Probably surprising Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi himself, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) gained a sweeping victory in the House of Representatives election on Sept. 11. Many pointed out that the television coverage of election campaigns had more impact than ever on the long-time ruling party’s historic triumph.
The LDP won a single-party majority, gaining 296 seats of a total of 480 that were up for grabs, while the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), the main opposition party, only gained 113 seats and lost 64. The defeat prompted Katsuya Okada to resign as DPJ party leader immediately.
As an ever-increasing number of Japanese people obtain information about political parties and candidates from television, broadcast news programs and talk shows seemed to have a profound impact on the election results.
“The TV election coverage inundated in our daily lives had enormous influence on the public,” said Toshio Ueki, a director of the public relations office at the Central Committee of Japanese Communist Party. “Many people call us to give us their opinion and request based on what they have seen on TV.”
As more people depend on television for information, one of the keys to the election victory is undoubtedly media management and whether a party wins air time. The LDP as well as Koizumi excelled in these areas, while the DPJ did not, analysts said.
In fact, most of the voters interviewed attributed the DPJ’s loss to inconsistencies among its leaders they saw on news programs and talk shows. They cited some comments made by Ichiro Ozawa, a DPJ deputy leader, which were different from what Okada had said.
Koizumi, however, from the start of the election campaign, was trying to monopolize election debates by focusing solely on postal reform, though opposition parties and experts harshly criticized the prime minister and his party, saying a variety of issues should be discussed. On the campaign trail throughout Japan, the premier, tossing his hair before large audiences, repeatedly threw around such slogans as “Don’t stop reform” and “This election is for postal reform.”
Furthermore, in order to defeat members of his own party who voted against his bills on postal reform in early July, Koizumi dispatched so-called “assassins” to their constituency. The LDP-backed “assassins,” some of whom have no experience in politics, included several telegenic women, whipping the media into a frenzy.
As Koizumi was attempting to turn the election into a national referendum on issues of postal businesses, “the media followed his line, calling the occasion the election of assassins,” the Communist Party’s Ueki said. “In that regard, the election coverage was not fair. In fact, on many occasions, we reported to some news programs about their unfair coverage.
“I’m not saying the media should more often broadcast our point of view, but I’m saying fair coverage is the basic principle. This is not for the sake of one party but for the sake of our democracy.”
Ellis Krauss, a professor of Japanese politics and policymaking at the University of California at San Diego, who was in Tokyo to observe the election, agreed that much of the TV and newspaper coverage was about a few celebrity races.
One of the races that Krauss pointed out was in the Hiroshima No. 6 constituency where Takafumi Horie, Internet mogul and president of Livedoor Co., was running as an “assassin” against former LDP legislator Shizuka Kamei. Kamei voted against Koizumi’s postal privatization bills. Horie, who boasts in his book, “Money can buy people’s hearts. Women can be lured by money,” chose to run as an independent, still backed by the LDP.
“Some of the more important issues got ignored. Even after the election, major stories seem to have been about these few celebrities,” Krauss said. “I think, to some extent, the media missed the real significance of this election — how Japanese politics has changed since the electoral reform.
“Here’s the election in which for the first time Mr. Koizumi is moving Japanese politics toward British-model, top-down cabinet government.”
Focusing on celebrity candidates as well as party leaders, the media made the Japanese public “invisible,” some critics pointed out. There was no such thing as a town meeting in this election.
In Japan, “only party leaders and candidates come out in the media, but the media hardly listen to the voice of the people,” said Yoko Yamaguchi, a member of Kanagawa Net, a local women’s party, who also serves as a city councilwoman in Atsugi near Tokyo. “We don’t see what kind of people are supporting this party, who are supporting that party, or why they are supporting the party. Neither did we see the media reporting undecided voters, asking them why they have not made a decision.”
Ken Takeuchi, CEO of the Japan Internet News, was also critical of the media coverage of the election, saying, “The media failed to look at the situations objectively and in a level-headed manner.”
Takeuchi, whose company launched Japan’s first serious alternative online newspaper, Jan Jan (Japan Alternative News for Justices and New Cultures) two years ago, described the election as “aberrational.”
“Mr. Koizumi set up so-called ‘Koizumi Theater’ and constantly captured media attention, and the media themselves got on the stage. And also voters as a whole seemed to get caught up in that theater,” said Takeuchi, a former Asahi Newspaper editorial board member who also served as mayor of Kamakura, near Tokyo.
In a written statement, the public relations office at Nippon Television Network Corporation (NTV) said the network tried not to be preoccupied with such celebrity races, but tried to practice objective reporting.
While major networks hosted more than a dozen TV debates among party leaders before the election, virtually all of them devoted more time to issues of postal reform and downplayed other issues, especially Koizumi’s controversial decision to deploy the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) to Iraq to support the U.S.-led rebuilding efforts, the first dispatch of the SDF to a war zone.
For instance, during “The Sunday Project” of TV Asahi on Aug. 28, one of the most popular talk shows in Japan, about 20 minutes were spent on postal reform and nine minutes on pension issues. The program’s host, Soichiro Tawara, however, spared little time for other issues. Many other TV commentators followed suit.
“The strongest theme [of this election] is the privatization of postal businesses,” declared Kenichi Takemura, a regular commentator on “Hodo 2001,” a major talk show program of Fuji Television Network Inc (FNN). Network representatives characterized FNN’s coverage of the election as “sober and fair.”
Most opinion polls, however, suggested most voters were not interested in postal reform. According to polls conducted by major daily Mainichi Shimbun a week before the election, 41 percent of those surveyed saw issues of pension, medical care and nursing care as a top policy concern, while 19 percent pointed out the privatization of postal businesses and 14 percent economy-boosting measures.
Analysts agreed that the media failed to raise various issues and let party leaders discuss them.
“The media hosted a number of TV debates, however, they did not ask party leaders a variety of questions such as issues of the U.S. military presence in Okinawa. Even Tetsuya Chikushi (TBS News 23 anchor) did not,” said Akikazu Hashimoto, a political science professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo.
NHK claims the network “had each party discuss wide-ranging topics such as pension issues, diplomacy, defense and constitutional revision, and we believed
we were able to provide voters with information for making a decision.” In addition, we reported
policy issues other than postal business privatization in our election-related news. Therefore,
They added,” We disagree with the criticism that ‘there was not enough discussion on issues other than postal reform.’”
TBS News 23, a nightly news program of Tokyo Broadcasting System Inc., whose anchor, Chikushi, used to cover Okinawa as a young Asahi newspaper reporter, is known for its reports concerning the U.S. military presence on the southern island and discussion on the issues more than other major news programs.
“The mainstream media also did not examine whether Mr. Koizumi had made good on his campaign promises or how such promises had been delivered,” added Hashimoto.
Moreover, critics said that TV news programs and talk shows did not report the contents of the postal businesses privatization bills submitted by the ruling coalition of the LDP andNew Komeito. The media appeared to focus too much on who supported Koizumi’s postal reform and who did not, but seldom reported why they opposed his reform. Oddly, most supporters of Koizumi said they did not know of the bills, but supported him because of his strong leadership and energy.
“The media did not talk about the substance of the postal privatization bills,” said Yamaguchi of Kanagawa Net, who worked in television production for seven years. “Neither did Mr. Koizumi. He just reiterated, ‘We make no headway on reforms without privatizing postal businesses.’”
Eisuke Sakakibara, an influential former vice minister who was nicknamed “Mr. Yen,” emphasized in an interview, “Mr. Koizumi cannot privatize the postal businesses with the bills … initially the government owns 100 percent of this postal company’s shares and at the end it will own one-third. That means the government will be the biggest shareholder and control the company. So this will result in the creation of a bloated state-run business, and we will see money flow from the private sector to the government.”
An expert’s comment like this was hardly reported in major newspapers and networks. Furthermore, on many occasions, Seiko Noda, an LDP member who voted against the bills, asserted on television, “The bills are riddled with flaws.” The media, however, did not report what she meant or what those flaws were.
The public relations office at NTV responded to some criticism, saying the network “made a strong effort to report the contents of ‘postal reform,’ the substance of the [postal privatization] bills and policies that each party put up for the election.”
What seems to be very strange is the restriction on the use of the Internet for political end in one of the most technology-obsessed countries. Japanese election law prohibits parties and candidates from creating or updating homepages or blogs during the 12 days of official campaigning.
The 55-year-old public office election law does not actually mention use of the Internet. According to the Tokyo Metropolitan Electoral Management Committee, a Web site is illegal because the information on the homepage could be printed out and disseminated as a fliers.
Critics said the LDP is reluctant to revise the law because their long-time supporters and members are not technology-savvy people.
“It’s odd, isn’t it?” asked Takeuchi of Japan Internet News. “The law is helplessly backward.”
About webtech
