EDITORIAL: Broadcast Act revision

The revision bill for the Broadcast Act, which was supposed to address digital and other new broadcast technologies, now has a dangerous clause.

The clause says it will give the Radio Regulatory Council, a consultative body for the Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications, the power to examine, discuss and propose to the minister whether a broadcaster is politically neutral. However, this may give way to state intervention in broadcast content. The clause should be deleted.

The gist of the revision bill is based on ongoing consultations since the Liberal Democrat-Komeito coalition government days, but the clause in question was inserted this past March by the current administration. At the moment it is under deliberation by the Diet Affairs Committee of the Lower House.

According to those proceedings, the Radio Regulatory Council will be able to make proposals about "important issues with regards to securing freedom of expression through broadcasting," and "important matters with regards to having broadcasting aid the healthy development of democracy."

The phrases are abstract, but that is the catch. Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications Kazuhiro Haraguchi stresses that the clause is to have the council "keep tabs on the state of broadcasting governance, and we have no intention whatsoever of intervening in the content of programs."

However, the Radio Regulatory Council's secretariat is in the Internal Affairs Ministry. It is natural to expect government influence on the council's views, and its independence from the government begets a big question mark. Presidents and unions of commercial television broadcasters have voiced alarm the government might ask for changes in program content, via the regulatory council.

In Lower House deliberations, an opposition lawmaker expressed concern that "there is no knowing what may happen with each new minister." A clause that can be used wantonly by those in power may well become a nemesis of freedom of expression.

We already have a system to deal with problematic broadcast content. The Broadcasting Ethics & Program Improvement Organization (BPO), an independent body created by public broadcaster NHK and other commercial TV companies, exists just for that purpose. The internal affairs minister of the previous administration criticized the BPO for being a "self-serving" institution of the TV stations. Some say by reading between the lines of the revision bill, one can glimpse the Internal Affairs Ministry's true feelings: They don't want to leave it in the hands of the BPO.

Haraguchi says, "We stand on the side of those who protect freedom of speech." But, regarding the investigations of the political funds management body of Ichiro Ozawa, secretary-general of the Democratic Party of Japan, Haraguchi said things that seemed like he was trying to block media coverage. He took issue with news programs when they attributed information to "related sources," saying this kind of reporting was "inappropriate when using public airwaves."

Haraguchi is not the only problem. The revision bill was approved by the Cabinet, then sent to the Diet. Did the Cabinet ministers understand the content and the problems of the bill, and yet sign it?

The most important mission of the mass media is to serve the public's right to know and to check official power. Rather than create new regulations that threaten freedom of expression, politicians should work to provide a diverse information space. We ask politicians to recognize that is the role of politics.

--The Asahi Shimbun, May 22