If we Japanese truly wish to safeguard our basically sound democratic society, we must naturally make every effort to respect freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I believe freedom of speech must particularly be cherished as a fundamental national value.

　　　　　That said, I harbor serious reservations about the mass media’s criticism of author Naoki Hyakuta for his recent alleged remarks concerning the two major dailies in Okinawa that oppose the current proposed legislation to expand Japan’s international security role. I also seriously question the response that has been made to this incident on the part of the ruling Liberal-Democratic Party (LDP).

　　　　　On June 24, Hyakuta was invited to speak before a study group of some 40 younger LDP lawmakers, ostensibly to discuss the administration’s culture and art policies. Subsequent press reports of Hyakuta’s “off-the-record” remarks about The Okinawa Times and The Ryukyu Shimpo caused an uproar, with the Asashi Shimbun’s digital edition on June 27 carrying a headline charging Hyakuta and the study group with having “Threatened Press Freedom in Okinawa.” The LDP then quicky dismissed the director of the party’s Youth Division which sponsored the study group, banning him from executive posts for the next year. “The two major Okinawa dailies must be closed down,” Hyakuta was quoted as saying.

　　　　　Under what circumstances were the alleged remarks made? Hyakuta himself explained to me that he spoke for about an hour before the group, with its organizers having assured him that his would be an “off-the-record” presentation, except for a brief photo session for the press preceding his lecture. Recalled the author:

　　　　　“After the photo session, all members of the press left the room. However, I saw what looked like several ears through a frosted glass partition—obviously some of the reporters had their ears glued to it, determined to hear what I had to say. For a moment I was concerned that they would hear everything I had to say as my voice is loud and I would be speaking through a microphone. But I decided to go ahead, as I expected the press to understand the nature of my presentation. Besides, I had heard from the man in charge of the session that it would clearly be against the rules if the press were to quote me.”

　　　　　In Japan, what is generally understood as an off-the-record statement before members of the press is in actuality frequently quoted. In other words, the “off-the-record” rules practiced in Japanese journalistic circles cannot necessarily be counted on. In such a climate, Hyakuta was asked to comment on the media in Okinawa during a question-and-answer session: “The media in Okinawa obviously have been taken over by leftwing elements. What countermeasures would you propose?” LDP lawmaker Takashi Nagao attested to having asked this question. To this, Hyakuta said he replied:

　　　　　“I know as a fact that anti-social forces have been engaged in various activities in the name of the so-called ‘peace movement’ in Okinawa. I told the study group that the media there must report on such facts as correctly and fairly as possible. What I said reflected my earnest desire to have the pertinent facts about Okinawa reported as accurately as possible; I never had any intention of advocating a government ban on reporting, which clearly would be a suppression of the freedom of the press in Okinawa.”

Diversity of Opinions Are Crucial

　　　　　Continued Hyakuta:

　　　　　“In my reply, I also mentioned that I myself have been criticized frequently by the media in Okinawa. But I cut off the ending of my reply, saying: ‘…, although the two dailies might perhaps be better closed down…’—as a traditional Japanese ‘rakugo’ storyteller does in order to leave the conclusion to the imagination of his audience. I never advocated a suppression of the freedom of the press in Okinawa—as the press have alleged.”

　　　　　Hyakuta mentioned there was also a question as to what he thought of the government possibly putting “financial” pressure on newspapers opposing the government’s policy involving Okinawa by trying to cut off their advertising revenues. Explained Hyakuta:

　　　　　“I knew I was not qualified to answer that question, so I quickly changed the subject after simply stating ‘(exerting pressure) would be difficult.’ I then went on to criticize the framework of the Japanese television industry, as television has a bigger influence on people and society than the print media. I pointed out that it is a problem that the TV networks have for more than half a century come to take for granted their use of the air waves as their vested right. I strongly pointed out the need to incorporate the principle of free competition into the monopolistic television world. However, this part of my ‘off-the-record’ speech was little covered.”

　　　　　Comments Professor Yasuhiko Tajima of Sophia University in Tokyo, an expert on the freedom of the press and freedom of speech:

　　　　　“In a democracy, anyone is free to criticize the media. The important question is how he expresses his opinion. But the idea of having a newspaper closed down because it is anti-government is out of the question regardless of whether it is right-leaning or left-leaning.”

　　　　　In point of fact, Hyakuta admitted he was “half joking” when he told the group the two dailies in Okinawa had better be closed down. After replying that he thought scrapping them would be difficult, he quickly changed the subject. However, in terms of what he was quoted as saying literally, his defenses appear weak.

　　　　　Prof. Tajima emphasized the importance of Japanese media organizations to recognize a wider diversity of speech, expression, and reporting. “With their American and European counterparts, the political stance of each entity is conspicuous, but they do not go to the extreme of claiming that those with opposing political viewpoints should be scrapped. Instead, through heated exchanges of views within the media, a more sound society has emerged in the US and Europe, based on the premise that diversity of opinion is rigidly honored.　But this is quite different from what has traditionally been accepted by Japanese media organizations as ‘fair and neutral’ as a result of timidly avoiding direct clashes of views. In the US and Europe, it is important for media organizations to constantly exchange widely differing views and constructively criticize each other. This posture I think is sadly lacking on the part of Japanese media organizations.”

　　　　　The important thing is for society as an integrated whole to constantly make efforts to provide diversified perspectives and information that shed light on the big picture. In the forefront of such efforts, the media have the responsibility to supply readers information reflecting varied viewpoints and a well-rounded picture of what is happening around them.

　　　　　Is the Asashi, which appears to lead the pack of those critical of Hyakuta and members of the study group, fulfilling its responsibility as a member of the media? What about the two major dailies in Okinawa?

　　　　　Fresh in our memory is the outrageous twisting of the Asahi’s “comfort women” coverage over the past three decades, as well as its more recent fabrication of the “Yoshida testimony”—a detailed account of the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident filed by Masao Yoshida, the late plant manager of the Fukushima #1 nuclear power station. When the daily announced last August that it would belatedly retract its series of articles alleging that so-called military “comfort women” had been coerced into sexual servitude, I took issue with the paper for failing to acknowledge and correct its unsubstantiated reports that had seriously defamed Japan over 32 long years.

Needed: Balanced Judgment

　　　　　Has the Asahi truly reflected on its errors? I don’t think so. Entrusting a committee of outsiders with the task of verifying the articles in question, the daily published a “report” on the results of the committee’s probe last December. In the absence of full-fledged experts on the “comfort women” issue, the committee’s conclusions quite naturally turned out to be widely off the mark.

　　　　　How did the Asahi ever think a real probe concerning its “comfort women” coverage would be possible without turning to the experts? The Asahi’s answer presumably can be found in a front-page article entitled “Let Us Look Squarely at the Essence of the ‘Comfort Women’ Issue” by Executive Editor Nobuyuki Sugiura its August 5, 2014 edition. He denounced the critics of its coverage, brushing aside their criticism as “unwarranted.” This is yet more proof that the Asahi has not adequately reflected on its mistakes. It is only natural that the daily still continues to be charged with refusing to provide diversified perspectives and information in its news coverage. This is closely tied to the daily’s posture toward freedom of speech and freedom of the press. A large number of readers has been deserting the daily. Even if a newspaper does not cease publication, readers inevitably drift away when they realize it is failing to deliver trustworthy news. I believe this is a suitable outcome.

　　　　　The same thing can be said of the two liberal dailies in Okinawa. Are they providing their readers diversified and well-rounded information, as the media are called on to do in fulfilling their responsibilities? I seriously doubt it. Having made occasional references to the biased news coverage by the two major Okinawan dailies—not only about the security-related legislation currently under Diet deliberations—I cannot but seriously question how their readers could ever make a balanced decision on the basis of the information provided by them.

　　　　　I firmly believe that the people in Okinawa need new media sources, different from the two major dailies, as it is vitally important for them to have access to balanced reporting. I will feel truly sorry for the people of Okinawa if they continue to be limited to only the biased reporting of the two major dailies.

　　　　　Apparently taken aback by the fierce criticism resulting from what was allegedly discussed at the study group meeting, the LDP has hastened to relieve their man in charge, holding him responsible for the incident. The party’s leadership was obviously worried that passage of the security legislation would otherwise be significantly hampered. Assuming that to be the case, I wish to question how the government party plans to deal with Hajime Funada, Chairman of the LDP’s Headquarters for the Promotion of Revision to the Constitution, who was instrumental in inviting a constitutional scholar to a recent session of the Lower House Constitution Committee. Prof. Yasuo Hasebe of Waseda University threw the Diet into confusion and caused a public sensation by unexpectedly declaring as unconstitutional the security legislation under Diet discussion. Despite his role as a ranking party official in charge of promoting the security deliberations in the Diet as a crucial step toward implementing constitutional reform, Funada committed a costly blunder by selecting an expert witness whose viewpoint ran counter to the LDP’s. Considering what negative impact his gaffe could have on the legislation—and on the future of our nation itself—one would think the LDP should have dealt with Funada ahead of anyone else.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 662 in the July 9, 2015 issue of The Weekly Shincho)