NHK under fire
First of all, the motive for adding subtitles that are not true is unclear. Well, whatever it is, the subtitle fiasco is not going away.
It's a politically sensitive subject, and the subtitles are not factual, which could be seen as a public broadcasting service, not a state-run one, broadcasting on the side of the government.
It is unlikely that the situation will ever be resolved, but it is unlikely that drastic reforms will be made. It's about time for public broadcasting to get some votes.
It's about time that the public broadcasting system is overhauled, and we should be grateful for what it has done.
In the first place, there is no need for NHK to engage in variety shows or any other business that would generate a lot of revenue. Whether it is Kohaku or Taiga dramas, the public nature of these programs is unknown, and those who like them can watch them.
The same is true for BS broadcasting of big league baseball games and other sports broadcasts, which I am personally indebted to. I think people should be able to watch what they want to watch on cable TV or other subscription-based services.
In the case of politics, there are a lot of sources that are actively reporting or propagandizing in many fields, so it is not worth NHK's time to broadcast something that is biased or untrue, which could be criticized as poor propaganda on the part of the government. There are probably people who are paid to give false testimonies on NHK*, and if you choose the right people, you can pick up as many arbitrary voices as you want. There are people who are paid to give false testimony on NHK.
It is possible to pretend to be on the side of the opposing forces and make claims to discredit them.
There is no limit to what you can do if you start to suspect, and you can do anything you want.
On the other hand, there are important things that are not profitable at all. For example, live coverage of the Diet session (no one but the most politically connected would watch a Diet session on cable TV), 24-hour disaster information, and speeches by politicians (based on the Public Office Election Law). Political material will be all over YouTube, but live political information is difficult to find in some places. I would like to see something objective. Also, disaster information is useful but difficult to monetize. It is unlikely that many people would sign up for a disaster information channel just in case, and it would cost a lot of money to provide 24/7 support (even if you get the information from the government. (Even if you get information from the government, you will also need to be able to move around during a disaster to some extent. It is not possible to have commercials during times of disaster, and I think it would be a little bit difficult to have information that is usually about depth 1...and on and on. It is possible to have a weather forecast as well, but it would be difficult, and I would like to see this kind of information as a national minimum. Political speeches are also essential from the perspective of fairness. It is important in a democracy to be able to broadcast speeches throughout the country regardless of financial power.
NHK should be split up and the former fully privatized as a profit-making company (although the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications (MIC) would probably have to own a portion of the shares at first), and the airwaves should be auctioned, with the possibility of bankruptcy if the auction does not yield enough revenue.
If there is a concern about too much vulgarization, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC), which is a shareholder of the company, can put a stop to it, but too much government involvement is not good. However, restrictions on foreign investment will be put in place.
On the other hand, I think the latter should be nationalized.
On the premise that as a state-run TV station, it should convey the government's views, but it should also provide information on disasters, provide live coverage of the Diet, and broadcast speeches fairly from each party.
The content would be so boring that almost no one would watch state-run TV, and it would be the minimum content for a national minimum, which would be operated by taxpayers. In terms of content, there are only government views, government PR, speeches by politicians, disaster/weather information, and live coverage of the Diet. The live broadcast of the Diet would be more extensive than NHK's current broadcast, and all committee meetings would be broadcast.
Use fixed cameras as much as possible, without editing, without spending money, and keep the speeches of politicians as they are. At any rate, make it possible to understand the "originals" (broadcast the submitted materials as they are, just as in political broadcasts).
Even so, there is a possibility of arbitrariness in the selection, but we will take advantage of the fact that it is a state-run program and stick to it as is, without seeking to make it interesting.
If I have to do something else, I will translate foreign broadcasts. Although mistranslations are not impossible, the basics are the same. If the subtitles are left as they are, with no overlap, either in Japanese or with simultaneous interpretation (with the secondary audio remaining the same), even if a mistake is made, it won't be a big problem because people who understand the original language will be able to see it. In the first place, anything that goes beyond the scope of mistranslation would be considered falsification, and could be sued by foreign media.
This may be an important feature that commercial broadcasters cannot provide.
The current NHK has too many problems, it is criticized by both the left and the right (the right says it is more leftist, the left says it is more rightist, and the right says it is like a propaganda agency of the government), it is often under fire for its content, and many of its programs are full of inaccuracies. In fact, most of the specialized programs are often under fire for their content, and many of them are full of inaccuracies, and I don't know where they are going. In fact, most of the specialized programs are halfway leveled and look difficult and respectable, but the content is pretty bad or elementary, or full of intricacies and non-technical to make it easy to get into), and there is nothing you can do about it.
Not only the program that went up in flames this time, but all the programs are not high in quality level, for example, a fake history program with a historical novelist and an announcer. I don't know if it's a novel, historical content (with controversy), or something else, but they make episodic or entertaining programs. I don't mean to say that there is anything wrong with the "funny" type of history, but that's what cable TV is for, and people who like history should be able to watch it (and the level of interest should be divided there. (Also, the level should be divided into those who like history, whether it's a full-fledged academic series, a funny episodic series, a history that can be used for business management (actually, it's impossible)! or novels, etc.)
The same goes for music, art, technology, politics, and economics. The occasional debate between politicians is about as decent as it gets.
I often wonder what is the point of broadcasting personal subjectivity on public TV (I think it's fine if it's done on YouTube, cable TV, or commercial TV because it's popular).
Of course, in the end, there is no other way but to include "subjectivity," so it is important to cross multiple "subjective" viewpoints, but this is not the case. It should introduce the viewpoints and opinions of both the opposition party and the ruling party, but it is indifferent to one side (the current flare-up is the end result of that), and there is almost no attitude of inviting members of both parties to comment on their own stories, as is done overseas.
→It is important to have both sides of the argument, not just the ruling and opposition parties.
(This is more reasonable.) Even if they stay in bed, the necessary things should remain state-run (rather than offering poor editing incentives. ) The rest should be privatized.
In any case, I think it is time for a drastic reform in the context of information law.
*** Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) ***