Where does production end and falsehood begin?

Hello.

Recently, there have been a series of incidents that have shaken the "reliability" of television news.

Regarding the LDP presidential election, there was criticism of biased reporting by Nippon TV, TV Asahi, and TBS.

Regarding Nippon TV's reporting on the deer in Nara Park, allegations of fabrication have been raised, with people asking, "Does the witness actually exist?"

Furthermore, there are points being made about TBS allegedly altering the content of an interview with the leader of the Sanseito party, as well as instances of biased and fabricated reporting.

Many people must have felt, "Here we go again." However, what I want to reconsider here is the line between "production" and "falsehood."

The Broadcast Law is merely a "philosophy"
Article 4 of the Broadcast Law sets forth principles such as "being politically fair" and "not distorting facts."

However, violating this does not immediately result in criminal penalties.
In reality, "warnings" from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, recommendations from the Broadcasting Ethics & Program Improvement Organization (BPO), and criticism from viewers serve as the constraints for television stations.

In other words, the Broadcast Law is a "philosophical provision," and the current situation is that it is ultimately left to the autonomy and social evaluation of the stations.

"Staged" incidents etched in history
Looking back at television history, discussions like this are not new.

⚪︎ In the 1980s, during the TV Asahi "Afternoon Show" lynching incident, staff members requested a motorcycle gang to perform a lynching and broadcast footage that presented it as fact. The program ended after receiving social condemnation.

⚪︎ In 2007, Kansai TV's "Hakkutsu! Aruaru Daijiten II" fabricated the "natto diet effect." After viewers were misled, the program was canceled.

⚪︎ In 2008, it was revealed that the testimony regarding secret funds on Nippon TV's "Shinsou Houdou Bankisha!" was false, and the station received a recommendation from the BPO.

In every incident,
the life of the program was cut short the moment it betrayed the "trust" of the viewers.

Recent "gray zones"
Even in the last decade, the boundary between "production" and "falsehood" has often been an issue.

⚪︎ Cases in police-follow programs where meetings or arrest scenes that could not have been filmed were aired in a "re-enactment" style.
⚪︎ Cases in variety shows where non-existent festivals were introduced as "local traditions."
⚪︎ Cases in street interviews where comments were cut and pasted to create an entirely different nuance.

The production side insists it is "production," but from the viewer's perspective, one cannot help but harbor doubts, wondering, "Aren't they distorting the facts?" In the SNS era, this is immediately verified and spread, leading directly to online backlash.

What lies between production and falsehood

What they have in common is:
⚪︎ Excessive production to emphasize realism
⚪︎ Lax reporting systems that skip fact-checking or verification
And a lack of imagination regarding "how viewers will perceive it."

Originally, the technique of "production," which is essential for making programs, is meant to help viewers understand.
However, if one step goes wrong, it is seen as falsehood or fabrication, and trust is lost.

Under a Broadcast Law with no penalties,in the end, the greatest "sanction" is social penalties such as sponsors leaving or programs being canceled.

Even if a shop introduced on TV becomes popular, the power to make things sell or to switch brands is...
So, it seems the nature of sponsors is also changing.

Viewer literacy is the final fortress
Unfortunately, even if we demand something from the stations, it is unlikely to change fundamentally. If so, I think the only thing we viewers can do is to adopt a stance of not believing information unilaterally.

Television does not show "raw reality" as it is; it is always delivered through filters of editing and production.

Just by being aware of that premise, you should be able to avoid being swallowed by bias or falsehood.

In the end, what protects the quality of reporting is the literacy of the viewers.

Isn't it the case that us raising questions and comparing multiple sources of information becomes the greatest power to monitor broadcasting?

Thank you for reading until the end this time as well,
thank you very much!