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

Television media is subject to strict compliance (hereinafter referred to as "compliance") requirements because the number of recipients (viewers) is orders of magnitude larger than that of other media. For example, if backlash such as "causing discomfort to viewers" or "misleading viewers through inappropriate staging" spreads on social media, reputation risk (the risk 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 the reason why television media has become sensitive to compliance issues today. At the same time, compliance is a "convenient" limiter device that allows television stations to shift responsibility. Television stations use compliance as a pretext to impose "self-regulation," thereby abandoning their duties as media. This article clarifies the current state of compliance in television and offers recommendations on how television media should exist in a compliance-oriented society.

The TBS drama "Extremely Inappropriate!", which satirized "excessive compliance," became a hot topic and won the Special Award in the Television Category of the 61st Galaxy Awards selected by the Association of Broadcast Critics. This can be seen as proof that everyone laments the pathetic state of television 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 era, a so-called "disclaimer telop" was shown, 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 use expressions from 1986 for the broadcast." This is a satire by screenwriter Kankuro Kudo on the trend of becoming hypersensitive to compliance. This can also be read from the fact that the "disclaimer telops" appear more frequently as the final episode approaches. It truly represents the reality that "self-regulation" and "word hunting" are being carried out by top management at television stations—with comments like "Isn't that scene problematic?" or "It's better to avoid that word"—forcing excessive compliance on production sites, and the will of the production sites 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 viewers, potentially undermining their "right to know." I would like to provide an actual example below.

This happened during my time working at a television station when I dramatized Akira Yoshimura's novel "Hagoku" (Prison Break). There was a passage where the prisoner serving a life sentence, 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, leading to an infestation of maggots. 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, the footage was questioned by top management. They asked, "Shouldn't the maggot part be deleted?" The reason was a purely compliance-based "consideration" that it might cause discomfort or disgust among viewers. I adamantly opposed this, persuading the management that "this is the episode that triggers Sakuma's escape, so the intent will not be conveyed unless the severity is faithfully expressed." In the end, we were able to avoid cutting the maggot footage, but I was terrified to face 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 "there is no way a fleeing criminal would bother to put on a seatbelt" and that it "lacks reality," but to be safe, we decided to film on private property. 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 television station management in such cases is, without exception, "just in case." However, we should not simply accept and easily dismiss such trends 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 site, it is a "vital" expression of craftsmanship with a firm intention. I would like 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 site and causing them to shrink back.

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