Reeling from a “double Yoshida shock,” it is clear it will take considerable resolve and effort on the part of the Asahi Shimbun to have any hope of recovering its position as a responsible member of the media.

　　　　　The first “Yoshida shock” concerns the false statements of Seiji Yoshida. Over the course of 32 years, the Asahi gave major play to Yoshida’s fabricated story about the forced transportation of “comfort women” by Japan’s army during World War II. As “comfort women” memorials continue to be erected in America and this fiction continues to be used by South Korea and China for their own ends, the Asahi at long last ran articles on August 5th and 6th stating that Yoshida’s story had been fabricated. After 32 years, they have finally been forced to admit that his testimony was false. This is the first “Yoshida shock.”

　　　　　The second “Yoshida shock” is the revelation of the distorted coverage of the testimony of Masao Yoshida, the plant manager of TEPCO’s Fukushima #1 Nuclear Power Plant. On May 20th the Asahi ran a major scoop on its front page, reporting that in closed testimony before a government panel Yoshida had stated that plant workers had evacuated the plant in violation of his orders. The Asahi wrote: “On the morning of March 15, 2011, in violation of the plant manager’s orders to stand by, 90% of the workers at the plant evacuated to Fukushima #2 Plant, some 10 kilometers away.”

　　　　　In support of its report, the Asahi quotes Yoshida as saying, “I didn’t really tell the workers to go to Fukushima #2 Plant. I told them to evacuate to an area nearby with low radiation and wait there for further orders.”

　　　　　On page 2 of the same issue, reporter Hideaki Kimura wrote, “In this debate over resuming operations at nuclear plants, how do we deal with the fact that 90% of the workers at Fukushima #1 chose to desert their posts?” In the same article, Kimura wrote, “When he found out that 90% of the workers had ignored his orders, Yoshida said he thought at the time that ‘there was nothing to be done about it.’”

PUBLIC ATTITUDES CHANGE AFTER ASAHI REPORTS

　　　　　In the Asahi articles, there is a not too subtle message that the employees and subcontractors operating our nuclear plants––workers such as those at Fukushima #1 who did not follow orders and deserted their posts––can not be trusted to operate these plants and that operations should not be resumed.

　　　　　In this same issue, there are a number of other references to “90% of the workers ignoring orders and fleeing to Fukushima #2.” The Asahi also reported that efforts had been made to hush up the incident.

　　　　　International perceptions of the situation at Fukushima #1 changed dramatically after the Asahi articles. Until then those dealing with the accident had been praised as heroes doggedly doing their best in a very difficult situation; now they were despised as cowards who had run away, not dissimilar to the captain and crew of the ferry that recently sank in South Korea.

　　　　　Then on August 18th the Sankei Shimbun came out with its own reports contradicting everything that had earlier been written by the Asahi. Headlines in the Sankei declared, “Abandonment of Plant Denied” and “No Violation of Orders.”

　　　　　Ryusho Kadota has written a book about Yoshida’s experiences: On the Brink of Death: Masao Yoshida’s 500 Days at Fukushima #1 (Tokyo: PHP Kenkyujo, 2012). Kadota emphasizes anyone who had spent time on-site at the plant would realize that it would not have been possible for the workers to desert their posts against orders.

　　　　　In an interview in the magazine Seiron, Yoshida says, “Reporters from NHK, Kyodo, and other outlets with staff seriously following this issue knew these reports were false. This was of course true of the people working on-site as well.”

　　　　　How is it that two newspapers can report so differently on this same testimony from Yoshida? If you read the Sankei articles, the reason becomes quickly apparent: the Asahi quoted only selective parts of Yoshida’s statement. For example, after Yoshida’s quote in the Asahi, “I didn’t really tell the workers to go to Fukushima #2,” he was asked this question:

　　　　　“What were you thinking when you ordered the workers to ‘evacuate to a nearby area?’”

　　　　　Yoshida responded as follows:

　　　　　“Once the radiation levels had come down somewhat, my intent was to have them evacuate to somewhere nearby, but in their protective gear, they would last only so many hours, after which they would die. I realized they were undoubtedly better off going to Fukushima #2.”

　　　　　Yoshida clearly was in agreement with the choice of his workers to go to Fukushima #2, and is indignant that some people would choose to see this as a desertion of duty:

　　　　　“‘Didn’t your workers run away? If they ran away, tell us!’ The bureaucrats and the people back at headquarters are having these senseless debates, but I’m telling you in no uncertain terms: my workers did not run away!”

　　　　　Yoshida obviously does not feel that his workers abandoned their posts in violation of his orders. Indeed, in his testimony he praised their bravery numerous times. This is what he had to say about sending some of his workers into a particularly dangerous area immediately after the explosion of Reactor #3.

　　　　　“I had to bow my head and ask them to get ready to pour water into the core. Everyone’s willingness to go really moved me.”

THE “ASAHI WAY”: CRITICIZING JAPAN

　　　　　No matter how one looks at it, clearly Sankei’s coverage of this incident is more trustworthy than Asahi’s.

　　　　　Asahi’s method of reporting is distorted. It selectively take pieces of a story and then blows them up, giving a picture that is often far removed from reality. At the Asahi, young reporters learn from an early stage that this is how they are to write their stories.

　　　　　Yoshida’s testimony has not yet been made public, but following the stories in the Asahi and the Sankei, the government has announced that it will release all of his testimony in September.

　　　　　While the Sankei has exposed Asahi’s unfair and disparaging coverage of the courageous workers at Fukushima#1, it is likely that the Asahi’s reporting of this incident will be found to be even more distorted when the government releases the full testimony. The Asahi is in store for a second “Yoshida shock.”

　　　　　The common element in both Yoshida stories is the Asahi’s penchant for criticizing Japan. Apparently having abandoned the responsibility that any media outlet has to report stories in an unbiased manner, the Asahi has instead developed an entrenched ideology that promotes criticism of Japan and its people.

　　　　　I would like to bring attention to one more point in Yoshida’s testimony. That would be this: that in the 56 minutes between the occurrence of the megaquake and the arrival of the tsunami at Fukushima #1, there was no water leakage or damage to any of the equipment. If there had been any damage, the emergency alarms would have sounded, but there was no such warning. This completely contradicts the claims of Mitsuhiko Tanaka, former member of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigative Committee of the Diet, that pipes had burst prior to the tsunami hitting the plant.

　　　　　The assertions of those who advocate banning nuclear power based on the supposed damage to Fukushima #1 have been contradicted by the testimony of Masao Yoshida, who was there on-site the day the quake and tsunami struck. I’m looking forward to the government’s release of the full transcript of his testimony.

(Translated from Renaissance Japan column no. 620 in the September 4, 2014 issue of The Weekly Shincho)