EDITORIAL: The legitimate role of NHK

In October 2006, we said in our editorial that Japan Broadcasting Corp. (NHK) is a news organization, not a mouth- piece of the government. This was in response to a comment by Yoshihide Suga, then minister of internal affairs and communications, who was considering ordering NHK's international shortwave radio service to give heavier coverage to the issue of Japanese citizens abducted by North Korea.

It is unfortunate that we now have to repeat the same assertion to Shigetaka Komori, chairman of NHK's board of governors.

During a board meeting on March 11, Komori stated that when dealing with issues in which Japan's interests conflict with another country's, NHK's overseas broadcasts should stress Japanese national interests.

Komori later told a news conference: "The Japanese government's position and Cabinet decisions should be known (to the world). From my own experiences as an international businessman, I believe NHK must broadcast Japan's stance."

As a public broadcaster, NHK operates on subscription fees collected from viewers. This system is meant to guarantee NHK's independence from the government and enable it to disseminate all sorts of information from many directions. This is what makes NHK completely different from any advertising organ of the government.

The same principle applies to NHK's overseas broadcasts. But if those broadcasts were to strongly echo only the Japanese government's assertions, who would trust NHK's reports? The broadcaster earns its credibility only if it provides fair coverage of foreign nations' stances--even those at odds with Japan's.

British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC), which has a long history of international broadcasting, is highly respected because it has always striven for fair reporting even at the cost of damaging the British government.

During the NHK board of governors meeting in question, NHK Vice President Yoshinori Imai challenged Komori: "NHK's overseas broadcasts are not supposed to be used for directly asserting Japan's position."

The board's acting chairman, Kazuteru Tagaya, also pointed out, "NHK would become nothing more than a state-run broadcaster if it offers only the Japanese government's position."

Both Imai and Tagaya stated the legitimate role of the public broadcaster, which underscored Komori's lack of understanding of the principles of media organizations.

Another matter that bothered us was Komori's use of the expression "national interests." Obviously, we believe our country's national interests must be protected. However, determining what constitutes national interests requires a broad discussion and careful examination. There are times when an opinion that conflicts with the government's is more in keeping with national interests.

If Komori believes that national interests are always served by promoting the government's position in broadcasts, we must say he is extremely shortsighted.

Komori has already made statements in the past that could be construed as political interference in NHK's programming. He was once quoted as telling a board meeting, "As something like a history program may subtly influence politics, I ask you to proceed especially cautiously during an election campaign."

As the Diet controls NHK's budget, NHK's distance from politics has always been an issue. Even if the current issue has only to do with overseas broadcasts, NHK's role as a public broadcaster would still have to be questioned if it assumes a position better suited for a government advertising agency.

Whether Komori is fit to lead NHK has become even more doubtful.

--The Asahi Shimbun, March 26(IHT/Asahi: March 27,2008)