Ideal and Reality of Institutionalization
February 2011
In November 2010, a revised broadcast law was enacted, with a new clause that obligates broadcasters (terrestrial TV stations and some BS broadcasters) to release their application state of “the principle of maintaining harmony among the broadcast programs.” The purpose of the principle is to have each broadcaster make balanced programming incorporating various genres such as “cultural, educational, news, entertainment, etc.,” but whether broadcasters actually respect the principle has been unclear so far. The author analyzed the reality of application based on the data disclosed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and investigates the significance of the 2010 revision of broadcast law and what debates will be necessary in the future .
Triggered by criticism against lowbrow TV programs in the 1950s, the 1959 revised broadcast law incorporated “the principle of maintaining harmony.” Since then, TV stations had been requested to submit program lists, at every license renewal, with explanation of each program’s genre such as “educational” and “cultural.” The lists were censored by the government authority. However, since it was hard to clearly categorize programs by genre in the first place and broadcasters had no obligation to disclose the program genres, the application of the principle gradually became a dead letter, not necessarily reflecting the actual status.
The data released by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications under the information disclosure law revealed that there had been several questionable cases such as categorizing a TV shopping program into “cultural” or dramas and varieties into “educational” in order to meet the license requirement of, for example, “educational programs--more than 10%” or “cultural programs—more than 20%.” Those cases reveal the gap between the principle and the reality.
The recent revision of broadcast law aims to curb the increase of TV shopping programs by requesting broadcasters to release program genres, but it is hard to say that through discussions on the philosophy of the principle—issues on how to secure a medium that requires comprehensive programming in a rapidly-advancing multimedia environment or on whether the system itself that imposes restrictions such as “educational programs should account for more than 10%” on broadcasters is adequate or not—had been made before the revision of the law. In this report the author looks into what types of debates will be necessary by reviewing the principle and the reality of its application.