Topics The 37th Public Relations Seminar held ～News Commentary and News Program Production Today
The Public Relations Committee of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Japan (PMAJ) held the 37th Public Relations Seminar on April 13, 2022, at Nomura Conference Plaza Nihonbashi (Chuo-ku, Tokyo). This year's seminar invited NHK commentator Koji Nakamura to give a presentation titled "News Commentary and News Program Production Today" in order for the PR committee members to get in touch with the media's thinking on how society and the public view the pharmaceutical industry and what perspectives should be used to summarize the industry's ideas to the public, and to reflect them in their daily activities. The seminar, entitled "News Commentary and News Program Production Today," was conducted by NHK commentator Koji Nakamura.
Lecture Scene
NHK commentator Koji Nakamura has a deep knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry, including regular participation in events for journalists organized by the Public Relations Committee of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Japan. The seminar also included a presentation on new methods and the "determination" needed to take the first step forward, while also sharing his own experiences.
In the discussion that followed, a member of the Public Relations Committee commented that he had learned that the media also have problems in conveying what they want to say, and that the lecture provided an opportunity to think together about this issue. Yasushi Okada, Chairman of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Japan (PMAJ), referred to the word "preparedness" mentioned at the end of the lecture and commented, "Once again, I would like to continue to communicate not with the interests of individual companies or the pharmaceutical industry, but with a public mindset (a desire to do something useful for everyone) to gain public understanding.
The following is a transcript of Nakamura's speech.
How do we get the public to understand this?
I think the problem that everyone working in the pharmaceutical industry is facing is "how to make the public understand" the vague sense of crisis about what will happen to the drug price system, the drug lag, the future of pharmaceutical companies, and so on.
Those of you in charge of public relations at public relations committees and pharmaceutical companies may feel that it is difficult to convey your thoughts to the public, but I believe that this is also felt by those in the media such as newspapers and television. In the past, people used to read newspapers a lot or watch TV news, but nowadays, I think people are getting more and more information from the Internet. How to communicate things to the world is becoming more and more difficult every year.
Mr. Koji Nakamura, NHK Commentator
When I was working at NHK Kyoto Broadcasting Station, I covered a living donor liver transplant, which at the time was attracting a lot of attention. I believe this was the beginning of my career in medicine. In the last two years, I have focused on novel coronavirus infections, and in NHK's commentary program "Jiryon Koron" alone, I have provided commentary about 70 times in two years. Regarding vaccination, I explained that Japan should hurry up the development of domestically produced vaccines and create a surplus of vaccines for developing countries to use, instead of using vaccines from around the world.
As to whether one should be vaccinated or not, it is up to the individual to decide, and I believe that what I can show from my position as an NHK commentator is to present accurate information on the decision-making process, such as the benefits of preventing infection and serious illness, despite the adverse reactions. However, that message is not being conveyed or understood very well by the younger generation. Whether this is simply because they do not watch TV or whether there is a problem with the way we present the issues and provide explanations is an issue that we are struggling with.
NHK's commentator office holds an evening meeting called the "Evening Meeting" every weekday. About 20 commentators from various fields (politics, economics, society, culture, international, etc.) gather (currently online), and commentators who are not specialists point out things such as "I don't understand" or "the structure is different to begin with. The long-running "Evening Meeting" in the NHK commentator's office has been very effective in improving our commentary skills by allowing us to point out and check issues from various perspectives.
In terms of the structure of a commentary, it is common for people in the science field to say "the basics (A)," then "this is how it is (B)," and finally "the conclusion (C)" ( Fig. 1 ). When I explain in this structure, I am often told, "I don't understand. The preferred structure is exactly the opposite. The preferred structure is exactly the opposite: start with "Conclusion (C)," followed by "Because (B)," "Because (A)," and then "So, Conclusion (C)," and so on, starting with what the person wants to know and developing interest. In short, when explaining, I think it is important to "consider the other person's position and feelings to what extent. I think it is important not to get caught up in what is easy for you to convey, what you prefer, or what is comfortable for you. The "conclusion (C)" that the listener wants to know must be presented in the introduction, not at the end of the presentation. If you do not say "A" or "B," they are even less likely to listen.
Also, if you start with the conclusion, you have the advantage of being able to say, "So (C)," followed by "So (D)," which goes one step further than the conclusion. I think about these things every day in my explanations.
Figure 1: Commentary and viewer understanding
To give you an idea of what I do to help people understand, I would like to share my experience with you: NHK has a "Job Hunting Support News Seminar" for students on its website. Recently, they posted a commentary "Understanding from 1! New Corona" commentary, and the number of accesses has been about 10 million PV so far. Broadcasts are volatile and disappear quickly, but we hope that young people will gain a better understanding of the situation by accessing the website for such commentary, which further breaks down the usual commentary.
Furthermore, when I was in the radio department before, I was in charge of a program called "Everybody's Science Lab Radio. The impetus for this program came from an experience in which I felt the limitations of the way the news was communicated. more than 20 years ago, when I introduced telomere research in the news, I talked with a colleague in the station about decades of research I had heard from a doctor I had interviewed, who said, "Telomeres may actually have something to do with life span. When I told him, he said, "That's very interesting. However, it only made it into a 1:40 minute manuscript, which is the typical length for news. I began to think, "How can I convey the essence of the news?
So I decided to broadcast a two-hour radio program in which I would take a subject from the month's science news and explain it in depth. I would explain things that my guests did not understand, such as the Theory of Relativity and artificial photosynthesis, until they understood them. In a sense, it was an experimental program that lasted for more than two years, as I tried to achieve what I could not do in the news about telomere research.
I am trying to find a way to make it work, but it is not going well. It is a big problem that what I cover and what I want to convey do not reach the audience very well. So, what should I do? First of all, I think it is necessary to "listen to what the other person has to say" and to "try new methods," even though there may be failures. I know that my doing one program and the pharmaceutical companies taking on new challenges have different meanings, but unless we do something like that, I don't think we will be able to make a breakthrough.
In addition, I cannot give a clear answer to the question of "how to make the public understand" the problems faced by the pharmaceutical industry, but I do think that we need to be "prepared" to solve the problems. The public and politics are involved, but I believe that the pharmaceutical companies must also have a great deal of resolve in order to move this issue in the right direction.
Not only do we have that resolve, but we will also show it to the other side. With time being limited, I think we are now at the stage where we have to ask ourselves who among the public, politics, and pharmaceutical companies must and should be the first to do this. I feel that it is important to think from such perspectives as how the other side will perceive the information, whether it is presented in a way that will interest them, or whether new and different methods should be explored.
( Takafumi Adachi, General Manager, Public Relations Department)