How Japanese and U.S. election coverage differs

I started writing this article from Washington in the early morning hours. What I wanted to do while in the U.S. this time was to examine the reactions of American voters immediately after the U.S. presidential debate between Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris in real time by comparing the coverage of the major domestic TV networks and cable stations.

I’ve been following U.S. presidential elections for almost half a century, ever since I was a student in Minnesota in the early 1970s. Watching the debate, I am struck once again by how different U.S. media coverage of the world's biggest, longest and most expensive election event — held every four years — is from Japanese media coverage of the Liberal Democratic Party’s presidential election in Japan.

The debate coverage aired by several stations, including FOX News, MSNBC and CNN, was all the same since it was distributed by ABC News, which hosted the event. What I found most interesting, however, was the stark contrast between the commercials that aired during the debate and the comments made by the pundits afterward.

As expected, each station provided very different coverage. For instance, on CNN, the commentary was overwhelmingly positive, likely because they were pleased with the debate’s outcome. They praised Harris extensively, declaring her the winner, well-prepared and qualified to be president. They also noted that she baited Trump effectively and that Trump failed to answer her questions. The praise for Harris was continuous and unreserved.

In contrast, FOX News had a much more negative tone, almost as if they were in mourning. Their coverage included long, bitter comments like "ABC helped Harris" and "Harris didn’t answer any questions." Even comments from their favored pundits seemed to subtly acknowledge Trump’s shortcomings, with remarks such as "At least tonight was Harris’s night," "It was a disappointment for Republicans," and "Harris was well-prepared."

What was most surprising was that FOX News was airing election commercials critical of Trump, which were endorsed by Harris. Meanwhile, CNN was running commercials critical of Harris, endorsed by Trump.

The real-time coverage of the debate in Japan was very different.

Japanese media often provide a more superficial analysis of U.S. presidential elections due to journalists' limited experience and prevailing assumptions. Many reports simply rehash or echo content from U.S. media. The debate was labeled as a 'historic' and 'important event' in Japan, but is this truly accurate?

While it's true that past presidential debates have occasionally influenced candidates' approval ratings, they have generally been more about entertainment than significant impacts on election outcomes. Historically, televised presidential debates have been heavily promoted to boost viewership, but in the end, they've often resulted in a "toss-up" with minimal effect on the November vote.

However, the Biden-Trump debate in July completely shattered this conventional wisdom. Biden's candidacy prompted mainstream Democratic politicians — who had previously acted cautiously or remained silent — to speak out more forcefully. This debate was unprecedented in its impact, making it difficult to compare with any other in recent history. Given the extraordinary nature of this year's Biden-Trump showdown, it remains to be seen what the true impact of today’s debate will be.

What concerns me most is how dull Japanese news coverage of the LDP presidential election is compared to the U.S. Despite Japan having five major TV networks aside from NHK, all the election coverage is remarkably similar, often featuring the same familiar political commentators making uninspired comments.

The issue is not with the quality of Japanese journalism but with Japan's Broadcasting Law. This law requires broadcasters to ensure that their programming remains politically impartial. In practice, political impartiality means that programs must be balanced and free from bias toward any particular political viewpoint.

That’s fair enough, but as far as I know, there are no such legal restrictions in the U.S. anymore. This is why reporting can be so varied.

The legal requirement for impartiality in broadcasting in the U.S. was established in 1949 under the Fairness Doctrine, but was abolished in 1987 during the Reagan administration. As a result, coverage of television debates has become much more diverse. As already mentioned, while center-left media outlets like CNN and NBC openly praised Harris, Fox News defended Trump.

But this is not really unfair because viewers in the U.S. have full freedom of choice.

For better or worse, U.S. journalism meets its responsibility by providing readers and viewers with a range of perspectives and factual information. Observing the dynamic nature of U.S. journalism here in Washington, it seems that Japan’s strong emphasis on "political impartiality" may sometimes prevent its news media from fully informing people about the facts. It may be time for the nation to seriously consider amending its Broadcasting Law to better address this issue.