---

The old media (TV, radio, newspapers) and the new media (SNS, web content, other media) #3

Are the old media and some political parties trying to make “freedom of speech” a privilege only for the old media and certain privileged citizens ?

It’s just a rumor, but there is information that the government is considering a law to regulate new media.

This information came during the Ishiba administration.

We believe this discussion has now been dropped, but we feel there is a possibility that the old media and certain political parties could collaborate to push for legislation.

The recent Hyogo governor election clearly reveals that many viewers do not trust the old media. This loss of trust results from their own “long-standing biased coverage” and “culture of attacking specific individuals or groups”.
In other words, it has absolutely nothing to do with the new media.
Attempting to enact regulations against the new media by focusing only during the election period without understanding this background is an extremely dangerous act.

The transition to communism.

If any political party were to enact this law, it would likely suffer a crushing defeat in the next election as the people pass harsh judgment.
We believe enacting this law is a dangerous step that effectively abandons democracy.

Previously, I talked about a “hate speech law in a certain region” here, but it’s being enforced without clear criteria defining what statements constitute a crime.
This means conviction is based not on “what was stated” being problematic, but on “who said it” and “who judged it,” and this allows discrimination against individuals by the judiciary.
Also, there are laws like the “Act on the Promotion of Efforts to Eliminate Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behavior against Persons with Countries of Origin other than Japan” and the “Damage to a Foreign National Flag in Penal Code.” However, hate speech against Japanese people and damaging the Japanese national flag are not regulated by these laws. This creates unequal laws that I believe clearly violate the Constitution. (Judging this law alone might seem acceptable, but when viewed alongside all laws, it becomes an example of inequality.)
We cannot understand why such one-sided laws remain unchanged. If globalisation and equality are truly advocated, all people and all national flags should be treated equally. 
The same line of reasoning applies to discussions about regulating the new media. The reason is that even if this discussion concerns the election period, there is a risk that “freedom of speech” could be guaranteed only for the old media.
Furthermore, during the regulation period, only the old media would be able to distribute content through the new media, potentially becoming a dictatorial regulation that monopolizes even private platforms.

As we have mentioned before, I’ll briefly explain the background of how this issue came up.

The old media continued reporting that seemed like a campaign of criticism during the previous term of Governor Saito.
A no-confidence motion against Governor Saito passed in the Hyogo Prefectural Assembly.
After resigning as Governor of Hyogo Prefecture, former Governor Saito re-ran for re-election to face a second judgment by the prefectural citizens.
Of course, the old media consistently reported in a stance diametrically opposed to the new medias, effectively endorsing candidate Inamura against former governor Saito.

The old media reported that the influence of the new media was significant in this election.
And on one program they said that “(The old media) once an election begins, fairness is guaranteed with fact-checking and verification. They decide not to broadcast anything without fact-checking.” It sounded as if they were saying the new media manipulated public opinion with fake news.
Then they started saying that “the new media should be regulated.”

Clearly, it can be said this is retaliation for the old media’s inability to exert influence (manipulate public opinion).

We believe the discussion about regulating the new media probably focus only on election-related information during the election period. Even so, we consider it a very dangerous kind of regulation.Since I don’t know what kind of regulation is being considered, my concerns might be missing the point, but allow me to list them.
1. The difference in medium
Unlike the new media, the old media uses radio waves which a public property. Therefore, we believe it’s reasonable to have usage conditions.
By the way, the new media uses a huge network connected worldwide that is distinct from radio waves.
2. Contents
The content of the new media is clearly defined by the distributor’s political position and is distributed purely as their own opinion.
This fundamentally differs from the purpose of the old media broadcasts during election periods. In other words, since they use radio waves which a public property, they are not platforms for distributing personal opinions.
※ We have stated that the old media should also clarify their political position. This applies only outside of election periods. During election periods, we want them to provide fair and neutral information for those unable to use the new media.
３．Scope of Regulation
If new media is forcibly regulated, the scope of that regulation becomes an issue.
The new media uses a huge network connecting worldwide. Even if regulations are imposed only within Japan, content distributed from overseas sites can still be viewed normally within Japan.
Do they intend to disconnect the network from overseas during election periods ?
This would be completely overkill.
4. Accelerating Disengagement from Politics
Recently, low voter turnout in elections has become a topic of discussion.
We sometimes hear that since the Takaichi administration, young people have started showing interest in politics.
Restricting personal opinions on politics by regulation could accelerate young people’s disengagement from politics once again.
5. Points and Lines
As mentioned several times before, many people do not distinguish between “broadcasting during election campaigns” and “broadcasting during other periods.” Public impression is formed by everyday broadcasting.
Therefore, even if regulations are imposed only during election periods, do you think people who distrust the old media will suddenly trust it ?

What’s needed is that the old media and their commentators should understand that they are constantly being criticized for biased coverage.
The following is an extract from the Broadcasting Act.

Article 4(1)A broadcaster must comply with the following when editing broadcast programs in domestic broadcasting and domestic and international broadcasting (referred to below as “domestic broadcasting, etc.”):
(i)it must not negatively influence public safety or good morals;
(ii)it must be politically fair;
(iii)its reporting must not distort the facts; and
(iv)it must clarify the contested points from as many angles as possible, if there are conflicting opinions concerning an issue.

Many viewers criticize “biased coverage” because they feel too many programs deviate from the above principles.
However, we don’t believe the old media should be neutral. We simply want them to clearly declare their political position and which parties they support. Just doing that would eliminate criticism of biased coverage. Additionally, by clearly declaring their political position, wouldn’t they become positionally neutral by targeting a specific viewers ?
This also applies to their sponsors, allowing us to understand the foundation of each company’s values.

What we should consider next is the double standard of old media.
The old media obsessively pursues individuals or groups who hold different way of thinking, even if it’s based on doubt. However, they don’t consider the same behavior problematic when it comes to people who share their way of thinking. This issue is separate from political positions.
They should also consider what would happen if viewers, including children, were to imitate such behavior.

---

Reference: The Yomiuri Shinbun (2025/01/04)
https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/politics/20210518-OYT1T50093

Reference: Sponichi Annex (2025/01/04)
https://www.sponichi.co.jp/entertainment/news/2024/11/18/kiji/20241118s00041000196000c.html

Reference: KODANSHA (2025/12/11)
https://gendai.media/articles/-/95524

Reference: SANSEITO (2025/12/11)
https://sanseito.jp/news/n4048/

Reference: THE SANKEI SHINBUN (2025/12/11)
https://www.sankei.com/article/20250810-R3FD4Z5MNBE4DI7NEGQT3KN47Q

Reference: Japanese Law Translation[Broadcasting Act] (2025/12/13)
https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/5047

Reference: Japanese Law Translation[Penal Code] (2025/12/13)
https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3581

Reference: Japanese Law Translation[Act on the Promotion of Efforts to Eliminate Unfair Discriminatory Speech and Behavior against Persons with Countries of Origin other than Japan] (2025/12/13)
https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/4081

Reference: Dai-ichi Life Research Institute, Inc. (2025/12/14)
https://www.dlri.co.jp/report/ld/534431.html

Reference: THE SANKEI SHINBUN (2025/12/14)
https://www.sankei.com/article/20250912-KNAVTPKDLNLMBOU6R2KCYRERIU
https://www.sankei.com/article/20250202-D4YZURBZO5GQLHE2OMQLBYZ4Z4/?outputType=theme_monthly-seiron

Reference: ASAHI SHINBUN (2025/12/14)
https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASTB33T02TB3UHBI029M.html

Reference: CHOSUN Online (2025/12/14)
https://www.chosunonline.com/site/data/html_dir/2025/11/07/2025110780027.html

---

Thanks.
2024/01/05 – 2025/12/25