Watching a recent news conference hastily called by the president of the Asahi Shimbun, Tadakazu Kimura, I got the distinct impression that the liberal daily does indeed have a long way to go before being able to rebuild its tarnished reputation. Although the primary subject of the meeting with the press was given as the daily’s coverage of a confidential government document relating to the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident, Kimura found himself addressing the so-called “comfort women” issue as well.
　　　　　From what was said at the press conference, the one thing that was quite clear is that the Asahi really has no remorse for its record of shoddy reporting.
　　　　　Regarding the so-called “Yoshida File”—the testimony of the late Fukushima No. 1 plant manager Masao Yoshida—Kimura admitted the Asahi erroneously reported that 90% of Yoshida’ staff fled the plant on March 15th, disregarding his order. He apologized to the daily’s estimated 8 million readers as well as the employees of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) to which the plant belongs. He also stated that he is taking the situation very seriously now that his daily faces a major crisis for having lost the trust of its readers and society at large.
　　　　　As concerns the daily’s coverage of the comfort “women” issue since 1982, Kimura had this to say: “We have retracted the articles based on the testimony of Mr. (Seiji) Yoshida (a self-styled “comfort women recruiter”), after having judged that testimony to be fabricated…We wish to apologize to our readers for not having made the correction sooner…As for the impact our handling of the ‘comfort women’ issue may have had on the international community, we plan to set up a third-party panel for a thorough investigation.”
　　　　　But the Asahi should not have apologized to its readers only, because its unprofessional coverage of the “comfort women” issue has brought shame on Japan and all Japanese. The Asahi must sincerely apologize to all the Japanese of the past, the present, and the future.
　　　　　Although Kimura asserted that he was taking the current situation seriously, he must realize that far more serious is the damage that the Asahi’s reporting has inflicted on the trust that the international community has in Japan and its people. Devoid of a clear sense of nationhood, I believe, the people at the Asahi perhaps fail to comprehend what a real national crisis their decades of shoddy reporting has brought about.
　　　　　Read the “Yoshida File,” and one can very easily understand that none of Yoshida’s staff disobeyed his order on March 15th—four days after Fukushima No. 1 was hit by a gigantic earthquake and tsunami—and that Yoshida himself least thought they had deserted him. Why, then, did the Asahi write that Yoshida’s staff abandoned their posts in violation of his order…that 90 percent of them in fact fled the scene?
　　　　　Kimura attributed the false reports to “assumptions” made on the part of writers without sufficient fact-checking, but what was truly stunning was the admission that no Asahi reporters were on the spot on the day of the incident. Below is the gist of the exchange between the press and the Asahi ‘s editorial director, Nobuyuki Sugiura:

Asahi’s Snappish Response

　　　　　Kyodo News Agency: “Regarding the reported violation of Mr. Yoshida’s order, did your reporters contact the plant staff for fact-checking?”
　　　　　Sugiura: “Over the TV, we heard Mr. Yoshida issue the order. But none of our reporters rushed to where Mr. Yoshida and his men were after hearing it.”
　　　　　It is difficult to believe that none of its reporters were on the scene to report on the incident. And yet, the daily went ahead and ran articles conclusively defaming TEPCO plant staff. Sugiura, who later must have realized the implications of his earlier remarks, hastened to add after a further exchange with the press:
　　　　　“I may earlier have given you the wrong impression. I wish to clarify by noting that, at the time, we did not contact anyone on the scene who had heard Mr. Yoshida’s order (that they wait somewhere safe near Fukushima no. 1)…Our reporters certainly were on the spot to cover the incident, but they were not able to hear directly from the people there what was going on.”
　　　　　Should an interviewee fail to provide pertinent evidence, respectable journalism anywhere calls on the journalist to refrain from filing a report. And yet, in this case the Asahi made the determination to go ahead and, of its own volition, publish the story. Another reporter came back to the same issue a few questions later:
　　　　　Reporter: “During the course of your coverage of this story, did your reporters make any attempt to confirm the violation of the plant manager’s order by questioning those on the scene, including subcontractors? Or, did you rely only on notes scribbled down by your reporters concerning this matter?
　　　　　Sugiura: “I believe that was the case at the time.”
　　　　　Without its reporters actually confirming the facts on the ground, how could the Asahi publish these articles that ruthlessly defamed workers who were risking their lives to restore order at the plant? One must suspect some hidden agenda on the part of its editorial staff. A Japan Times reporter pressed the point, asking: “Why did your reporters bring up that specific point about the violation of the order amid the voluminous information contained in the ‘Yoshida File’?”
　　　　　The file is indeed thick, made up of 400 pages of A-4 sheets and containing a multitude of pertinent evidence concerning the accident. The reporter wanted to know why the Asahi selected the violation of the manager’s order as a specific point of interest.
　　　　　To this, Sugiura only vaguely replied that it reflected “the understanding of the story” on the part of his news crew. What did he mean by that?
　　　　　The answer is found on page 2 of the Asahi’s May 20th edition in a report by-lined by Yoshiaki Kimura, entitled: “Look Squarely at Reality in Discussing the Wisdom of Restarting Nuclear Power Plants.” In this article under a subhead reading “What Our Reporter Saw,” Kimura maintained that readers must look squarely at the fact that 90 percent of Yoshida’s staff fled the scene in violation of his order, concluding that, under such circumstances, there is no reason why a restart of nuclear power plants should be permitted.
　　　　　What in fact happened here is that reporter Kimura forged ahead with an article that reflected the Asahi’s corporate stance vis-à-vis Japan’s nuclear power generation without bothering to get pertinent evidence from the workers on the scene. Clearly, the “the understanding of the story” referred to by Sugiura points to the daily’s staunch objection to reopening the nation’s nuclear power plants.
　　　　　As regards the other issue—the “comfort women”—the Asahi’s president had this to say: “We have already published the results of our investigations on August 5th and 6th. I am confident of the results of those investigations.” What made Kimura so confident at this stage, I am totally uncertain, but when a Kyodo reporter promptly asked if the Asahi had any intention of genuinely apologizing over its reporting of the “comfort women” issue, Kimura replied snappishly: “Our August 5th edition says it all.”

Cynical Changing of the Subject

　　　　　When a Japan Times reporter followed up with another question about taking responsibility for the “comfort women” issue, he ducked it by stating: “We are talking about a matter that happened a long time ago. Therefore, it would be difficult to hold those involved in the reporting responsible and take punitive actions against them. We will turn to a third party panel for proper investigation.” In other words, the Asahi is ready to apologize for the delay in recognizing that the “Yoshida testimony” was fabricated, while refusing to assume any responsibility for all other matters involving the “comfort women” issue—including the unsubstantiated claim that the Japanese government and military were directly involved in the recruitment of military prostitutes in wartime Korea.
　　　　　Then came a question from a reporter of the Sankei Shimbun: “You claim that there was no distortion of the truth in the articles by reporter Takashi Uemura, published in your daily in 1991. But Ms. Kim Hak-sun herself admitted she was sold to a gi-saeng house by her parents when she was 14 years old. Based on an exclusive interview with her, however, Mr. Uemura wrote that she ‘was forcibly transported to a military brothel as a member of the Women’s Voluntary Labor Corps.’ Isn’t it an obvious case of intentionally twisting the facts?”
　　　　　Sugiura: “As a respectable newspaper, the Asahi Shimbun does not subscribe to the view that because a person was a gi-saeng, she had no choice but to become a ‘comfort women.’ Reporter Uemura held the same view. In that vein, he did not twist the facts.”
　　　　　This is a cynical attempt to change the subject.
　　　　　The Sankei reporter further demanded to know: “Did Ms. Kim personally testify that she was abducted to a battlefront brothel as a member of the Women’s Volunteer Labor Corps? My understanding is that in her trials, law suits, and press interviews, Ms. Kim never said anything to that effect.”
　　　　　Sugiura: “The articles (in the Asahi’s August 5th edition) say it all. We came up with a correction there, mentioning that our reporters confused members of the Women’s Volunteer Labor Corps with the ‘comfort women.’”
　　　　　Sankei reporter: “You didn’t use the word ‘correction’ in those articles. Do you not intend to apologize for mixing up the two different organizations? What about reporting the lies about 80,000 to 200,000 (Korean) women having been abducted into military brothels, and for various other inaccurate reports in connection with the “comfort women”?
　　　　　Sugiura: “We made clear where we stand vis-à-vis this matter in our August 5th articles.”
　　　　　Nobody will trust a member of the mass media that gives such an evasive and meaningless reply. And yet the Asahi claims: “There is no change at all in our original stance that women must be treated with dignity and their rights protected during times of war, and we will continue to speak out on this issue.”
　　　　　The international criticism against Japan over the “comfort women” issue has resulted from the unsubstantiated reports in the Asahi Shimbun that Korean women—especially young members of the Women’s Voluntary Labor Corps assigned to vital Japanese war industries—were coercively transported to military brothels. But the Asahi has over the years willfully disregarded the truth, now slyly switching the discussion of the “comfort women” issue to that of the broad generalities of women’s human rights. In all candor, I am tempted to say that there really is no medicine that can cure the Asahi.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 623 in the September 25, 2014 issue of The Weekly Shincho)