program.
What is being questioned is NHK’s very reason for existing as a public broadcaster.
NHK must explain itself to the Japanese people.
Why did you fail to report tonight, on News 7, this important result expressed by the people of Okinawa through their votes?