Toshihiko Tabuchi: Sounding the Alarm on Excessive Compliance in Television Media

2024/09/02

Television media is subject to much stricter compliance constraints compared to other media because its audience (viewers) is orders of magnitude larger. For instance, if backlash such as "causing discomfort to viewers" or "misleading viewers through inappropriate staging" spreads on social media, reputation risk (the danger of corporate value declining due to harmful rumors) increases. Since all commercial television stations in Japan are joint-stock companies, they tend to fear a collapse in stock prices caused by such incidents. These circumstances are why television media has become so sensitive to compliance issues today. At the same time, compliance serves as a "convenient" limiter for TV stations that allows them to shift responsibility. TV stations use compliance as a pretext for "self-regulation," thereby abandoning their duties as media. This article clarifies the current state of compliance in television and offers proposals for how television media should exist in a compliance-oriented society.

The TBS drama "Extremely Inappropriate!" (Futekisetsu nimo Hodo ga Aru!), which satirizes "excessive compliance," became a hot topic and won the Special Award in the Television Category at the 61st Galaxy Awards selected by the Association of Broadcast Critics. This can be seen as proof that everyone laments the current state of TV stations and is mocking the current state of the media. In the drama, which focuses on the gap between compliance in the Showa era and the modern day, a so-called "disclaimer telop" was displayed, stating: "This drama contains inappropriate dialogue and smoking scenes, but in light of the characteristics of this drama, which depicts changes in linguistic expression, culture, and customs over time, we have chosen to broadcast using expressions from 1986." This is a satire by screenwriter Kankuro Kudo on the trend of being hypersensitive to compliance. This can also be seen in the fact that the "disclaimer telops" appear more frequently as the final episode approaches. It vividly represents the reality where the production floor is forced to comply excessively with compliance through "self-regulation" and "word hunting"—with management saying things like "Isn't that scene problematic?" or "You should stop using that word"—and the will of the production floor to resist that situation.

When compliance becomes excessive, it causes "restrictions on expression" and strips away the creativity of creators. As a result, the "true form" of things fails to reach the viewers, potentially undermining their "right to know." I would like to cite an actual example below.

This happened during my time working at a TV station when I dramatized Akira Yoshimura's novel "Hagoku" (Prison Break). There was a scene where the life prisoner Sakuma was placed in heavy handcuffs and shackles to prevent him from escaping. Because he had been imprisoned in that state for so long, the iron shackles rubbed against his skin, causing a rash and dermatitis, which was then left untreated until maggots began to breed. To realize such a realistic scene, the art department prepared real maggots. The actor, Takayuki Yamada, allowed the maggots to be placed on his leg without complaint, and filming was completed. However, management raised an objection to that footage. They asked, "Shouldn't the maggot part be deleted?" The reason was a purely compliance-based "consideration" that it might cause discomfort or revulsion in viewers. I adamantly opposed this and persuaded management, saying, "This is the episode that triggers Sakuma's escape, so the intent will not be conveyed unless the harshness is faithfully expressed." Ultimately, we were able to avoid cutting the maggot footage, but I felt a chilling fear at facing the danger of the creator's "freedom of expression" and the viewers' "right to know" being compromised in the name of compliance.

In another drama, a scene where a criminal flees in a car led to a debate over "whether or not they should wear a seatbelt." I judged that "a fleeing criminal would never bother to wear a seatbelt" and that it "lacks reality," but I decided to film on private property just in case. Then, following instructions from management, a disappointing telop was inserted stating, "Filming was conducted on private property in compliance with laws and regulations."

The reason for the decisions made by TV station management in such cases is, without exception, "just in case." However, we should not simply accept and easily dismiss this trend just because "executives say so" or "it's an order from above." Creators need to be aware that "each individual is a member constituting the television media" and take responsibility. So, what does it mean to "take responsibility"?

It means constantly asking oneself, "Is this okay?" Information is perceived differently depending on the recipient. Emotions when viewing images are also diverse. While maggot footage may be "unbearably disgusting" to some, for the production floor, it is an "indispensable" expression of commitment with a firm intention. I want to point out that cutting such scenes solely from the perspective of compliance not only lowers the "literacy" and "imagination" of viewers but also risks lowering the morale of the production floor and causing them to shrink back.

What is important is the line between the balance of compliance and literacy. Compliance must be observed, but it must not become excessive.