The government's Regulatory Reform Promotion Council, chaired by Prof. Hiroko Ota of the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, submitted a report proposing regulatory reform measures, including a review of the broadcasting business, to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on June 4. While the report supported simultaneously distributing TV programs on the internet, it did not incorporate the removal of either Article 4 of the Broadcasting Law -- which requires broadcasters to produce programs based on political fairness -- nor of the foreign investment restrictions that limit overseas companies' ownership of shares in broadcasting stations.
The Yomiuri Shimbun spoke to two experts on the issue. The following are excerpts from the interviews.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, June 5, 2018)
'Simultaneous distribution' too costly
The Regulatory Reform Promotion Council's report gave an overall impression of trying to please everyone, instead of doing what had been anxiously anticipated prior to its release.
The report proposes the idea of promoting the simultaneous distribution of TV programs on the internet. Realizing simultaneous distribution will have an enormous cost, and commercial broadcasting stations lack the prospects of being able to establish a workable business model.
During the Showa era (1926-1989), commercial broadcasters generally owned only a single terrestrial channel. Today, they deal with broadcast and communications satellites, as well as teletext broadcasts and so on. They need to consolidate their corporate resources, so they think it is too soon to undertake simultaneous distribution. The situation is different from that of NHK, which can expect revenue from subscription fees paid by viewers.
In the debate leading up to this report, there was talk of creating separate divisions for broadcast facilities and program production. However, it is difficult to believe that such a separation would be the breakthrough that would rescue local TV stations that have shaky management foundations, as though waving a magic wand.
The removal of Article 4 of the Broadcasting Law, which requires broadcasters to produce programs based on political fairness, was shelved. Article 4 established a line that broadcasters must not cross. It is necessary as an overarching framework for regulating broadcasters of a public nature that deal with public speech.
The online world is characterized by a mixture of good and bad quality information. In the 70-year history of broadcasting, it has evolved into an impartial, objective and reliable form of media, and there is no need to rush to merge the two. It would be premature to liberalize broadcasting to be like the internet and regulate the internet as though it is broadcasting.
Likewise, the report did not mention the foreign capital regulations that limit foreign firms from holding more than a 20 percent stake in broadcasters. It goes without saying that there should be caution when the views of broadcasting stations that deal with public speech are determined by the management decisions of foreign interests. In particular, news programs should not be in the hands of foreign companies.
The report also did not include a "spectrum auction," in which the rights to use certain frequency bands are granted to the highest bidder. However, from the perspective of effective use of the airwaves, a movement to reorganize the spectrum will emerge in the remote future. It is necessary to monitor the direction of the government's debate.
In the very long term, it is inevitable that viewers will shift from broadcasting to telecommunications. Broadcasting stations need to consider how to deal with the internet, but they also have to be sure to preserve the core of broadcasting. They must establish a direction toward competing over the quality of their content.
The working group under the Regulatory Reform Promotion Council did not include any experts on broadcasting among its members, which gave the impression that its discussions did not adequately take industry conditions into account.
Influenced by the council, the discussion of reforms within the Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry has also stagnated. It is hoped that the government works as a whole to take a step forward in related discussions, while balancing the perspectives of public speech, news coverage and culture.
-- This interview was conducted by Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer Teizo Toyokawa.
-- Takashi Uchiyama / Aoyama Gakuin University Prof.
An expert in corporate strategy on media and media policy. Served as a researcher at the Keio University Institute for Newspaper Studies, currently known as the Institute for Journalism, Media & Communication Studies, and was a professor at Chiba University of Commerce before assuming his current post. He is 51.
TV, internet have different characters
A proposal to review the broadcasting business, such as the removal of Article 4 of the Broadcasting Law, emerged suddenly in March. However, a flurry of criticism swamped the government and it was forced to modify the original proposal. As a result, the report does not seem to get to the heart of the important question of how to consider the quality of information on TV and the internet.
The report pushed ahead with the integration of telecommunications and broadcasting, promoting the simultaneous distribution of TV programs on the internet.
However, it is myopic to believe that the integration of telecommunications and broadcasting would produce better programs.
Information on the internet is a mixture of good and poor quality and is rife with extreme rhetoric. What if such information was to be broadcast on TV? The shift away from watching TV would likely further accelerate.
Conversely, what will happen to TV programs distributed online? A successful business model that earns revenue through commercials has not been established on the internet, so commercial broadcasters release programs little by little online.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the trend toward distributing TV programs on the internet will continue to grow. TV stations should put more effort into asserting that their programs are accurate and trustworthy, even when streamed online.
The background for such unreasonable arguments as the repeal of Article 4 stems from the failure of broadcasters to sufficiently communicate the accuracy and impartiality of TV programs to their audiences. In light of young people's trend away from TV and their preference for the internet, TV stations seem to be sitting idle and doing nothing.
My students have actually asked me, "What's wrong with merging online streaming and broadcasting?"
However, when I explain to them how big the impact would be of broadcasting inaccurate information from the internet on TV, they realize the difference between television broadcasting and information from the internet.
TV stations produce quality programs, of course, but they also need to promote the ways they are different from internet information and raise their presence in the online world.
Internet advertising is also in a transitional period at the moment. I have heard that some advertisers have begun to move away from the internet due to the unreliable information being found there. TV stations must take the initiative in creating an online environment in which high quality programs attract high quality advertisers.
Absent from the discussion is the question of what information the public and audiences need. These days, we can obtain information from a variety of channels, including newspapers, TV and the internet. However, with fake news running rampant, it is difficult to know what to believe.
I think what the debate needs is various perspectives on how to spread high-quality content. Europe is making efforts to promote the distribution of high-quality content, including by starting a discussion about restricting fake news.
Instead of debating within the narrow framework of broadcasting, it is important to consider what kind of content is necessary, and then improve the environment in which it can be created. Reforms will not gain the support of the public if the merger of telecommunications and broadcasting is a foregone conclusion.
-- This interview was conducted by Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer Yasuaki Kobayashi.
-- Hiroyoshi Sunakawa / Rikkyo University Prof.
An expert on media policy. Served in the Japan Commercial Broadcasters Association before assuming his current post in 2016. Author of "Abe Kantei to Terebi" (The Abe Cabinet and TV). He is 55.
Read more from The Japan News at https://japannews.yomiuri.co.jp/
