Communications minister draws outrage over ‘threat’ to broadcasters
The Asahi Shinbun: 9 February 2016
Amid complaints that she’s threatening freedom of speech, communications minister Sanae Takaichi repeated her assertion that the government can legally shut down broadcasters that continue to air “biased political reports.”
The controversy started at the Lower House Budget Committee on Feb. 8, when Takaichi, a close associate of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, was asked if a broadcaster could be ordered to suspend its operations simply for showing a report critical of the administration.
“We cannot promise not to take any response when a broadcaster shows no improvement and repeatedly airs (politically unfair news reports) despite (the ministry’s) administrative instructions,” she said.
Takaichi cited Article 4 of the Broadcast Law, which dictates that TV news programs must not distort facts, and Article 76 of the Radio Law, which authorizes the communications ministry to issue suspension orders.
Broadcasters reacted sharply to Takaichi’s remarks.
“It is tantamount to placing controls on free speech if the minister or the administration is the one to judge what is fair,” said an official with a commercial broadcaster.
Takaichi, however, did not back down from her stance.
“Since it is spelled out in the law, I cannot rule out the possibility that it can be applied someday,” Takaichi told a news conference on Feb. 9.
“Laws stipulate that when a broadcaster violates the Broadcast Law, an order to suspend its operations and suspend broadcasts can be issued under the Broadcast Law and the Radio Law, respectively,” she said.
Critics say the Abe administration has put pressure on the Japanese media to silence any criticism against the government’s policies by, for example, mentioning the authority of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications to issue operating licenses to broadcasters.
Legal experts agree that Article 4 of the Broadcast Law is an “ethical norm” for self-regulation and autonomy by broadcasters.
But the Abe administration argues that the law’s provisions are “legal norms” that serve as the basis for the government to issue administrative instructions.
Soichiro Okuno, a Lower House member of the main opposition Democratic Party of Japan, raised the issue with Takaichi in the Diet on Feb. 8, asking if she thought that suspensions of broadcasters’ operations because of critical reports were possible under the Broadcast Law.
“Laws are there to protect the legal order,” she said. “I believe the effectiveness of the law is ensured since it also comes with a penalty for a violator.”
Okuno also asked for examples of programs “lacking political fairness.”
Takaichi said in response: “A broadcaster airs a program in which it goes out of its way to continue to devote much air time on discussing only one view and supporting it when public opinion is split over the political issue.
“In an extreme case, a broadcaster is judged to have failed to secure political fairness by blatantly deviating from a position of political neutrality.”
Takaichi issued an administrative instruction last April to Japan Broadcasting Corp. (NHK) over its “Close-up Gendai” news program. Authorities concluded the program included excessive dramatization and other problems based on the results of the in-house investigation.
As for a possible next step against a defiant broadcaster, Takaichi said in the Diet: “It is unlikely a suspension order can be issued while I am in office. But the minister in charge will decide whether to apply the law in the future.”
An official with another broadcaster took Takaichi’s words as intimidation and a threat.
“But it is not worth commenting on because it is so unrealistic,” the official said.
However, Hiroyoshi Sunakawa, an associate professor of media theory at Rikkyo University, warned that Takaichi’s way of thinking could end up causing serious problems for broadcasters.
“It would be nothing but intervention if a broadcaster can be ordered to suspend operations after it does not comply with (administrative instructions) over a program that goes against the administration’s grain,” he said.
Hiro Otoyoshi, professor of media theory at Sophia University, said, “It could lead to broadcasters cowering in fear of authorities.”
The Asahi Shinbun: 9 February 2016
Amid complaints that she’s threatening freedom of speech, communications minister Sanae Takaichi repeated her assertion that the government can legally shut down broadcasters that continue to air “biased political reports.”
The controversy started at the Lower House Budget Committee on Feb. 8, when Takaichi, a close associate of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, was asked if a broadcaster could be ordered to suspend its operations simply for showing a report critical of the administration.
“We cannot promise not to take any response when a broadcaster shows no improvement and repeatedly airs (politically unfair news reports) despite (the ministry’s) administrative instructions,” she said.
Takaichi cited Article 4 of the Broadcast Law, which dictates that TV news programs must not distort facts, and Article 76 of the Radio Law, which authorizes the communications ministry to issue suspension orders.
Broadcasters reacted sharply to Takaichi’s remarks.
“It is tantamount to placing controls on free speech if the minister or the administration is the one to judge what is fair,” said an official with a commercial broadcaster.
Takaichi, however, did not back down from her stance.
“Since it is spelled out in the law, I cannot rule out the possibility that it can be applied someday,” Takaichi told a news conference on Feb. 9.
“Laws stipulate that when a broadcaster violates the Broadcast Law, an order to suspend its operations and suspend broadcasts can be issued under the Broadcast Law and the Radio Law, respectively,” she said.
Critics say the Abe administration has put pressure on the Japanese media to silence any criticism against the government’s policies by, for example, mentioning the authority of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications to issue operating licenses to broadcasters.
Legal experts agree that Article 4 of the Broadcast Law is an “ethical norm” for self-regulation and autonomy by broadcasters.
But the Abe administration argues that the law’s provisions are “legal norms” that serve as the basis for the government to issue administrative instructions.
Soichiro Okuno, a Lower House member of the main opposition Democratic Party of Japan, raised the issue with Takaichi in the Diet on Feb. 8, asking if she thought that suspensions of broadcasters’ operations because of critical reports were possible under the Broadcast Law.
“Laws are there to protect the legal order,” she said. “I believe the effectiveness of the law is ensured since it also comes with a penalty for a violator.”
Okuno also asked for examples of programs “lacking political fairness.”
Takaichi said in response: “A broadcaster airs a program in which it goes out of its way to continue to devote much air time on discussing only one view and supporting it when public opinion is split over the political issue.
“In an extreme case, a broadcaster is judged to have failed to secure political fairness by blatantly deviating from a position of political neutrality.”
Takaichi issued an administrative instruction last April to Japan Broadcasting Corp. (NHK) over its “Close-up Gendai” news program. Authorities concluded the program included excessive dramatization and other problems based on the results of the in-house investigation.
As for a possible next step against a defiant broadcaster, Takaichi said in the Diet: “It is unlikely a suspension order can be issued while I am in office. But the minister in charge will decide whether to apply the law in the future.”
An official with another broadcaster took Takaichi’s words as intimidation and a threat.
“But it is not worth commenting on because it is so unrealistic,” the official said.
However, Hiroyoshi Sunakawa, an associate professor of media theory at Rikkyo University, warned that Takaichi’s way of thinking could end up causing serious problems for broadcasters.
“It would be nothing but intervention if a broadcaster can be ordered to suspend operations after it does not comply with (administrative instructions) over a program that goes against the administration’s grain,” he said.
Hiro Otoyoshi, professor of media theory at Sophia University, said, “It could lead to broadcasters cowering in fear of authorities.”
No comments:
Post a Comment