Facing a BPO Review in Japan: Understanding the Process for Human Rights and Ethics Complaints

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 9 min read

When a television program in Japan elicits complaints regarding potential rights violations or serious ethical breaches, broadcasters may find themselves under the scrutiny of the Broadcasting Ethics & Program Improvement Organization (BPO). The BPO (放送倫理・番組向上機構 - Hōsō Rinri Bangumi Kōjō Kikō) is an independent, self-regulatory body established jointly by Japan's public broadcaster, NHK, and the Japan Commercial Broadcasters Association (JBA). Its mission is to uphold broadcasting ethics, enhance program quality, protect individual rights from media infringement, and respond to viewer complaints. Understanding the roles and procedures of its key adjudicatory committees is essential for any media organization operating in or producing content for the Japanese market. This article provides an overview of the two main BPO committees that handle such complaints: the Broadcasting Human Rights Committee (BHRC) and the Broadcasting Ethics Verification Committee (BEVC).

The Broadcasting Ethics & Program Improvement Organization (BPO): An Overview

The BPO serves as a crucial non-governmental mechanism for accountability and improvement within the Japanese broadcasting industry. It aims to resolve disputes and address ethical concerns without resorting to formal legal proceedings, thereby fostering public trust in broadcasting. Its decisions, while not legally binding in the same way as court judgments, carry significant weight within the industry and with the public. The BPO's work is primarily carried out through its specialized committees.

1. The Broadcasting Human Rights Committee (BHRC): Protecting Individual Rights

The Broadcasting and Human Rights/Rights Concerning Broadcasting Committee (放送と人権等権利に関する委員会 - Hōsō to Jinken tō Kenri ni kansuru Iinkai), commonly known as the BHRC, was established in May 1997. Its primary function is to address complaints from individuals who believe their fundamental rights have been infringed by broadcast content.

Mandate and Scope of the BHRC:

  • Core Focus: The BHRC primarily deliberates on allegations of infringement of personal rights by broadcast programs. This includes claims related to:
    • Defamation (名誉毀損 - meiyo kison)
    • Damage to reputation or credit (信用毀損 - shin'yō kison)
    • Invasion of privacy (プライバシー侵害 - puraibashii shingai)
    • Infringement of portrait rights (肖像権侵害 - shōzō-ken shingai)
  • Related Ethical Breaches: The committee also addresses breaches of broadcasting ethics that are directly associated with such rights infringements.
  • Other Grounds for Review (at the Committee's Discretion):
    • Complaints from individuals who have suffered significant disadvantage due to "markedly unfair or unjust broadcasting".
    • Allegations of rights violations that occurred during the newsgathering or production process for a program that was eventually broadcast.

Initiating a Complaint with the BHRC:

  • Who Can Complain: Complaints are primarily accepted from the individual whose rights were allegedly infringed, or their direct legal representatives or close family members acting on their behalf. Complaints from organizations may be accepted if the committee deems it appropriate based on the group's nature and the necessity of redress.
  • Time Limits: Generally, a complaint must first be made to the broadcaster within three months of the original broadcast date. If the matter is not resolved with the broadcaster, a formal complaint can then be filed with the BHRC, typically within one year of the broadcast date. However, the BHRC has shown some flexibility, for instance, by accepting a case where a program remained accessible on the broadcaster's website more than a year after its initial airing.
  • Exclusions from BHRC Review: The BHRC generally does not handle:
    • Matters that are concurrently being litigated in a court of law. If a complainant or broadcaster takes the issue to court during a BHRC review, the BHRC typically suspends its deliberation to avoid conflicting outcomes.
    • Complaints that solely seek monetary damages from the BPO itself (as it is not a compensatory body).
    • Complaints directed against individual production staff members personally, rather than the broadcasting station.
    • Complaints solely concerning commercials (which are usually handled by a separate advertising standards body).

The BHRC Deliberation Process:

The BHRC process is quasi-judicial and typically involves the following stages:

  1. Formal Written Complaint: The complainant must submit a formal written complaint to the BHRC using a designated format.
  2. Broadcaster's Response: The BHRC requests a detailed written response from the implicated broadcaster, which usually includes their view on the matter, details of any prior negotiations with the complainant, and a recording of the broadcast program in question.
  3. Decision to Deliberate: The BHRC reviews the initial complaint and the broadcaster's response to determine if the case meets the substantive requirements for a full deliberation.
  4. Exchange of Submissions: If a full deliberation proceeds, there may be further rounds of written submissions, allowing the complainant to rebut the broadcaster's response and the broadcaster to provide a surrebuttal.
  5. Hearings: The committee typically holds hearings where both the complainant (who may be accompanied by legal counsel) and representatives from the broadcasting station (often including relevant production staff, legal department members, and crisis management personnel) can present their views directly to the committee members. This process has an adversarial quality, with each side presenting its case.

Outcomes and Decisions of the BHRC:

Based on its findings, the BHRC issues either:

  • "Recommendations" (勧告 - kankoku): These are typically issued for more serious findings of rights infringement or ethical violations and strongly urge the broadcaster to take specific corrective actions and implement measures to prevent recurrence.
  • "Opinions" (見解 - kenkai): These are issued for cases where a formal recommendation is not deemed necessary. An "Opinion" can still find that a broadcast was problematic from a rights or ethics perspective, or it can conclude that no such violation occurred.
    The BHRC also has the authority to request the broadcaster to air a summary of its decision, thereby informing the public of the outcome and the issues involved. The BHRC's deliberations consider both whether a legal right (such as privacy or reputation) was infringed according to established legal standards and case precedent, and whether broader broadcasting ethics (based on industry codes and BPO's own ethical standards) were breached.

2. The Broadcasting Ethics Verification Committee (BEVC): Upholding Public Trust and Program Integrity

The Broadcasting Ethics Verification Committee (放送倫理検証委員会 - Hōsō Rinri Kenshō Iinkai), or BEVC, was established in May 2007. Its creation was spurred in part by high-profile incidents of program fabrication (such as the "Aru Aru Daijiten II" data manipulation scandal which predated but highlighted the need for such a body), and it is tasked with addressing broader issues of broadcasting ethics that might not necessarily involve a direct infringement of a specific individual's legally defined rights but nonetheless damage public trust in broadcasting.

Mandate and Scope of the BEVC:

  • Primary Focus: The BEVC's core mission is to enhance broadcasting ethics and improve the quality and integrity of television programming. It examines the ethical appropriateness of program content and the methods used in program production and newsgathering.
  • Key Areas of Concern: Issues frequently dealt with by the BEVC include:
    • False or misleading reporting.
    • Staged or fabricated scenes presented as reality.
    • Significant factual errors that could cause substantial misunderstanding among viewers.
    • Other serious lapses in journalistic or production ethics that undermine the credibility of broadcasting.

Dual Procedures of the BEVC: "Review" (審議) and "Deliberation" (審理)

The BEVC employs two distinct types of procedures:

  1. "Review" (審議 - shingi): This is a broader procedure used to examine "issues related to program content or the process of program production that are deemed problematic from a broadcast ethics perspective". A "Review" can be initiated for specific programs that raise ethical questions even if they do not involve clear factual falsification, or it can be used to explore industry-wide ethical themes or problematic trends.
  2. "Deliberation" (審理 - shinri): This is a more formal and intensive process reserved for specific programs where there is a "suspicion that a program containing false information was broadcast, thereby causing significant misunderstanding among viewers". This represents a higher threshold for intervention and has been used more sparingly by the BEVC, indicating a restrained approach to initiating full "Deliberations".

Initiation of BEVC Action:

Unlike the BHRC, BEVC action is not solely dependent on complaints received from directly affected individuals or victims. The BEVC can initiate a "Review" or "Deliberation" based on various triggers, including:

  • A broadcaster's own internal report of a serious ethical lapse or production error.
  • Complaints or significant opinions submitted by viewers to the BPO.
  • Serious concerns raised by media coverage (e.g., newspaper articles or online reports) about a problematic program.
  • Referrals from other BPO committees or by the committee's own motion based on its monitoring of broadcast content.

Investigative Powers and Procedures of the BEVC:

The BEVC possesses robust investigative capabilities to fulfill its mandate:

  • It can require broadcasting stations to submit relevant documents, program recordings (including unedited footage), production notes, and other materials pertinent to its investigation.
  • It conducts hearings with involved parties, which can include station executives, producers, directors, journalists, and, significantly, staff from external production companies if they were involved in creating the program in question. (Broadcasters who are members of the JBA or NHK have committed to ensuring that their subcontracted production entities will cooperate with BPO investigations ).
  • Special Investigative Teams (特別調査チーム - tokubetsu chōsa chīmu): For particularly complex, serious, or systemic cases of ethical failure, the BEVC has the authority to establish a dedicated Special Investigative Team. This team, often composed of external experts alongside BPO staff, can conduct in-depth, and if necessary, on-site investigations. An example of this was the BEVC's investigation into the "Shinsō Hōdō Bankisha!" case, which involved allegations of faked payments to sources for a news segment.
  • Recommendation for Broadcaster-Led Independent External Investigation: In situations involving extremely widespread or deeply systemic ethical failures within a broadcasting organization (akin to the circumstances that led to the "Aru Aru Daijiten II" scandal), the BEVC can recommend that the broadcaster itself establish and fund an independent external investigation committee to thoroughly examine the problems and propose reforms. To ensure the credibility of such committees, the BEVC can provide input on the selection of its members and the scope of its investigation.

Outcomes and Decisions of the BEVC:

  • For "Deliberations" (shinri): Following a full deliberation, the BEVC issues either "Recommendations" (勧告 - kankoku) or "Opinions" (見解 - kenkai), similar in nomenclature to those of the BHRC. These can be highly critical and may include requirements for the broadcaster to:
    • Formulate and publicly disclose a detailed plan to prevent recurrence of similar ethical violations.
    • Report to the BEVC on the progress and implementation of this prevention plan.
    • Broadcast a summary of the BEVC's decision and findings to its audience.
  • For "Reviews" (shingi): Following a review, the BEVC typically issues an "Opinion" (意見 - iken), which is also made public. These opinions can be critical, identifying ethical problems in program content or production processes and suggesting improvements or areas for reflection by the broadcaster and the industry. However, "Opinions" resulting from a "Review" generally do not include the formal, binding requirement for the broadcaster to submit a recurrence prevention plan, though voluntary corrective action and reporting are often expected and encouraged.

Key Distinctions and Interplay Between the BHRC and BEVC

While both committees operate under the BPO umbrella and are committed to improving broadcasting standards, their primary focuses and operational modes differ:

  • The BHRC is primarily reactive, responding to complaints from specific individuals who allege that their personal rights (such as reputation or privacy) have been directly infringed by a broadcast. Its process is somewhat akin to an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, aiming to provide redress or a finding concerning harm to individual rights.
  • The BEVC can be more proactive and systemic. It is capable of initiating investigations based on a wider range of triggers, not just individual complaints. Its focus is on broader issues of broadcast ethics, the accuracy and integrity of program content, the soundness of production methodologies, and maintaining the overall public's trust in broadcasting. The BEVC often deals with cases where the primary harm is to the integrity of information, journalistic standards, or public discourse, even if no single individual's specific legal "rights" have been actionably violated in a way that would sustain a traditional court claim.

Broadcaster Obligations When Facing a BPO Review

Broadcasters in Japan (specifically NHK and members of the JBA, which covers virtually all commercial broadcasters) are under a strong obligation to engage seriously and cooperatively with both the BHRC and the BEVC:

  • Duty to Cooperate: They must cooperate fully with all investigations. This includes providing requested information, program recordings, internal documents, and ensuring that relevant personnel (including those from contracted production companies) are made available for hearings or interviews.
  • Implementing Recommendations and Opinions: Although BPO decisions are not court orders and lack direct legal enforceability in the same way, there is immense industry pressure and a strong public expectation that broadcasters will take BPO findings and recommendations with utmost seriousness. They are expected to implement any recommended corrective actions or recurrence prevention plans. Failure to do so can result in significant reputational damage and further scrutiny.
  • Broadcasting BPO Decisions: If requested by a BPO committee as part of its decision, broadcasters are generally expected to broadcast a summary of the committee's findings regarding their program, ensuring transparency with their own audience about the issues raised and the outcome of the BPO's review.

Conclusion

Facing a review by either the BPO's Broadcasting Human Rights Committee or its Broadcasting Ethics Verification Committee is a significant event for any Japanese broadcaster, signaling serious concerns about a program's content or production. Understanding the distinct mandates, procedural frameworks, investigative powers, and potential outcomes associated with each committee is crucial for navigating the BPO review process effectively and responsibly. Both committees play indispensable roles in Japan's robust system of broadcast self-regulation, striving to protect individual rights, uphold the highest ethical standards, ensure the accuracy and integrity of programming, and ultimately maintain and enhance public trust in the broadcasting media. For broadcasters, transparent cooperation and a demonstrable commitment to addressing any identified issues are key to a constructive and ultimately beneficial engagement with the BPO.