THEMIT JAPAN
PROGRAMi~~~~~~~~A
0; - -) ·'V3

it

Science, Technology,
Management

kit 0-~.Z9

EXPLORING THE INTERSECTION OF GOVERNMENT,POLITICS AND THE NEWS MEDIA IN JAPAN:
THE TSUBAKI HA TSUGEN INCIDENTPaul M. Berger
MITJP 95-04

Center for International Studies
Massachusetts Institute of Technology--IIICI--l,.-..-.----------

Exploring the Intersection ofGovernment, Politics and the News Media in JapanThe Tsubaki Hatsugen Incident
Paul M. Berger
MITJP 95-04

Distributed Courtesy of the
MIT Japan Program
ScienceTechnology * Management

Center for International Studies
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Room E38-7th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02139
phone: 617-253-2839
fax: 617-258-7432© MIT Japan Program1_

9___0_1____

YII_

IX______

About the MIT Japan Programand its Working Paper Series

The MIT Japan Program was founded in 1981 to create a new generationof technologically sophisticated "Japan-aware" scientists, engineers, andmanagers in the United States. The Program's corporate sponsors, aswell as support from the government and from private foundations, havemade it the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely emulated
center of applied Japanese studies in the world.
The intellectual focus of the Program is to integrate the researchmethodologies of the social sciences, the humanities, and technology toapproach issues confronting the United States and Japan in theirrelations involving science and technology. The Program is uniquely
positioned to make use of MIT's extensive network of Japan-relatedresources, which include faculty, researchers, and library collections, aswell as a Tokyo-based office. Through its three core activities, namely,
education, research, and public awareness, the Program disseminates
both to its sponsors and to the interested public its expertise on Japanesescience and technology and on how that science and technology ismanaged.
The MIT Japan Program Working Paper Series provides an importantmeans to achieving these ends.

-·lllli····a(L··l)··LII

For an intense six weeks in the fall of 1993, the news media in Japan were obliged to takestock of the changes their industry was undergoing and assess their responsibilities andlimitations. This introspection was neither amicable nor voluntary; it was a response to a crisis ofintervention in their business by the government bureaucracy, which in turn was led by the agenda
of a political party. While the LDP attacked prejudiced reporting and the media groups chosesides, newspapers and TV news programs suddenly found themselves in the uncomfortable
position of reporting on developments in which their conflicts with the government and one
another were the main topic.
Politics and the public had grown sensitive to the expanding role of the media, especiallytelevision, and were ready to react; the spark that set off this disruption was a single allegation of
the abuse of TV's influence: Tsubaki Sadayoshi, the news director of a prominent TV network,
claimed to have arbitrarily guided news coverage in order to affect a major election. The
Japanese term used to describe the assertion is hatsugen, which literally means an utterance or
speech or observation, but which in this case translates best simply as "statement."
The Tsubaki hatsugen incident rapidly developed from a boastful claim of bias made in a
private meeting to a summons for testimony before the Diet. Along the way, it gave rise todebates about the limits of freedom of speech, the powers of broadcasters, and the right ofgovernment to interfere in the business of private organizations. The fact it happened at all was
testimony that TV's role as a political force, which was less than half a year old, had been
accepted in earnest.
The majority of work on the Japanese media so far has focused on the press club system,and there have been few comprehensive studies, in English or Japanese, on its role in affecting
events. Most of the information available is anecdotal experience told by professionals. Despite
the wide-ranging furor the Tsubaki hatsugen caused and the attention it received at the time, there
has been very little written about the case as a phenomenon since, and no explanation offered for
how it spread so quickly or why it encompassed so many influential actors. The many articles thatappeared in Japanese legal journals and monthly magazines after the affair quieted down seem to1-----C---9-ls

I----·C·--·-L----_s--·- -·all be descriptions of the roles of the relevant statutes or opinion essays and panel discussions
about the nature of the media in general.
Less is known about the case in the American academic community: other than newspaper
articles, there are no English-language materials on the incident. Even in Japanese, the mostcomprehensive sources are reports that recount the play-by-play development without discussion
or analysis. This paper is an attempt to draw insight into the interaction of the Japanese press,
politics and government by recreating the Tsubaki hatsugen incident and its aftermath, and toestablish the factors that fostered its sudden appearance, rapid escalation, and abrupt abatement.

Television as a PoliticalForce

1993 was the year television came into its own as a political force in Japan. For decades, theroles of the various news media had been fixed: Newspapers were the public's major source of
news. Fed as well as restricted by their close personal ties with their sources and each other, theygave detailed, twice-daily reports of political developments, but were largely captive to thegovernment, and revealed only a fraction of what they knew.' Most serious political discussions,
scoops and expos6s appeared in the weekly and monthly newsmagazines -- often written
pseudonymously by newspaper reporters dodging the constraints of the press club system.
Television was even less thorough and more supportive of the government in its news programs
than the papers, and contributed to the political scene mainly through gossip shows and late-night
panel discussions.
From late 1992, however, it gradually became clear that TV was affecting the way politics
was conducted. Kume Hiroshi, the anchor of TV Asahi network's unorthodox program "NewsStation," began focusing on political scandals involving the ruling Liberal Democratic Party,
taking care to illustrate the complex paths of corruption with simple diagrams and even dolls.
Television's emphasis on the need for political reform gave the relatively unknown politicians
challenging the LDP on the reform issue an opportunity for exposure and attention. 2 These
challengers were quick to grasp the idea that TV's strongest message is the image it conveys, andFeldman, Ofer, Politics and the News Media in Japan, University of Michigan Press, 1993
Altman, Kristin Kyoko, "Telemocracy: How Television Transformed Politics in Japan," Occasional Paper,
Program on U.S.-Japan Relations, Harvard University 1994
2
2_

_I _ 11_____l____·sl_____C1_lii-il--l--C

r ----`---""8rUi;··iRjaR

they learned to exploit it, creating polished presentations that stressed their integrity, energy, andrelative youth. 3 Until this point, national television had always been an inefficient campaign
medium, since in Japan's parliamentary system every public office represents a local electoral
district. The difference this time is that attention had been shifted from individual races to thecompetition between nation-wide parties.
The LDP was slow to acknowledge TV's power, assuming that since the government kept
close control of broadcasters through the licensing process and informal guidance, they would
naturally support the status quo. By the spring of 1993, they were proven wrong. Live-broadcast
programs that provided politicians and critics the opportunity to debate freely had become
popular for their raw and unscripted immediacy, and had developed into important venues forpolitical expression. Statements made in these forums were considered news, and were often
reported in subsequent programs and in the papers the next day.
In an effort to bolster his flagging administration, Prime Minister Miyazawa agreed to a live
interview on the most popular of these shows, TV Asahi's "Sunday Project." Immediately before
the interview, Miyazawa insisted he would not discuss reform of the election system, which had
become his most vulnerable issue and a symbol of his administration's ineffectiveness. 4 Although
it is common practice for interviews with the print media, this interviewer, Tahara Soichir6,
refused to set conditions, and pressed Miyazawa on whether he would be able to carry out thereforms. Put on the spot, a very uncomfortable Miyazawa was obliged to answer, "I will do it,"several times, expressing greater and greater resolve with each response. 5 In later weeks,
Miyazawa was completely unable to effect reform, and the statement was often replayed in news
broadcasts to demonstrate his weakness; his opponents referred to the incident as the "Uso-tsuki[Liar's] Interview." 6 The damage this caused to his image played a large part in the success ofthe no-confidence vote against Miyazawa and the dissolution of the Diet that June.
The election campaign that followed highlighted the differences between the pro-reform
parties' and the LDP's understanding of television. The leaders of the reformers, especially

3 Tahara, Soichiro, "TV Ga Kimeru Seiji" ["Politics Dictated by TV"], Bungei Shunju, September 1993
4 Altman "Telemocracy"s Tahara "TV Ga Kileru Seiji"
6 Kawasaki,

Yasushi "'Tsubaki Hatsugen Hdd6 'Jush6 Naitei No Kai" ["A Suspect Informal Announcement on
the Award to 'The Tsubaki Statement Coverage"'], Sekai, October 1994

3-______-------

Hosokawa Morihiro, Takemura Masayoshi and Hata Tsutomu, appeared on several live shows aday, capitalizing on their clean images and their ability to convey their goals to the general public.
Senior LDP members rarely used this approach. Accustomed to the tradition of "ryotei seiji," orpolitical dealmaking conducted out of public view in restaurants, they had little feel or respect for
strategies that depended on communication with voters. They also showed an unwillingness toacknowledge television's new importance, partially because they felt TV politics -- with its heatedpublic debates and reliance on image gimmickry -- was below them, and partially because they did
not think the medium could be so effective. Sunday Project's Tahara writes:

The LDP underestimated television. They felt they had to take newspapers and magazines seriously,
because these were not subject to political control. All television networks, however, are under thejurisdiction of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunication as licensed enterprises and are thus
subject to political control, so the LDP felt it could take them lightly. Therefore, the LDP made noserious effort to develop the "know-how" to express itself through TV or to use it to persuade thepublic.7

It was a costly oversight; television exposure legitimated the newly-formed opposition parties.
The LDP lost its majority for the first time since 1955 in the July 18 Lower House election, andrelinquished power to an eight-party coalition dedicated to reform, led by Hosokawa Morihiro.
The Washington Post's T.R. Reid writes that print press coverage of the election campaign
was slanted strongly towards the reformers and anyone with even a vague promise of change.
There were many newspaper editorials criticizing politicians for not making their policy positions
clear, but "surprisingly few stories to help voters sort out the policy differences between one party
and another...This shortfall in print coverage was largely filled by aggressive and innovative TV
reporting." The new reliance on talk shows, live broadcasts and national news programs to reach
voters directly had created a novel style of Japanese campaigning. 8This change in campaigning and the unprecedented emphasis on personal image was obvious
to anyone watching Japanese politics, and the power shift in the Diet was widely attributed to the
influence of television. TV's new role became the trendy subject for intellectual debates. The
7 Tahara "TV Ga Kineru Seiji"
8 Reid, T.R. "Japan's Feisty New Press," Nieman Reports, Fall 1993

4

_·_1·

_1_4_·____1___1___i_·--------·-

Nihon Keizai Shinbun newspaper referred to the vote as "the television election." Probing TV's
effect on politics and TV's ethical obligations as a medium for news became a major topic of themost respected monthly magazines: Chii6 K6ron, for example, published articles called "The LDP
Lost to TV" and "The Merits and Demerits of Television Politics" 9 and Bungei Shunju ran apiece titled "Politics Dictated by TV."'0 Some writers wryly referred to the reformer's
government as "the Kume-Tahara Coalition Government," an acknowledgement of the influenceof TV Asahi's most popular news anchors." The LDP had suffered its worst defeat in nearly
forty years, and the media attention on the new techniques involved in the upset conveyed theimpression that it had been due to the LDP's failure to grasp the nature of TV as a political force.
In fact, the availability of TV exposure for exploitation as a campaigning tool may have madeit feasible for the reformers to defect from the LDP and form new parties; by that measure,
television was an important political tool. However, since the LDP's loss of power was due
mainly to the mass defection, not defeat at the polls, it is not at all clear that TV was an especiallyeffective means of communicating candidate's views. The victory of the coalition government
may simply have reflected an existing disgust with the status quo. Nevertheless, television's
newfound influence was on the minds of politicians and the public -- as well as a sensitive topic
for the LDP -- and was thus easily exaggerated. This was the context in which the incident
surrounding the Tsubaki hatsugen occurred.

The Tsubaki Statement

On September 21, 1993, Nihon Minkan H6s6 Renmei -- the National Association ofCommercial Broadcasters, often abbreviated as "Minp6ren"-- held its sixth Broadcast
Programming Investigation Committee Meeting. The Committee was a study group composed offive lawyers and mass media specialists from outside the broadcasting industry, and seven
representatives of the major Tokyo-area broadcasters. Its chairman was Aoyama Academy
Professor Emeritus Shimizu Hideyo, a specialist in freedom of speech issues. Minp6ren had first

9 Chuo Koron, October 1993'o Bungei Shunju, September 1993
" Tase, Yasuhiro, Seiii JaanarizunuNo Tsumi To Batsu [The Crimes and Punishment of Political Journalism]
Shinch6sha, Tokyo, 1994, p. 168

5_

as____________lCI_

convened the Committee in November of 1992 to address the spreading problem ofyarase, or thepractice of scripting programs that were ostensibly live and spontaneous, and its other recent
topics had included the issue of programming and religion. 12 This time, the topic of the closed
session was "Politics and Television," and the guest speaker was a man deeply involved in theissue, Tsubaki Sadayoshi, the director of TV Asahi's News Bureau.
Tsubaki made astounding claims concerning the arbitrary power of news broadcasting. In
the middle of his 25 minute-long presentation, he asserted that by late June, shortly after the
campaign had started, he had decided:

Shouldn't we cover it in such a way as to prevent the continuation of the LDP government, and tohelp establish a non-LDP coalition administration? I organized the coverage with that thought inmind, without discussing it with the political news desk or with the programming directors. That's
how I determined the "political winds" that are blowing now... As you know, in the Lower House
election [reform candidates] Kaeda Banri and Kurimoto Shin'ichiro were elected without any
preparation, and Takaichi Sanae of Nara and Yanase Susumu were certainly no match for thepolitical situation. Their election is of course due to TV's influence. 3

The main theme of Tsubaki's statement is that he personally chose and executed a strategy of biasthat moved the public to effect the historic change in government. Television news programs areconstrained to standards of fairness and neutrality by law. In light of the current sensitivity toTV's role, Tsubaki's claim was immediately taken very seriously.
In actuality, TV Asahi's coverage may have been no more anti-LDP than that of the othernetworks, and there was no particular reason to accept his assertions that his programming had
had a clear impact, or even that it had in fact been biased. Tsubaki's statement was shocking
mainly because his network had had the highest profile during the campaign, and because he
implied there had been an official policy against fairness.

12 "Hi-Jimin Seiken Tanj6 Wo Itoshi H6d6" ["Coverage Biased Towards the Creation of a Non-LDP

Administration"], Sankei Shimbun, October 13, 1993, p. 1
13 "Tsubaki Zen-Terebi Asahi H6d6 Kyokuch6 No Hatsugen" [The Statement of Former TV Asahi News Director
Tsubaki"], Asahi Shimbun, October 23, 1993, p. 2 0

6------'-------r------·--r·---rr-la-Legal Regulation of Broadcasters

The government agency responsible for overseeing broadcasting is the Ministry of Posts
and Telecommunications (Yfiseish6, or the MPT). It has a broad range of jurisdictions that
includes the postal system and an extensive savings system in which every post office serves as abank branch. The MPT also has much the same legal role regarding radio and television as theAmerican Federal Communications Commission, regulating license allocation and broadcast
content.
Free speech is not accorded the same ideological sanctity in Japan as in the U.S. Although
the freedom of "speech, press, and all other forms of expression are guaranteed" as aconstitutional right,14 that right is commonly interpreted to extend only so far as the expression
does not endanger the common good, as defined by the courts. Jonathan Weinberg writes thatJapanese academics and bureaucrats "are much more concerned than their American counterparts
about the damaging or corrosive effects on society of too much information or speech, which theysometimes characterize as information 'pollution' or 'overload."" 5Biased news coverage, especially election campaign coverage prejudiced the way Tsubaki
claimed, is a violation of several points of law. The statute that set the tone of the government's
response is the K6shoku Senky6-h6, or the Public Office Election Law. Article 150 (2) of theElection Law holds broadcasters to the same restrictions that apply to the print media. theselimits are spelled out in Article 148 (1):The regulations set forth in this law concerning the restriction of election activities... do no obstruct
the freedom of newspapers(including the various forms of news communication) or magazines
from publishing coverage or judgement concerning elections. However, these media may notcompromisefairness regardingan election through the publication offalsehoods or distortionsof the.facts, which is an abuse of the freedom of speech. [Italics added]' 6

14 The Constitution of Japan, Article 21(1)15 Weinberg, Jonathan, "Broadcasting and the Administrative Process in Japan and the United States," Buffalo
Law Review, Fall 1991, vol. 39 no. 3 p. 615-735
16 Kshoku Senrky-h6 [The Public Office Election Law], Article 148 Paragraph 1, Ropp6 Zensh6 [The Complete
Yfihikaku, 1994, vol. I, p. 111
Compendium of the Six Codes],7

l_--_-_IL11_1_

The H6s6-h6, or Broadcasting Law, includes restrictions on content of general news coveragethat apply only to TV and radio. Article 3 (2.1) delineates the requirements:

In the editing of programming for domestic broadcasting, broadcasters must abide by the following:(1) They shall not disturb public security or good manners and morals;(2) They shall be politically impartial;(3) They shall broadcast news without distorting the facts;(4) As regards controversial issues, they shall clarify the point of issue from all possible angles.' 7

Tsubaki's alleged bias clearly relates to items (2) and (4), and could also be viewed as violating
the remainder.
Some Japanese legal scholars have criticized these fair coverage regulations for theirabstractness and lack of guidance, saying that they have led to "variety without fairness." Those
who seek more concrete guidance often look to the American FCC's "Fairness Doctrine," which
obliged a broadcaster to give sufficient time all the major viewpoints of an issue, and required that
opposing sides of a debate be allotted equal time to present their opinions. (Ironically, the U.S.
eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, calling it too restrictive and finding it unnecessary after
the proliferation of cable TV channels.)' 8
The MPT has two main legal mechanisms that it uses to influence broadcasters: it cansuspend or terminate broadcasting licenses, and it has the ability to grant new licenses, thereby
increasing the competition existing firms must contend with. The source of these powers is the
Denpa-h6, or Wireless Telegraphy Law. Article 7(2) concerns the qualifications for new licenses
and license renewal:

Upon receiving an application described in Article 6 Paragraph 2 [which lists the points to be coveredin an application for a broadcasting license], the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications shallwithout delay investigate whether the application meets the following qualifications:[(1)-(3) Omitted]

Article 3 Paragraph 2.1, Ropp6 Zensh6, vol.II, p. 4 0 9 7'8 Hamada, Jun'ichi, "H6s6 To Seiji-teki K6hei" ["Broadcasting and Political Fairness"], H6gaku Ky6shitsu,'7 H6sd-hd [The Broadcasting Law,

February, 1994
8

I__

_

IR

(4) That, in addition to the previous three points, the applicant conforms to the Fundamental Standards
for the establishment of a broadcaster as set forth by Ministerial Ordinance of the Ministry of Posts
and Telecommunications.' 9

Article 3(2) of the MPT's Fundamental Standards Ordinance states that in the case of an
application for license renewal, the broadcaster must prove "through its past performance" that it
observes the four restrictions listed in the Broadcasting Law, including the demand for
impartiality. 20 From this, the MPT derives the legal right to deny renewal to any broadcaster thatshows bias in coverage.
Article 76 of the Wireless Telegraphy Law describes other penalties the MPT may impose on
broadcasters. Article 76(1) allows the Minister of Posts and Telecommunication to suspend alicense for up to three months in response to a violation of Ministerial orders or ordinances
relating to the Denpa-h6 or the H6so-h6. Article 76(2) allows the Minister to revoke a license
entirely in the following cases:(1) When a broadcaster ceases operations for more than six months without a legitimate reason;(2) When a broadcasting license is received through dishonest means...;(3) When orders or regulations based on the previous items are violated;(4) When the licensee comes under Article 5 Paragraph 3.1 [i.e. is punished by more than a monetary
finefor violating the Wireless Telegraphy Law or the BroadcastingLaw].2 1

Therefore, if Tsubaki's own allegations were found to be true and he were convicted of violating
the Broadcasting Law, the MPT would theoretically have grounds for revoking TV Asahi's
broadcasting license.

'9 Denpa-h6 [The Wireless Telegraphy Law] Article 7 Paragraph 2, Ropp6 Zenshd. vol.II, p. 4073.
20

Hamada, "Hd6s6 To .Seiji-teki Kdhei"

21

Denpa-h6, Ropp6 Zensho, p. 4072, 4078.

9-·--_I_---_i

I

I

iil

Administration by the MPTBroadcasters in Japan are rarely found to have violated content laws, and are even more
rarely prosecuted in court for their violations. Instead, the government's informal management
strategy and the structure of the licensing system itself serve to limit transgressions.
The government ministries in Japan have typically exercised control over industry through theinformal process of gyOsei shid6, or administrative guidance. To avoid the friction or outrightresistance that formal orders or legal coercion might engender, Japanese administrators instead
rely on frequent meetings, bargaining and consensus-building with the private actors they
regulate.
This emphasis on consensus helps government decisions appear to be the natural outgrowthof the general populace's needs; political motivations are disguised, but they do exist. One
institution the ministries often use as a source of legitimacy is the shingikai, the "advisory" or"deliberation" council. These are boards composed of experts from related academic and industry
fields (and on rare occasions, consumer groups), which advise and guide ministry policies.
Despite the cultivated image that they reflect the interests of all concerned parties, shingikai arerarely completely impartial; members are often selected specifically for their views, and theirreports typically echo the ministry's goals.22
The ministries tend to justify their guidance through a flexible application of the spirit of thelaw rather than its letter: legal regulations providing for drastic measures are used mainly as
motivation for the private actor to accept the bureaucracy's less extreme direction. It has beensuggested that the ministries' influence is based more on their roles as coordinators and an aura ofauthority than the legal ability to impose their will, 23 but they can also enforce cooperation
through either the threat of formal regulatory action on a specific issue, or the threat of becoming
uncooperative in general regulatory matters.
This often enables them to get the same results with a suggestion that would require an
outright order in the U.S. As a result, the ministries can often influence the action of private
22 Weinberg, "Broadcasting and the Administrative Process..."23 Haley, John O., "Governance by Negotiation: A Reappraisal of Bureaucratic Power in Japan," in Kenneth B.

Pyle, ed. The Trade Crisis: How Will Japan Respond? The Society for Japanese Studies, Seattle, 1987

10--------·---------·11---·"1

I- -------------·-I-----l--^---^r-- r-

ruculari;l(i4irnlrr;BpP(

organizations without strict observation of the limits of their legal authority. It also makes it
possible for them to attempt coercion for which they do not have clear legal authority or Diet
support. Because of the vague informality of the administrative input and lack of transparency inthe process, the courts have rarely been able to provide private actors relief from unwanted or
misguided gy6sei shid.
The Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications' strategy for awarding radio, TV, and cableTV broadcasting licenses is to apply an extreme form of gy6sei shid6. The MPT fosters a senseof compromise and co-opts all influential applicants for a license -- even competing groups -- intoa single body within the political mainstream with close ties to the Ministry. Since 1952, when the
MPT first started overseeing licensing, this has been done through a policy of ipponka ch6sei, or"unification coordination." This strategy means, explains Michael Weinberg, "that when manydifferent entities file applications for a single license, the regulator, instead of engaging in acompetitive selection process, facilitates the creation of ajoint venture, representing, to the extent
possible, all influential applicants."2 4 Every applicant that can reach a meeting of minds is
encouraged to participate in a voluntary merger to create one broadcaster. Multiple licenses are
only awarded when two or more influential groups absolutely cannot agree, and when the MPT
has the frequencies available.
The applications are dominated by a few sprawling networks of related firms, theirshareholders and their former employees, who are almost all acting as proxies for leading local
businesses and the national media groups. When a new regional license becomes available, itdraws hundreds of applications. The MPT then selects someone with influence and familiarity
with the mainstream business and politics of the region to sort through them all, weed out
everyone but the major players, and negotiate to incorporate the remainder into a single
organization.25
Once the local station is formed, the various banks, businesses and media groups holding
shares choose a network to become affiliated with. Most affiliates are entirely dependent upon
their network for national news shows and other nation-wide programming.2 6 The networks are
based around the state-sponsored Nippon H6s6 Ky6kai (NHK) and the four major Tokyo-area
24 Weinberg, "Broadcasting

25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.

and the Administrative Process..."

11

__·

·I-----·----------------L-LIIIIIII

,stations: Nippon TV (NTV), Fuji TV, the Tokyo Broadcasting System (TBS), and TV Asahi.
Thus, if a single key Tokyo-area station producing national programming were to go out ofbusiness, it could undermine an entire network. The hub of each of these media groups is in turnone of the five major daily newspapers, which own and control their key stations directly andthrough personal links: The Yomiuri Shimbun owns NTV; the Sankei Shimbun and Fuji TV
together form Fuji/Sankei; the Mainichi Shimbun owns TBS; the Asahi Shimbun owns TV Asahi;
and the Nihon Keizai Shimbun (often considered the "Japanese Wall Street Journa'l") is affiliatedwith the smaller TV Tokyo.
The MPT influences programming content in three ways. The first is the result of theipponka ch6sei policy: since the licensees are groups of several organizations from theconventional power structure, it is unlikely that they would have liberal tastes, or allow a single
shareholder to slip in unconventional content. The second is the MPT's licensing power: if abroadcaster steps out of line, the Ministry has the ability to license a new competitor, which
would substantially harm the established firm's business. The MPT actually applied this strategy
in the late 1960s: in response to NTV and TBS's critical news coverage of the Vietnam War, it
suddenly released a flood of new licenses that allowed TV Asahi and Fuji TV to gain affiliates andbecome major networks overnight. Fuji/Sankei is said to still harbor especially strong loyalty andpersonal ties to the LDP as a result. 27
The third option would be to actually revoke a broadcast license. The MPT has never taken
this step. For one thing, it is too drastic to be useful in daily administration matters. More
importantly, there is strong doubt that the ministry actually has the power. The laws andregulations that provide for license revocation serve mainly as last resorts, and are used mostly tojustify less radical bureaucratic intervention. Revocation would be challenged in the Diet and in
the courts, and the MPT would have had a hard time finding the support it needed there to carrythrough such a bold step, even when the LDP controlled the government. 28
Nevertheless, the MPT has come to rely more heavily on this legal authority as the basis of its
power in recent years. In the mid-1980s, the ministry's potential to affect major management
decisions through its ability to affect the market waned as commercial broadcasters became

27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.

12____ _______X_______rr_X3_r__?

economically stronger and cable TV broadcasters became more common. In response, the MPT
increased its emphasis on official, legal mechanisms. One sign of this is that in the 1988 revisionof the Broadcasting Law, the provision restricting the content of news coverage was moved fromarticle 44 to article 3, where it was considerably more prominent. Now that the government wasa non-LDP coalition, the MPT's ability to actually revoke a license was judged to be even weaker
than before. 29 However, Tsubaki's violation of these laws would give it justification for more
direct intervention in management.
Because of its licensing authority and control of news content (and the political and financial
windfalls associated with them), the MPT has traditionally been a coveted political ally. The LDP
has paid it particularly close attention; during the 1980s, for example, the Yfisei-zoku, or Posts andTelecommunications Policy "Tribe" was composed of some of the LDP's most influential
politicians, including Kanemaru Shin, who was considered the ruling party's "kingmaker." 3 0 The
LDP may have lost this ally when it lost its majority. Many political journalists in Japan
commonly believe that after the reformers came to power, the MPT's sympathies began to shift tothe coalition government, and that the LDP began political manipulation in an attempt to regain
control. In fact, they see all the debates over the freedom of expression and the role of media inpolitics and government intervention in the media that erupted as a result of the Tsubaki statement
merely as tools of a deeper struggle. The more important, hidden story was the LDP's attempt toregain political territory from the reformers by exercising control over the broadcasting industry
and the MPT. 3 '"Political maneuvering was constantly in the background" of the Tsubaki hatsugen incident,
explains TV Asahi news anchor Kanise Seiichi. To journalists' frustration, however, there was noway to report responsibly on it. "If we had had that information, we would certainly have written
a story on it," says Kanise.32 Instead, the story remained recondite, discussed only among thosewith first-hand knowledge.

29 Personal interview with Teshima Ryu'ichi,

Washington Correspondent for NHK, and fellow at the Harvard
University Center for International Affairs '94-'95, March 13, 1995.
30 Inoguchi Takashi and Iwai Tomoaki, Zoku Giin No Kenkvu^ [A Study of Diet Policy "Tribes"] Nihon Keizai
Shimbunsha, Tokyo, 1988
31 Teshima Ryu'ichi

32 Personal interview with Kanise Seiichi, news anchor for TV Asahi's "Sunday Project," March 23, 1995.

13-------------------.-----·-·-·rrTP.1I-·---

It certainly seems possible that this struggle could have taken place and that it could have focused on the MPT. The LDP's presence in the Yusei-zoku has recently been significantly
weakened, which is a grave loss to the party. Kanemaru was involved in a political scandal in thespring of 1993, and several other members abandoned the LDP for the reform party ShinseitO,
including its leader, Hata Tsutomu.

InitialReactions

The gist of Tsubaki's speech was leaked to the LDP by September 22 -- the next day -- andby the 29th TV Asahi's top executives had heard rumor that the party was considering action.33
On October 4, TV Asahi president Ito Kunio strongly reprimanded Tsubaki for his comments.
"I think 'afraid' may be the word to describe the general atmosphere within [TV Asahi] afterrumors of the speech spread through the company," says anchorman Kanise Seiichi. The mostcommon response was that Tsubaki had overstepped the role of a TV journalist; there was no
vocal support for either the truth of his claims or his right to make them. Although TV Asahi
executives were accustomed to subtle, nearly constant pressure on their management decisions by
the MPT, they were now fearful that the affair would attract stronger intervention by either theministry or the LDP itself. Kanise feels that the poor timing of the incident compounded theirworries: until a year or two previously, TV networks had had the independence and financial
strength to withstand unwanted administrative guidance, but that power had disappeared in therecession. 3 4
When Minpdren published an account of the conference on the 10th, it omitted Tsubaki's
comments. Later, it claimed no notes or audio tapes of the meeting were made.
With members of the LDP and Minp6ren as well as TV Asahi's top executives aware of theincident, it is no surprise that news leaked to the press. On October 13, the Sankei Shimbun
newspaper scooped the story with a front-page article based on interviews with Minporen
members, under the headline, "Coverage Biased Towards the Creation of a Non-LDP
Administration -- Statement by TV Asahi Director to National Association of Commercial"Tsubaki Hatsugen E NVo Terebi... "34 Ibid.
33

14-----~~--- ---Broadcasters Concerning General Elections." The article stated, "Tsubaki indicated that coverage
should be aimed at the birth of a non-LDP administration.. .and actively backed [selectedcandidates] during the election." In a separate section at the end, the article quoted Tsubaki's
response to the allegations as, "I did say 'I felt the growing call for dissolution of the 1955
system,' but no coverage was guided by the goal of the dissolution of the 1955 system. It isn't
necessary for private broadcasters to maintain neutrality the way NHK does."3 5Tsubaki's comment on neutrality could be construed as a philosophical stand. Unlike theprivate networks, Nippon H6s6 Ky6kai, the Japan Broadcasting Corporation, is structured tomaintain unbiased coverage, or at least coverage that is supportive of the government. It is a
public-service broadcast agency with nominal independence concerning its day-to-day
administration and its budget, which it funds through the direct billing of receiver fees. In fact,
though, it is accountable to the government through its Board of Governors, which is appointed
by the prime minister, and through the Diet and the MPT, which must approve its budget and any
fee increases.3 6
A 1983 study by Ellis Krauss found that NHK news devoted three-fifths of its air time tostories about policy-makers and the bureaucracy; commercial broadcasters generally have lessgovernment coverage and more human interest stories. 3 7 The Japanese public apparently feelsthat NHK's focus on "hard" news makes the fairness and reliability of the reporting easier tojudge; surveys in the 1970s found that not only was NHK news trusted by the public far morethan any of the commercial broadcasters, but NHK itself was regarded as the most trusted andreliable institution in Japan. 38
In his response to the Sankei allegations, Tsubaki attempted to present NHK as a special casethat did not set the standard for other broadcasters. This implied he felt commercial broadcasters
should be able to operate just like newspapers, which are not bound by content restrictions. If
Tsubaki were serious about this stand, it would have been a clear challenge to the validity of the"Hi-Jimin Seiken Tanj6 Wo Itoshi H6dd" ["Coverage Biased Towards the Creation of a Non-LDP
Administration"], Sankei Shimbun, October 13, 1993, p. 1. "The 1955 system" is a reference to the LDP's 38-year
dominance of the government.
36 Teshima Ryu'ichi, personal interview; and Krauss, Ellis S., "Portraying the State in Japan: NHK TelevisionNews and Politics," in Media and Politics in Japan, Pharr, Susan J. and Krauss, Ellis S., ed., pp.81-120,
35

forthcoming
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.

15

I

_

_II__

_I

Broadcasting Law. Even at this point, however, his position seemed defensive rather than asincere ethical stance; he was ignoring the Public Office Election Law, which forbids biased
coverage of campaigns by any news medium.

Japanese Journalistsand Their Sources

More significant than the fact the Tsubaki statement was leaked to the press was the fact only
one paper broke the story. Japanese reporters are bound by tight networks of relationships totheir sources and each other that make it extremely difficult for an organization to unilaterally
select and run news stories. Instead, news organizations have developed practices specifically tolimit their competition at the expense of the public's access to information, a situation which
Laurie Freeman characterizes as an "information cartel."3 9A major root of this situation is the close tie between reporters and their sources. This
relationship is key to the news coverage of all large institutions, but is absolutely vital to thecoverage of politics and the bureaucracy. Japanese reporters rely heavily on personal bonds withhigh-ranking Diet members for information on and insight into policy-making. Journalists seldomdraw policy data from staged events like speeches, but they often write stories without
verification or even background research if the information has been confided in a private
conversation by a prestigious Diet member. 40 This means the most important newsgathering
occurs in informal settings.
Intense competition for access to sources and stories has led Japanese print and television
news media to form kisha kurabu (press clubs) for every major news source, including institutions
and political offices. Competing reporters on the same beat (ban) work as a pack, and gather
information together. The source fosters this sense of cooperation as well as a sense of obligationby providing them with a room and office facilities, usually a few moments' walk from the

39 Freeman, Laurie A., Ties That Bind: Press, State and Society in Contemporary Japan, Ph.D Thesis, Universityof California at Berkeley (in progress). Ms. Freeman is a research fellow in the Harvard U.S.-Japan Relations
Program 1994-1995.
40 Feldman, Ofer, Politics and the News Media in Japan, University of Michigan Press, 1993.
16

_____

___

_

II_

_

source's own office. 4 ' The closest American phenomenon is the White House press corps, inwhich all members share a room and accompany the president when he travels. Even though thissystem tends to lead the journalists to identify with each other and the man they cover more than
the readers they represent, a quick comparison of their reports shows it still yields more variety incoverage than the kisha kurabu system. 42
Whereas American TV news executives mostly find their first hints of upcoming events
through the AP and UPI wire services, domestic Japanese news starts with the reporters stationed
in these press club rooms. Because of TV's heavy use of events such as interviews and press
conferences for visual material (though rarely for data), TV journalists are especially dependent
on the reliable flow of information from the source's office into the press club room in order toplan the dispatching of camera crews.43
Up to 80% of the data a political reporter acquires comes from kondan, or informal exchanges
of information between a source and the reporters covering his work.44 Reporters usually attend
kondan for each source several times a week, not just during the day in the source's office, but in"morning visits" (asagacke) and "night attacks" (yo uchi) before and after work in the source's
home as well. In order to maintain the source's confidence, only a tiny fraction of what is actually
discussed in these talks is ever printed; the rest consists of deep background information, or
information the reporters voluntarily share in order to reciprocate. Both sides know that thecloser the friendship, the more useful the information exchanged, so the conversation is often
purely social.
Journalists are motivated by toku-ochi kyfush6, the fear of missing a story their competitorsuse. After a kondan, the reporters involved reach a consensus on its significance, and then write
nearly identical articles for their respective papers and news programs. "Generally speaking,[reporters in the same ban] can accomplish their work only by cooperation," Ofer Feldman
writes. 45 Among the five most popular newspapers, there is practically no difference in political
For example, in the 9-story Kumamoto Prefectural Government building, where I worked for two years, thekisha kurabu room was down the hall from the governor's office, directly opposite the Public Affairs Division andthe International Affairs Division.
42 See Crouse, Timothy, The Boys on the Bus, Ballantine Books, Canada, 1974, for a description of media
coverage of the 1972 U.S. presidential elections.
43 Krauss, "Portraying the State in Japan: NHK Television News and Politics"
44 Feldman, Politics and the News Media in Japan41

4s Ibid.

17

111

_1

_1_1

_ II

II

__

coverage, and there are almost no scoops. The press' inability to break free of this dependency,
take an adversarial stance towards the establishment and do serious investigative reporting is asource of frustration for many Japanese journalists.
Feldman finds that a reporter's sympathy for a Diet member he covers daily serves the sourcein ways the public never sees. During kondan, Diet members often use experienced reporters asadvisors. They also rely on friendly reporters to fiunnel them background information acquired inother meetings, especially with political opponents. 4 6
From the Diet member's perspective, however, the reporter's most important role is that of
go-between. Reporters can usually speak frankly and informally with all the bureaucrats and Diet
members on their beats, and these officials rely on reporters to serve as the vehicle for the vital
process of consensus-building. Feldman writes that "Diet members view reporters as the only
group having continual contact with them and access to all the political parties and even thebureaucracy; this makes reporters not only the best choice for such a role, but the only choice."
Since policy-making in the Diet is completely dependent on consensus, and reporters are usuallymore sympathetic to the government than opposition parties, they unavoidably contribute to theruling party's dominance in this process. Ironically, Feldman also finds that these same journalists
do not consider themselves to have any role in the policy process other than educating the
public.47
Each newspaper divides its journalists into four main categories: the seijibu, or politicalaffairs division, which focuses on key politicians to report on policymaking; the keizaibu, or
economic affairs division, which concentrates on the economy and the Ministry of Finance; theshakaibu, or social affairs division, which covers a wide variety of the remaining major news
topics, including law enforcement and the Imperial Household Agency; and the yzigun, or roving
reporters, who are assigned to the investigative reporting of a particular issue as it develops.
Seijibu, keizaibu and shakaibu reporters all operate from within their respective kisha kurabu,
among which there is practically no communication. Because seijibu reporters must maintaintheir relationships with their sources, they almost never break news a source wishes to keep
confidential; on the rare occasions when they do produce a scoop (tokudane, or sukuupu), theyIbid.
47 Ibid.
46

18

-___
- _----_ _____-__I __-_--------- 1___

_1I1I/j_--slll li--are published anonymously or under false names in weekly or monthly journals. On the other
hand, because shakaibu journalists do not have the ties to individual politicians, they are utterly
unable to report on policy-making; however, they are always the ones who follow politicalscandal stories for papers. This results in an institutionalized rivalry as seijibu reporters work toprotect their sources' secrets from the shakaibu reporters employed by the same paper.
Inada Sachio, the Sankei Shimbun editor responsible for the scoop of the Tsubaki statement,
wrote that it was reported by shakaibujournalists. This is not surprising, since representatives ofeach media group were on the Broadcast Programming Investigation Committee: the news could
easily have been passed along by the Fuji/Sankei member to the newspaper, and the media is atypical shakaibul beat. Inada was conspicuously silent, however, on why the Sankei was the only
member of its kisha kulrabu to break the story.48 Fuji/Sankei has traditionally been aconspicuously strong supporter of the LDP and rival of the liberal Asahi newsgroup. It seems
likely that the Sankei scoop was motivated by its personal ties to the LDP and desire to strike a
blow against a competitor as much or more than by its quest for a good news story.

The Public Debate

On October 13, the day of the Sankei article, the LDP protested Tsubaki's claims (it wasprobably prepared), saying it expected fairness in all coverage, and calling for a Diet commission
to investigate the issue. Although it was now the opposition, it still had enough influence todetermine the focus of certain committees, and still had connections with the bureaucracy. Egawa
Nobumasa, director of the MPT's Broadcast Administration Office, announced that violation of
the Broadcasting Law's fairness requirement could result in being taken off the air. TV Asahi
issued a statement to the effect that Tsubaki's comments represented private opinions and did notreflect network policy. Tsubaki himself, not quite concurring, made a statement saying that hiscoverage only reflected the changing political trends, and therefore involved no bias. News
Station anchor Kume Hiroshi denied there had been any pressure or guidance at all in his own
statements.

gWo
Meguru Giron No HottanNi" ["The Origin of the Debate Surrounding'Politics and Television"'], Shimbun Kenkyd, October 1994

48 Inada, Sachio "'S'eijiTo Terebi'

19_i^^ _ _i__~~~~~-· _ l _ _·sI~~~~~~~I _ X_ _ _~~~~~~_
r~~~~~~~~~~~~b_ 1__ __·1__

By the next day (October 14), there were already suggestions from the LDP that Tsubaki besummoned to testify before the Diet. Ozawa Ichir6, one of the strategic leaders of the reformers,
took a position opposing the LDP with the declaration, "Fair coverage is compatible with anassertion of one's beliefs." 49 Each of the five major daily newspapers -- the Asahi Shimbun, theMainichi Shimbunl, the Yomiuri Shimbun, the Nikkei Shimbun and the Sankei Shimbun -- hadbegun to run articles reporting on the government's investigation of the incident. That same day,Tsubaki was rotated out of TV Asahi's News Bureau and reassigned.
On the 15th, four of the five main dailies printed editorials about the issue. The Sankei(practically defending its decision to break the story) asserted that if TV Asahi's coverage wasbiased it had done viewers a disservice, since they did not know the news that determined theirvotes was not balanced. 5° The Yomiuri saw it as a freedom of speech issue, supporting the ideathat there are reasonable limits to the freedom, and that violating them gives government a
legitimate excuse to intervene.51 The Mainichi discussed the relationship between politics andtelevision only in general terms, asserting that if there were doubts regarding journalism's ability
to act as a check on the abuse of power, it was due to journalists failure to distance themselvesfrom their subjects. 52 The Asahi (affiliated with TV Asahi) wrote that the TV industry was
suffering from overconfidence and was in danger of forgetting it had restrictions, but that athoughtful reassessment of the relationship between government and the broadcast media was inorder. 53
Although each of the papers had its own perspective on the incident, they all criticizedTsubaki's belief he had the right to bias television coverage. At the 46th Annual Newspaper
Convention held on the 16th, the president of the Yomiuri Shimbun said, "The Tsubaki statement
has strong illegal connotations, and if coverage were conducted with that policy, it would be aclear violation of the Broadcasting Law and the Public Office Election Law." The president of the"Tsubaki Hatsugen E No Terebi..."50 "Kakusha iVo Shasetsu Kara" ["From Each Company's Editorials"] Shimbun Kenkyu, February 1994
5' Ibid.
52 "Seiji No Terebika Gensh6 To Shlimbun" ["Newspapers and the 'Televization' of Politics"], Mainichi Shimbun,
editorial, October 15, 1993, p.5
53 "Kakusha No Shasetsu Kara"49

20---------- ^-----·r ---------------·--·----~iSankei Shimbun said, "It is unforgivable for one person to dominate the policy of a company likethat. "54
On October 18, five days after the Sankei's scoop, members of the LDP decided to summon
Tsubaki to testify before the Diet. They worked through one of the few committees they still
controlled, the Lower House Special Committee for the Investigation of Political Reform, which
was chaired by LDP member Ishii Hajime. The coalition government protested that it was a
Broadcasting Law issue, but the LDP insisted that it was directly related to political reform andthat this committee was an appropriate venue. This step made it clear that the LDP considered
the incident a crisis; the Diet normally reserves formal summons and sworn testimony forinvestigations of extremely serious scandals. The coalition parties, on the other hand, generally
tried to distance themselves from the inquiry. 5"
On the 19th, the management of TV Asahi forced Tsubaki to submit his resignation, andimposed temporary pay cuts on his superiors. Minp6ren issued a statement saying the incident
that had occurred at their conference was "regrettable," and that commercial broadcasters had a
responsibility to maintain fairness and uphold the Broadcasting Law. After the statement, theChairman of Minpren, Kuwada K6ichir6 resigned, explaining in a press conference the next day
that because he was also a TV Asahi executive, he was "100% useless" as a leader of theorganization. 56 (On this day, the Sankei Shimbun was the only paper to run an article on the
MPT's assertion that Tsubaki had made his statement in a public setting, a story that, notincidentally, helped legitimate the Sankei's scoop.)
On October 20, the Diet decided that Tsubaki would give his testimony on the afternoon of
the 25th, a conspicuously early date that implied it was extremely concerned with the issue andwas setting other priorities aside. For the second time in its inquiry, the MPT sent a memo to
Minp6ren asking if it had made any notes or recordings of Tsubaki's speech and requesting to usethem as evidence in the Diet's investigation. Executives of Minp6ren admitted to reporters thatafternoon that it did in fact have a tape of the speech. At a late-night press conference, they said
they had kept it secret in order to prevent government intervention in freedom of speech and

54
5s
56

"Tsubaki Hatsugen E No Terebi... "Teshima Rylu'ichi, personal interview.
'Tsubaki -atsugen ToSono
SO Eiy" [The Tsubaki Statement and its Effects"], Shimbun Kenky,

1993

21

_____l__slllarrm________1___1_11_-.-

Decemberfreedom of broadcasting, and because Tsubaki's comments had been made in a closed, private
setting that the government had no right to oversee. They refused to present to the tape to the
MPT, but offered an unofficial account instead.
The morning of the 21 st, the Diet's Special Committee for Investigation of Political Reformdemanded Minp6ren's official notes by noon on the 22nd, threatening to resort to an official orderunder the Diet Evidence Law. The MPT demanded that the association submit the materials by
10 a.m., so that the ministry would have time to pass them on to the Diet.57
On the morning of the 22nd, Posts and Telecommunication Minister Kanzaki Takinori hinted
that when TV Asahi's broadcasting license ran out at the end of the month, his ministry might
impose conditions on its renewal. The same morning, Minp6ren yielded to MPT pressure andagreed to hand over both the written record and the tape of the conference, explaining:[Tsubaki's] alleged remarks have been misunderstood by society. We have judged that it is vital andurgent in these circumstances that we clear up the phenomenon that is amplifying thismisunderstanding, and that the public understand commercial broadcasters are devoted to strict
fairness and neutrality. 58

Shimizu Hidey6, the chairman of Minpdren's Broadcast Programming Investigation Committee,
protested the summons and demand for the conference's records, saying the MPT was abusing its
authority and violating Minp6ren's privacy and freedom of speech. Hando Kazutoshi, theCommittee's vice chairman, resigned from his position in protest.
The issue had shifted to the government's right to intervene in the situation. On the 21st, thepresident of NTV had issued a statement criticizing Tsubaki for believing television had the sameright to shape public discourse as the print media, and urging Minp6ren to release the audio tapeof the speech. On the 22nd, the politically middle-of-the-road Mainichi Shimbun took the otherextreme in an editorial saying that the Tsubaki hatsugen incident did not call for political

57 Ibid.
58 "Tsubaki Hatsugen To .Sono Eiky 6"

22

investigation, but rather an independent resolution by the journalism industry.5s The president ofTBS, its affiliate, made a similar statement.60
The incident reached its climax on the 25th. That morning, the five non-industry members of
Minp6ren's Broadcast Programming Investigation Committee, including the chairman, resigned inprotest of the government's inquiry, citing invasion of privacy, violation of the freedom of speech
and thought, the improper rush to bring the issue before the Diet without proper discussion, andthe summons' encroachment on the media. 61 Eight well-known newscasters, including TV
Asahi's Kume and Tahara, and Kanise Seiichi, who was interviewed for this paper, held a press
conference to release their own statement of opposition to the summons, saying that the issue wasbest settled within the network and that the precedent this testimony would set might lead Diet
members to intervene whenever they were unhappy with broadcasters. 62 As independent
contract employees, they had the freedom to take controversial stands without drawing
government antagonism to their networks. 6 3
That afternoon, Tsubaki went before the Lower House Special Committee for Political
Reform, and answered questions from its LDP and Communist Party members for a grueling twohours. His testimony showed none of the bravado of his earlier statements. He began with anabject apology:First, let me make a heartfelt apology to you all for the trouble I caused with my unnecessary,
unconsidered, inappropriate remarks... 64

Tsubaki described his claims as the product of pride and bragging. He told the committee he had
been mistaken to think his network's coverage had had any significant effect on the election's
results. In response to questions, however, he asserted his network had upheld standards offairness, and denied he had actually biased any reporting or indicated that it should be biased. The

59 "KakushaNo S'hasetsu Kara"
60 "Tsubaki Hatsugen E No Terebi..."61 "Tsubaki Hlatsugen To Sono Eikyv"
62 "Tsubaki Hatsugen E No Terebi... "63 Kanise Seiichi, personal interview
64 "Tsubaki Zen-Tele-.sa kyokuch Shdnin Kannron No On6 No Naiyo" ["Excerpts from Former TV Asahi
Director Tsubaki's Testimonly"], Asahi Shimbun, October 26, 1993

23

I____

___
____

reason he had never expressed his position to the programming department, Tsubaki claimed, wasthat he had known all along that his view was "nonsense" (k6t6mukei na b6gen). He explained hehad used such strong language at the conference because he was under the impression it was aclosed meeting where he was expected to speak freely. He also mentioned that he hoped theresulting loss of confidence in the media would not bring about government intervention. 65
This abrupt turnaround was unpardonable in the eyes of fellow journalists. The one factor
that could mitigate the arrogance of his statement would have been an ethical stand on the role ofthe press in society. By backing down so completely, he showed he had no interest in that issue atall, and reinforced the image of his own weak moral character. 66
The following day, the coalition government criticized the LDP for its hastiness in issuing thesummons. On October 27, TV Asahi President Ito Kunio spoke before the Lower House
Communications Committee on the issue. Ito disavowed the network of any part in the incident,
saying, "[Tsubaki] might have believed what he said in his own mind, but there were neither
suggestions nor orders to that effect, and our own internal investigation found the broadcasts to
be fair."67

Media Respotnse

The newspapers had been clearly opposed to Tsubaki's arrogance and claims to have violated
the Broadcasting Law and Election Law. However, after the widely publicized summons andDiet hearing, the major dailies began to feel that the LDP had gone to far. On October 22, a
Mainichi Shimbun editorial contended that the summons threatened freedom of speech, and that
it was better to let the TV industry solve the problem itself. It also suggested it was inappropriate
for the LDP to focus on a single news executive, and said that if the MPT imposed conditions or ashorter term on the renewal of TV Asahi's license, it "would be a blow to the Broadcasting Law
and the Wireless Telegraphy Law." 68 An Asahi Shimbun editorial on the same day said the

65

Ibid.

66

Personal interviews, Teshima Ryu'ichi and Kanise Seiichi.

67 "Tsubaki Hatsugen E No Terebi... ""'Genron ANo Jivfl 'Ishukutl Sasenai Ka " ["Doesn't This Strangle 'Freedom of Speech'?"] Mainichi Shimbun,
October 22, 1993, p.5
2468-------~~'I`-- - - -~

^L-~~1~~.--~--_~--___·

~

~

-·~-

· -I-

summons was inappropriate, and that both politicians and the media would be able to solve theirproblems on their own by paying attention to each other's criticism and public opinion.6 9 AnotherAsahi editorial on the 26th claimed that the summons did not resolve any part of the immediate
incident, and that it never addressed the deeper issue of media fairness. 70
An October 24 editorial in the Yomiuri Shimbun, the nation's most popular newspaper,claimed that taking action against a single man in one particular case -- despite an environment
filled with the media's abuses of its freedom of coverage -- was tantamount to the LDP using TV
Asahi as a "scapegoat" for its defeat. 71 On the 26th, another Yomiuri editorial asserted thatneutrality requires the constant supervision of editors, and that the media bears the ultimate
responsibility for reconciling its freedom of coverage with the law.72 Since the kisha kurabu
system fosters alliances between newspapers and the governing parties, it is likely that these views
also reflect the coalition government's desire to put an end to the issue.
The only major paper that found no faults with the LDP's response was the Sankei Shimbun.
It's editorial on the 25th supported the summons as a reflection of public opinion, and as a checkon the mass media, which it claimed does not have the restraint to keep itself in check.7 3 On the
26th, it called the summons a means of fostering discussion about TV's custom of using images
rather than objective facts in political coverage.7 4

The Aftermath

The incident began to dissipate immediately after Tsubaki's high profile testimony. The LDP
had managed to turn the media and the public's initial anger at Tsubaki's arrogance to concern the

69"Hito Terebikyoku No AXfondai De Wta Nai" ["It's Not a Problem With a Single TV Station"], Asahi Shimbun,

October 22, 1993, p.2
70 "Kakon Nokoshita Zen-fMdd6 Kvokuch6 No Kannmon" ["The Subpoena of the Former News Director Left the

Evil Roots"], Asahi Shimbun, October 26, 1993, p.2
l 'H6od6 No Jiytu' No Rany IVo Inashinteru" ["Admonshing Abuses of 'The Freedom of Coverage"'], Yomiuri

Shimbun, October 24, 1993, p. 3

"FukainetakattaHdo^d No Jiyid To Sekinin" ["The Freedom of Coverage They Wanted to Expand andResponsibility"], Yomiuri Shimbun, October 26, 1993, p. 3
73 " 'Seiji To Terebi' No Kakushin IVo Kokkai Shdninkanmon No Igi WYo Tou" [Asking the Meaning of the Diet
Subpoena Concerning the Core of 'Politics and Television"'], Sankei Shimbun, October 25, 1993, p. 2
74 "K6seisa NAo Naibu Kensh6 lVo Isoge" ["Speed the Internal Verification of Fairness"], Sankei Shimbun, October
26, 1993, p. 2
72

25

O1Dsll-·---"C

government was empowering itself to intervene in news coverage. After It6's testimony, the Diet
ended the inquiry, and the MPT returned Minp6ren's tape of the conference.
It was TV Asahi's bad fortune that its five-year broadcasting license expired the last day ofOctober, while the LDP's outrage at the incident was still at its height. The day after Tsubaki's
testimony, MPT officials suggested to the ministry's Broadcast Frequency Oversight Shingikaithat conditions be imposed on the license's renewal. It was an unprecedented step, but theshingikai assented a day later. On November 1, the MPT formally renewed the licenses of all 192
broadcasters throughout the country whose terms had expired. MPT Minister Kanzaki presided
over a ceremony in the Kasumigaseki district of Tokyo for the 14 Tokyo firms. The renewal
certificate he handed to TV Asahi president It6 was qualified by an attached statement, which
read: "The Ministry will take further necessary measures once the facts concerning TV Asahi's
relationship to the [Tsubaki] Statement are clarified." 7 5
In a related statement, Minister Kanzaki announced:

We are aware of the problem the gentlemen in question have created, and we demand that they upholdthe Broadcasting Lawv and their own editorial standards, and join together to work to regain thenation's confidence.76

This was the final move in the public drama. From November until the following year, there
was no further news coverage of developments in the incident, and no repercussions.

TV Asahi

conducted its own internal investigation to find if there were any substance to Tsubaki's
allegations over the course of the following year. This process was closely supervised throughoutby the MPT. 77 Nevertheless, when the report was released on September 2, 1994, the MPT
responded with further administrative guidance in the form of a stern warning.78
In late 1994, the Japan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association (Shimbun Ky6kai) the
Shimbun Ky6kai-sh6, its prestigious prize for the most influential article of the past year, to the75 "Tere-Asa Ni Jdken-Tsuki AfenkyO " ["'To TV Asahi, A License With Conditions Attached"] Asahi Shimbun,
November 2, 1993, p.2
76 Ibid.

77 Kanise Seiichi, personal interviewv
78 Inada, Sachio "'Seiji To Terebi' Ifo

ifeguru Giron No Hottan Ni." Although he does not mention the content
of the reprimand, Inada himself refers to it as "administrative guidance."

26

II

I___Z_I__1__·___n_________I_____

____

_

___

Sankei for breaking the Tsubaki hatsuigen story. The other nominations were a Mainichi article
about the scandal involving Prime Minister Hosokawa's purchase of NTT stock, and an Asahi
story about insider trading. (Sankei, known more for its assertiveness than thorough reporting,had also won the previous year with a scoop about the mayor of Sendai city accepting bribes fromthe construction industry.)7 9
Receiving the award, YSankei editor Inada Sachio wrote he had felt Tsubaki's statement was"big news" because it was so surprising, and he had wanted to pass that sense of surprise on to hisreaders. He claimed the story was significant because it had set off so much political activity, andhad engendered the first real discussion of the relationship between TV and politics. What madeit deserving of the award, he explained, was that this was the first significant coverage to question
the future of news coverage.80
The Shimbln Kyokai 's choice was controversial. The other nominees may have had greater
impact: Hosokawa eventually stepped down due to the financial scandal. Many journalists
protested that the Minprenl study group had been a private meeting, and that the Sankei had noright to publish its content.81 More galling, however, was the idea that newspapers, especially the
Sankei and the Yonilri, had intentionally invited government intervention in order to check thegrowing influence of a competing media group's broadcaster. 8 2 Often during the course of theincident, editorials in other papers had suggested that a more effective and appropriate -- and, by
implication, "more Japanese" -- approach would have been to let the industry address the concern
without outside intervention. The newspapers' original positions supporting the Diet's interest
indicate that they were either threatened by the rise of this new power, or doubted broadcasters
had the desire or ability to restrain themselves. It was only when the LDP went too close tothreatening the rest of the news industry that they protested its actions.

79 Kawasaki, Yasushi "'Tsiubaki ffatsugen [ctd ' Jush6 Naitei No Kai" ["A Suspect Informal Announcement on
the Award to 'The Tsubaki Statement Coverage"'], Sekai, October 1994
80 Ibid.

Hara, Tsuneo, Jaanarizumu Ita Kmvaru [Journalism is Changing] Banseisha, Tokyo, 1994, p. 1 4 282 Kawasaki "'Tsubaki Hatsugen Ho6d' Jusho NAaitei No Kai"

8127------·(--·11113IICII·I··3RLII·

New Limits on Administrative Guidanlce

Japanese government agencies no longer have the same arbitrary power to influence private
actors that they have exercised in the past. On November 12, 1993, less than two weeks after the
MPT renewed TV Asahi's license with conditions attached, the Diet passed the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA, or Gy6sei Shid6-h(). The law went into effect the following year.
The APA is the government's first measure to codify the rules of administrative procedureand create a legal basis for gy6sei shid6. The motivation for this move was twofold: to establish
the government's right to conduct administrative guidance, which appeared in no previous laws;
and to protect private actors by introducing transparency and clarifying that compliance is notmandatory.
The General Provisions section of the act provides the first official definition of gy6sei shid6.
It is considered to be:[any] act, not being a disposition, such as a direction, recommendation or suggestion by anadministrative body, in order to ask for the performance or nonperformance by a particular citizen
with a view of achieving a policy aim within the sphere of competence of said administrative body. 83

The law stresses that administrative guidance is based on voluntary assent, and that theagency may not use any unfavorable treatment -- it specifically forbids abuse of the authority toissue licenses -- as retribution for a refusal to comply. It requires the agency to provide clear
information on the nature of the guidance and the official responsible for issuing the request, andentitles the addressee to ask for any request to be put in writing. 84
In the past, the courts usually overlooked the dubious legality of administrative guidance, andsupported government actions by ruling in terms of vague, situation-specific procedural standards.
The APA allows the courts to treat all acts of gy6sei shid6 as aspects of the same form of official

83 K6dderitz, Lorenz, "Japan's New Administrative Procedure Law: Reasons for its Enactment and Likely

Implications," Law in Japan vol. 24 no. 105 1994

84 Ibid.

28_11__·_- - - ___~~·__-----------1-~~s-behavior, with a legal basis and limits.85 Theoretically, it should also allow private actors to resist
unwanted government manipulation, and to hold agencies accountable for their intervention.
However, the law has been in effect for less than a year, and it far from clear that private actors
will be able to resort to the legal measures the APA recommends in the face of government
agencies' real power to influence their business, or that it will have any effect against theagencies' networks of informal ties.
If the APA had already been established by 1993, it might have given TV Asahi the ability torefuse the MPT's involvement in its internal investigation of the Tsubaki hatsugen, or even thelegal standing to resist any conditions the MPT might have imposed on its broadcasting license.
With less leverage, this in turn would have reduced the LDP's propensity to interfere with theindustry's internal affairs.
Lorenz Kodderitz writes that the reasons for the successful passage of the law are "difficult
to pinpoint" and that there is not enough data made public to recreate with certainty the factorsthat led to its enactment. 8 6 In light of the Diet's timing, it would be fair to wonder if theNovember 12 vote for the APA were not a hasty response by the coalition government toperceived political manipulation by the LDP. If the uproar over the Tsubaki statement were infact an orchestrated attempt to regain political territory, then passing a new law weakening thattype of intervention might be seen as a reasonable political tactic to pre-empt similar moves in the
future.
Neither the drafting of the bill nor the timing of the vote were related to this incident,
however. The APA is the result of attempts to codify procedural law that began in the early
1950s. The issue had been on the political agenda of Prime Minister Kaifu in 1990, and U.S.
trade negotiators had also pressed the Japanese government for measures to make administrative
guidance more uniform and transparent in the Structural Impediments Initiatives talks underBush.87 The same bill had been scheduled for a vote in the previous Diet session, where it was
expected to pass, but the no-confidence vote on the Miyazawa administration had caused its

85 Ibid.
86

Ibid.

87

Kodderitz, "Japan's New Administrative Procedure Law"29

postponement until November.88 If the Tsubaki statement incident played any role in this at all, it
was only as a further example of the need to reform gysei shid6.

The Dog That Didn' t Bark -- Lessons From the Tsulbaki Hatsugen Incident

The Tsubaki hcalsgen incident packed a great deal of furor into a very short span of time.
Part of the reason the incident was able to tap so much latent energy was that it marked theintersection of two separate spheres that happened to be evolving simultaneously. In the realm of
the news media, television had just begun to establish itself as an influential actor filling a new andpowerful niche; added to this was the danger that TV was not yet sure of its strength or its
responsibilities. In the political sphere, the LDP's hold on the Diet's Lower House had beenbroken for the first time in almost forty years, by parties only a year or two old. Newspapers
were threatened by TV's encroachment on their turf; likewise, the shaky government coalition's
potential threat to the establishment met opposition from the LDP and resistance by thosebureaucrats whose agendas were endangered by reform.
The issue of biased TV coverage was so sensitive that the reckless boasts of a single
individual led to his Diet summons before it was even established that a transgression had actuallyoccurred, or had had any effect. In a period of a little over two weeks, the incident engendered in
an industry association, a Diet committee and the editorial columns of the four most-readnewspapers earnest debates on topics ranging through television's influence and role in politics,
the division between industry and government responsibility, government intervention in theaffairs of private actors, and the limits of freedom of speech.
These responses shed light on the relationships of the actors involved. Instead ofpresenting a united front and insisting the government let them treat the incident as a matterinternal to the journalism industry, media organizations looked after their own immediate interestsand intentionally let the government intervene. 89 Divisions among them appeared to be based
along lines of business affiliation rather than practical or ideological differences between print and

88 Discussion with Daniel Foote, Professor of Japanese Law at the University of Washington Law School, andvisiting professor at Harvard Law School 1994-95. Professor Foote served as K6dderitz' advisor when he wrote thefirst version of "Japan's New Administrative Procedure Law" as his LL.M. paper.
89 Personal interview, Seiichi Kanise

30

I------------·--^-·--"------"---·--·--

'broadcast media: the strongest attacks against TV Asahi came from the Fuji/Sankei and NTVYomiuri Shimbun media groups while both parts of the TBS-Mainichi Shimbun group took a lesscritical stance.9 0 This indicates the groups were more concerned with competition between themthan in any threats to the future of their industries. The Shimbun Kyokai's decision to give its
award to the Sankei for a story that caused a great deal of commotion but essentially changed
nothing relevant to the issue suggests it was really a reward for keeping an upstart competitor inline.
Journalist Tase Yasuhiro writes, "If you consider the industry as a whole, there is no otherbusiness that has such a strong connection to 'politics' as television." 9 l It is hard to imagine
another private industry in Japan bound by legal mechanisms that provide for such severe andimmediate disciplinary measures. The LDP's rush to take the offensive shows these devices arecertainly open to exploitation by a political party, and the ending of the incident without a clear
resolution could mean TV stations are even more vulnerable to these tactics now that a precedent
for them has been established.
This incident also revealed how sensitive the MPT is to the designs of Diet politicians,
even to the opposition LDP, which may not have commanded the ministry's full sympathies at thetime. Throughout the incident the MPT matched the LDP's outrage with its own extreme stance,
threatening license revocation from its first involvement. As soon as the LDP dropped the issue,
the ministry also became less aggressive. Despite these powers, the LDP has shown that it isvulnerable to the influence of other actors; once the newspapers turned their criticism from TV
Asahi's transgressions to the LDP's intervention in private matters, it stopped pressing the issue.
During the election campaign, the media had functioned as a "watchdog" as described by
Susan Pharr; from a position of independence relative to the government, it stimulated political
reform for society society's gain. 92 Television had been most effective in this role, and the
Tsubaki hatsugen was the extreme expression of this ideal. The media's behavior concerning thereaction to Tsubaki's allegations demonstrated that it could function as what Pharr refers to as a

90 Hara, Tsune6, Jaanarizumu Wa Kawaru [Journalism is Changing] Banseisha, Tokyo, 1994, p. 139
9' Tase, Yasuhiro, Seiii Jaanarizilmu No Tsumi To Batsu [The Crimes and Punishment of Political Journalisml
Shinch6sha, Tokyo, 1994, p. 170
92 Pharr, Susan J., "Media as Trickster in Japan in Comparative Perspective," in Pharr, Susan J. and Krauss, EllisS., eds. Media and Politics in Japan, forthcoming, pp. 15-40

31-----·---"·I--------s;l-··"servant" as well: its power is dependent on the government's support, and it manipulates societal
actors in order to maintain the status quo. Finally, by turning its focus on the transgressions of
the LDP, it proved it could play the "trickster": a capricious, unpredictable force evaluating all
actors and debunking false claims. The servant, Pharr claims, promotes public quiescence, while
watchdog spurs reform and the trickster elicits public response and strengthens democracy. Witha media that shifts rapidly among all three roles, it will be difficult to judge its true effect onsociety.
The single most revealing aspect of the political incident is the fact it dissipated withoutleaving anything behind. The public debate over Tsubaki's statement and the government's
involvement focused on issues that were ostensibly of vital importance to the media andgovernment, including the limits of freedom of speech and the state's right to interfere in industry
policy. Yet when the LDP ended its pressure, these debates simply ceased, unresolved.
As when Sherlock Holmes found the most telling aspect of a crime was that the dog in thenight-time did nothing at all, 93 the most significant factor in this affair may be that despite theinvolvement of these major concerns, nothing at all changed afterwards. If they had been sincere
worries, it is likely the debates would have continued past the first day of November. Instead,they stopped suddenly, as if they had only been justifications to challenge or defend the politicaland media industry status quo and were no longer relevant after the situation changed. The
Tsubaki hatsugen incident ceased to have any public meaning when the LDP abandoned its
inquiry. This suggests that the issues driving it were not really the ethical questions of freedom ofspeech or the future of news coverage, but more mundane goals. It seems likely that journalists
were accurate in their assessment that the tumult was only an extension of a political turf battlecaused when the LDP attempted to reassert its influence.

93 Doyle, Arthur Conan, "Silver Blaze"32

im--"-------l__----__,;iinmrr

1Sources:

Altman, Kristin Kyoko, "Telemocracy: How Television Transformed Politics in Japan,"Occasional Paper, Program on U.S.-Japan Relations, Harvard University 1994
Constitution of Japan, as reproduced in Yanagida Yukio et al, Law and Investment in Japan,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1994, pp. 587-597
Crouse, Timothy, The Boys on the Bus, Ballantine Books, Canada, 1974
Denpa-h6 [The Wireless Telegraphy Law] Article 7 Paragraph 2, Ropp6 Zensh6 [The Complete
Compendium of the Six Codes], YOhikaku, 1994 vol.II, p. 4073.
Feldman, Ofer, Politics and the News Media in Japan, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor,
1993.
Freeman, Laurie A., Ties That Bind: Press, State and Society in Contemporary Japan, Ph.D
Thesis, University of California at Berkeley (in progress). Ms. Freeman is a research fellow in the
Harvard U.S.-Japan Relations Program 1994-1995.
"'Genron No Jiyi 'Ishuku Sasenai Ka" ["Doesn't This Strangle 'Freedom of Speech'?"] Mainichi
Shimbun, October 22, 1993, p.5
Haley, John O., "Governance by Negotiation: A Reappraisal of Bureaucratic Power in Japan," inKenneth B. Pyle, ed. The Trade Crisis: How Will Japan Respond? The Society for JapaneseStudies, Seattle, 1987
Hamada, Jun'ichi, "H6s6(To Seiji-teki K6hei" ["Broadcasting and Political Fairness"], H6gaku
Ky6shitsu, February, 1994
Hara, Tsuneo, Jaanarizyumu Wa Kawaru [Journalism is Changing] Banseisha, Tokyo, 1994, p. 14 2
"Hi-Jimin Seiken Tanj6 Wo Itoshi HSd6 " ["Coverage Biased Towards the Creation of a NonLDP Administration"], Sankei Shimbun, October 13, 1993, p. 1
"Hito-Terebikyoku No MfonLdai De Wa Nai" ["It's Not a Problem With a Single TV Station"],Asahi Shimbun, October 22, 1993, p. 2
Hs6-h6 [The Broadcasting Law], Article 3 Paragraph 2. 1, Ropp6 Zensh6 [The Complete
Compendium of the Six Codes], Yhikaku, 1994, vol.II, p. 4 0 9 7"'H6d6 No Jiyl Noo Rany6 Wo lmnshimeru" ["Admonshing Abuses of 'The Freedom of
Coverage"'], Yomiri iShimbllln, October 24, 1993, p. 3
33

---

-*I

I--

-----..----

I

Foote, Daniel, Professor of Japanese Law at the University of Washington Law School, andvisiting professor at Harvard Law School 1994-95. Discussion, April 3, 1995.
"FilkametakattaH6d6 No Jiyli To Sekinin" ["The Freedom of Coverage They Wanted to Expand
and Responsibility"], Yomiuri Shimbun, October 26, 1993, p. 3
Inada, Sachio "'Seiji To Terebi' Wo Meguru Giron No Hottan Ni" ["The Origin of the Debate
Surrounding 'Politics and Television"'], Shimbun Kenkyu, October 1994
Inoguchi Takashi and Iwai Tomoaki, Zoku Giin No Kenkvu^ [A Study of Diet Policy "Tribes"]
Nihon Keizai Shimbunsha, Tokyo, 1988
"Kakon Nokoshita Zen-H(od6 Kyokuch6 No Kanmon" ["The Summons of the Former News
Director Left the Evil Roots"], A.sahi Shimbun, October 26, 1993, p. 2
"Kakusha No Shase.su Kara" ["From Each Company's Editorials"] Shimbun Kenkyu, February
1994
Kanise Seiichi, news anchor for TV Asahi's "Sunday Project." Personal interview, March 23,
1995.
Kawasaki, Yasushi "'Tsubaki Hatsugen H6d6' Jushd Naitei No Kai" ["A Suspect Informal
Announcement on the Award to 'The Tsubaki Statement Coverage"'], Sekai, October 1994
K6dderitz, Lorenz, "Japan's New Administrative Procedure Law: Reasons for its Enactment andLikely Implications," Law in Japan vol. 24 no. 105 1994
"Koseisa No Nctibtu Kensh6 Wo Isoge" ["Speed the Internal Verification of Fairness"], Sankei
Shimbun, October 26, 1993, p. 2
Koshoku Senky6-h6 [The Public Office Election Law], Article 148 Paragraph 1, Ropp6 Zensh6[The Complete Compendium of the Six Codes], Yfihikaku, 1994, vol.1 p. 1 11
Krauss, Ellis S., "Portraying the State in Japan: NHK Television News and Politics," in Media andPolitics in Japan, Pharr, Susan J. and Krauss, Ellis S., eds., pp.81-120, forthcoming
Pharr, Susan J., "Media as Trickster in Japan in Comparative Perspective," in Media and Politics
in Japan, Pharr, Susan J. and Krauss, Ellis S., eds., pp.15-40, forthcoming
Reid, T.R. "Japan's Feisty New Press," Nieman Reports, Fall 1993
"Seiji No Terebika Gensh6 To Shimbun" ["Newspapers and the 'Televization' of Politics"],
Mainichi S'himhbun, editorial, October 15, 1993, p.534_________1_1__^__1___I·_________

"'Seiji To erebi ' No Kcakl.shinz Wo Kokkai Sh6linkanmon No Igi Wo Tou" [Asking the Meaningof the Diet Summons Concerning the Core of 'Politics and Television"'], Sankei Shimbun,
October 25, 1993, p. 2
Tahara, Soichiro, " TV Ga Kinmern Seiji" ["Politics Dictated by TV"], Bungei Shunju, September
1993
Tase, Yasuhiro, Seiji Janarizlum No Tsztmi To Bats, [The Crimes and Punishment of Political
Journalism] Shinch6sha, Tokyo, 1994, p.168"Tere-Asa Ni J6ken- Ts'ki Menky6" ["To TV Asahi, A License With Conditions Attached"]
Asahi Shimbun, November 2, 1993, p. 2
Teshima Ryu'ichi, Washington Correspondent for NHK, and fellow at the Harvard University
Center for International Affairs '94-'95. Personal interview, March 13, 1995.
"Tstbaki Hat.sugeni To Soio Eiky " ["The Tsubaki Statement and its Effects"], Shimbun Kenky-i,
December 1993
"Tsiubaki Zen-Terebi Asahi Ho6d Kyokuch6 No Hatsulgen" ["The Statement of Former TV Asahi
News Director Tsubaki"], Asahi Shimbn, October 23, 1993, p. 2 0"Tsulbaki Zen-Tele-A.sa Kyokiuch6 Sh6ninl Kanmon No Om6 No Naiy6" ["Excerpts from Former
TV Asahi Director Tsubaki's Testimony"], Asahi Shimbun, October 26, 1993
Weinberg, Jonathan, "Broadcasting and the Administrative Process in Japan and the UnitedStates," Buffalo Law Review, Fall 1991, vol.39 no.3 p.6 1 5 - 7 3 535-*Is^lC-"·ICI·----·-

---

---

-

-Raa

-

----------------

--

----

--·