Meddling threatens journalistic independence.

The Asahi Shimbun recently reported that a television program on wartime sexual abuses aired in January 2001 by the Japan Broadcasting Corp. (NHK) was revised prior to its broadcast after key politicians of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party voiced opinions that the content was ``biased.''

That report prompted denials from both NHK and the two prominent legislators involved, followed by a rebuttal of these claims by The Asahi Shimbun.

This newspaper aims to produce reliable reports based on accurate, factual coverage. We stand behind the content of that article.

NHK, however, criticized the report as ``false.'' The Asahi Shimbun denies this and is prepared to sue NHK for defamation of character.

Throughout this brouhaha, we must not lose sight of the essential question-namely, the issue of the proper distance that should be maintained between the public broadcaster and politicians. The unusual closeness of those ties has been made clear from comments by both NHK and the politicians involved.

Before the program on the mock war-crimes tribunal was aired, Takeshi Matsuo, who was then NHK's executive director-general of broadcasting, met with Lower House member Shinzo Abe, who was then deputy chief Cabinet secretary, to explain the program's content. Soon after, NHK executives previewed the program. After that, the 44-minute program was cut to 43 minutes, and later edited down to 40 minutes by the time it was actually broadcast. No one disputes these facts.

According to Abe, NHK executives visited him to deliver an explanation of their operations budget, and during that briefing also described the program. ``I realized that the program was clearly biased in its content,'' recalled Abe. ``I pointed out that NHK should be particularly vigilant about maintaining fairness and neutrality in its reporting.''

At a news conference, NHK also revealed that while the executives had called on Abe to explain their budget, they also described the program's content because he was a key member of a lawmakers' group ``parliamentary conference to consider Japan's future and its history education.''

At the time, that group was known to be critical of the NHK program, which explains why the executives were so eager to give Abe an explanation. It has come to light that NHK also similarly briefed other members of the group before the program was aired.

If such demands for ``neutrality'' were made in these meetings, it can be assumed that the politicians' message to NHK was received loud and clear.

We can only conclude that the NHK executives visited Abe mainly to explain him the program.

Recent comments by the current NHK broadcasting executive director-general are even more alarming. According to him, explaining NHK programs to lawmakers before they are aired falls within the realm of normal business operations and is a ``natural course of events.''

Undeniably, there is a need to consider opposing or critical viewpoints when producing a program. We seriously question, however, the idea that it is ``natural'' to explain the details of a program to specific Diet members before it is even aired. We cannot help having doubt about the NHK's claim that the subsequent cuts were the outcome of ``editing based on autonomous judgments.''

A Mainichi Shimbun editorial commented on the advance explanation of the programg: ``If this is an everyday practice, then the sensibilities of NHK executives are grossly out of step with the general common sense required as a member of the news media.'' The editorial pages of the Chunichi Shimbun and Tokyo Shimbun expressed similar stands, pointing out that such behavior threatens the public broadcaster's credibility as a member of the press.

Does the NHK practice independent journalism? This essential question requires an answer.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Jan. 22(IHT/Asahi: January 24,2005)