Reading the October 7 edition of the Asahi Shimbun, I got the distinct impression that its credibility as an organ of public opinion continues to steadily decline.

　　　　　In the edition in question, the liberal daily devoted considerable space to defending Hokusei Gakuin University (located in Sapporo, Hokkaido) and its part-time lecturer Takashi Uemura, a former Asahi reporter accused of writing misleading articles on the “comfort women” issue. It was only in August of this year that the Asahi finally apologized, albeit half-heartedly, for its own role in years of erroneous reporting on this issue.

　　　　　Hokusei recently announced it filed a report to the police after receiving anonymous letters threatening violence unless it discharged Uemura. Uemura himself has appealed for protection, claiming that he and his family are in danger after a family photograph was released on the Internet. He also stated that he is scared of an attack similar to that which occurred in 1987 on the Asahi’s bureau in Nishinomiya, Hyogo Prefecture, in which an unidentified gunman killed one newsman and injured another.

　　　　　In democracy, words must be responded to strictly by words only. Resorting to sordid threats to individuals or attacks on their families is absolutely unpardonable. I wish to once again stress that thinking Japanese do not need the Asahi’s staff, including the columnist of the popular Vox Populi, Vox Dei column, to remind us that freedom of speech is our key national foundation as a democracy. The daily is here once more trying to take the spotlight off of its own transgressions, this time by preaching to us about the obvious wrongfulness of the intimidation directed at Uemura.

　　　　　Noting that “(the Asahi is) willing to listen sincerely to criticism about the errors” in its past reporting (on the “comfort women”), the Vox Populi columnist asserts that “any attempts to use violence to impose decisions on the university—which has nothing to do with the reporting in question—is unforgivable.” He further states that the university “upholds an ideal of building character based on Christianity…” and that demands that the university discharge Uemura because of his past faulty reporting are way off the mark.

　　　　　I may sound like I am repeating myself, but allow me to stress that I don’t have the slightest objection to freedom of speech being strictly safeguarded under all circumstances. However, I do wish to ask the Vox Populi columnist this question:How precisely is Mr. Uemura expected to contribute to the character building of his students?

　　　　　As of this writing (October 14), I have yet to hear that Uemura, who 23 years ago wrote a story erroneously linking “comfort women” with members of the Women’s Volunteer Labor Corps, has taken any action to account for the invented content of his article. His only statement was in the October 14 issue of the daily: “I never fabricated any facts in my articles. In due time, I do intend to explain the situation properly, such as by writing a memorandum.”

Diluting Specifics into Generalities to Avoid Accountability

　　　　　Needless to say, Uemura must be held accountable. However, one wonders what he has been doing in the several weeks since the Asahi belatedly admitted errors in its “comfort women” coverage on August 5. Be it a memorandum or something else, he must explain his actions as soon as possible. In point of fact, if he had a trace of conscience as a former journalist, he would have already come up with a full explanation by now.

　　　　　Is hiring a former journalist, who for 23 long years has not bothered to correct or explain the situation involving his concocted articles, the right thing to do for a respectable university?

　　　　　The Vox Populi columnist seeks to remind us of the importance of “the autonomy of university education” and “academic freedom and freedom of expression.” And yet, Uemura’s fabricated articles are in direct opposition to everything that true academic freedom and freedom of expression stand for. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. When freedom of expression—and words reflecting that freedom—are seriously questioned, the responsibility to explain and correct whatever errors may have been committed must come hand in hand.

　　　　　The columnist, however, completely neglects to touch on such matters, making assertions that almost anyone would find difficult to object to, such as: “We see a move spreading in society aimed at impairing the freedom of those who are not to one’s liking. If such a move goes unchecked, freedom will eventually be lost throughout our society.” Such assertions are nothing but resorting to bluster in the face of criticism.

　　　　　The Asahi’s city news pages hardly convince one that its entire editorial staff, including the Vox Populi columnist, are “ready to listen sincerely to criticism.” In its August 5 edition, it said rather nonchalantly that Uemura “has admitted to have mixed up, by mistake, ‘comfort women’ and members of the Women’s Volunteer Corps.” But in its August 11, 1991 edition, Uemura himself reported:

　　　　　“One of the Korean ‘comfort women’ who was forced into sexual servitude for Japanese soldiers during the Second World War as a member of the so-called ‘Women’s Volunteer Corps’ was recently found to be alive in Seoul. The Korean Council for Women Drafted for Sex Slavery by Japan has started questioning her about her experience.”

　　　　　Uemura deliberately distorted the facts about this woman, Ms. Kim Hak-sun, who had not in fact been a member of the Women’s Volunteer Corps (young women who volunteered to work in Japanese war industries in Korea and Japan) but was a hapless young woman sold into prostitution by her impoverished parents. And yet, he described her as a survivor of the Volunteer Corps who was herded into a Japanese military brothel. His story, depicting the life of this particular Korean woman, was a palpable fabrication of facts—not a discussion in general terms as to whether the members of the Women’s Volunteer Corps and the “comfort women” were the same entity.

　　　　　Still, the Asahi explains that the difference between the two was generally unclear to the Japanese mass media at the time of Uemura’s writing, stressing that he merely “misused” the terms—a desperate attempt by the daily to avoid accountability by diluting the specific into broad generalities. With an absurd excuse such as this, the once respected liberal daily is far from being qualified to claim it is “ready to sincerely listen to criticism.”

　　　　　No other scandal in the history of the Japanese mass media has done more harm to Japan’s image in the international community than this incident created by the Asahi. Its fabrication has led the world to believe that the Japanese military herded foreign women, mostly Koreans, into brothels as “sex slaves,” an outrageous violation of their human rights. Even so, the daily hardly shows any trace of repentance, assuming instead an aggressive attitude in response to criticism and positioning itself as a “victim” in a hopeless attempt to protect itself. This utterly dishonorable lack of responsibility on the part of the Asahi convinces one that it has outlived its usefulness as a respectable national daily. The life of the Asahi as an organ of public opinion—once influential at home and abroad and much respected by its millions of readers—is nearing its end, in the same way as the Japan Socialist Party, the once powerful leading opposition party that now has dwindled to a nominal existence as the Social Democratic Party, with only two seats in the Lower House of parliament.

　　　　　The “comfort women” issue does not represent the only case in which the Asahi has committed a blatant error. It is just one of a series of wrong decisions that the daily has made at every important historical juncture over the last century.

Ideological Bias

　　　　　One does not need to point out how vigorously the daily fanned the flames of war during World War Ⅱ. Even after the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Asahi in its editorial just a day before Japan’s surrender incited the 100 million people of the nation to fight fiercely as one against the “American and British demons.” Then, after the war, the daily abruptly changed its posture.

　　　　　Turning a blind eye to its wartime responsibilities, the Asahi took a firm stand against pre-war and wartime Japan as an evil empire. It became obsessed with its new post-war ideology and refused to see reality—or selectively picked up facts that supported its own assertions. It didn’t mind fabricating stories from time to time, resulting in hopeless errors. Tadae Takubo, Deputy Director of the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals, a privately financed Tokyo think thank I head, has this to say about the Asahi’s ideological bias:

　　　　　“After the war, Shintaro Ryu, the Asahi’s influential editor-in-chief, favored a comprehensive peace treaty as a necessary step toward Japan rejoining the international community. Against the Asahi’s contention, however, the Japanese government signed a treaty (the 1954 San Francisco Peace Treaty) that excluded nations such as the Soviet Union and China. That this was the right decision was subsequently amply proven in view of the world situation that evolved.

　　　　　“Despite this, throughout the 1960s and 1970s the Asahi took a stand steadfastly opposing the US-Japan Security Treaty, praising the Socialist bloc while untiringly maintaining that American nuclear weapons threatened world peace but that Soviet nuclear weapons would bring about world peace.”

　　　　　Although the Cold War was clearly a confrontation between those who advocated one-party dictatorship on the one hand against those who advocated democracy on the other, Takubo points out that the Asahi always interpreted the conflict strictly in terms of socialism versus capitalism. The daily continued to entertain an ideology that capitalism would eventually bow to socialism, leading to the birth of ideal states founded on communism. It is this notion that led the daily to chant its praise of North Korea, glorify China’s Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), and relentlessly criticize America during the Vietnam War.

　　　　　“The daily’s ideological bias has also led to other extremes,” continues Takubo, “such as its support of the leftwing Japan Teachers Union, its promotion of leftwing interpretations of history in school textbooks, and its grossly exaggerated reports on the ‘Nanjing Massacre.’ Publishing concocted ‘comfort women’ articles is but the tip of the iceberg.”

　　　　　One must conclude that only a hopeless end as an organ of public opinion now awaits the Asahi—the once influential liberal daily which stubbornly refuses to show any signs of reflecting in a meaningful way on its past transgressions.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 627 in the October 23, 2014 issue of The Weekly Shincho)