The right to edit freely
(From The Japan Times Feb. 2 issue)

テレビ番組をめぐる編集の自由

    The ruling, which pointed out that NHK officials' excessive accommodation of the opinions of politicians led to dilution of the program, should serve as a warning to media people and organizations alike not to exercise self-censorship by succumbing to outside influences, especially from politicians and bureaucrats.

    The ruling determined that politicians gave no direct instructions concerning the program's contents, but that NHK officials took into consideration "to an extent more than necessary" the views of politicians they met with and thus departed from the original intentions of those directly involved in making the program. The ruling even said NHK's act of altering the program was tantamount to its giving up the freedom to edit.

    The program was about a mock trial on the Japanese military's use of wartime sex slaves. It was held by the Women's International War Crimes Tribunal in December 2000 and organized by the nongovernmental organization Violence Against Women in War-Network Japan (VAWW-NET Japan).

    The group helped NHK and the two production companies produce the program. On Jan. 30, 2001, NHK broadcast the program. Before the airing, though, NHK officials met with politicians.

    The aired program included neither the mock trial's conclusion that Emperor Showa, along with the wartime Japanese government, was responsible for the sexual slavery, nor testimony by former sex slaves and Japanese soldiers. In July 2001, the group filed suit against NHK and the two production companies in the Tokyo District Court, seeking ¥40 million in damages.

    It alleged that NHK and the companies altered the program due to pressure from politicians including then-Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe. In March 2004, the Tokyo District Court ordered one of the production companies to pay ¥1 million in compensation.

    In the appellate trial, the Tokyo High Court held that all three defendants — NHK and the two production companies — were responsible. It said in its ruling that the freedom to edit programs must be respected and that it is guaranteed under the Constitution as part of freedom of the press and reporting.

    It further said that even if people who have been contacted by the media in the course of research or data-gathering develop certain expectations about the final product, the expectations must not unduly restrict editing and production.

    At the same time, the ruling pointed out that in the production of documentaries as well as cultural and educational programs, how the material is edited and used is of a great concern and interest to people who have cooperated in the production of a program. It noted that in the process of research, data collection and interviews, an exceptional situation can develop in which those people develop specific expectations.

    Under such circumstances, the court said, the expectations and trust of people cooperating with the media will be legally protected and the freedom to edit will be restricted to a certain degree.

    The court pointed out that the production side's prior explanations led VAWW-NET Japan to expect a detailed documentary covering the process of the mock trial. On that basis, the high court decided that the aired program, in deviating from the group's expectations, betrayed its trust and expectations. It also ruled that the defendants failed to fulfill their responsibility of explaining the alterations in advance to the group. Therefore, it ordered the defendants to pay compensation.

    The ruling should be good news for citizens who may find themselves in a situation similar to that of VAWW-NET Japan. Still, the court's argument that, in an exceptional situation, the trust and expectations held by people cooperating with the media will be legally protected suggests that such people may try to intervene in the editing process or strongly complain about the final product. Politicians and bureaucrats should not think that the ruling has given them a free hand to control the media.

    The ruling also shed light on the behavior of NHK officials. Nervous about rightists' protests against the production of the program and the smooth approval of NHK's budget by the Diet, the officials met with politicians to explain the program's content in advance.

    The ruling said the officials paid more attention than necessary to politicians' statements that the program production must be fair and neutral, going as far as attending previews and ordering changes to the program. This episode demonstrates the importance of media people and organizations maintaining independence and autonomy.

The Japan Times Weekly: Feb. 10, 2007
(C) All rights reserved

    判決は、NHKは番組についての国会議員の意見を「必要以上に忖度し、番組を改編した」と認定した。また、議員は番組改編を直接要求したわけではないが、NHKが番組を改編したことは、編集の自由を放棄したに等しいと指摘した。

    番組は、民間団体「戦争と女性への暴力」日本ネットワーク（バウネット）が2000年12月に開催した模擬裁判「女性国際戦犯法廷」に取材して制作され、01年1月30日に放送されたが、「昭和天皇は戦時中の日本政府と共に、従軍慰安婦問題に責任があった」との模擬法廷の結論と元従軍慰安婦、元日本軍兵士の証言を削除していた。

    バウネットは01年7月にNHKと下請け制作会社2社に対し、4,000万円の損害賠償を求めて提訴した。

    1審・東京地裁は、下請け会社1社に対し100万円の損害賠償を命じた。東京高裁の2審ではNHKと下請け会社2社の責任を認めた上、編集権は憲法で保証されている言論と報道の自由の一部として尊重せねばならないと指摘したが、ドキュメンタリー番組の制作では例外的に、取材協力者が内容に寄せる期待と信頼は法的に守られるとして、編集権はある程度制限されると判断した。

    これは、取材協力者が編集に介入する可能性を示しているが、政治家、官僚はメディアを操作できると考えてはならない。

    判決は、予算の国会承認について心配していたNHK関係者が、番組の内容を国会議員に事前に説明した際、議員の「番組制作は公平・中立に」との発言に過剰反応したと認定した。これはメディアの独立性と自主性が問われる判決だ。