By Takeshi Maezawa
Journal of Communication Studies © 2001
Freedom of the press is threatened in Japan. Ruling parties, administrative authorities and some civil organizations have been eager to suggest legal restrictions for the mass media.
On Oct. 11, 2000, the government’s Committee on the Protection of Personal Data submitted proposed legislation that would authorize the government to regulate newsgathering and reporting.
On Dec. 28, 2000, the Council for the Promotion of Civil Liberties at the Ministry of Justice released an interim report including a recommendation for the restriction of the press freedom on the pretext that an independent organization should be established to actively deal with human rights violations and that the administrative regulation of the press might be needed to stop such violations.
The council proposed that administrative authorities investigate and fine media companies and professionals, and also suppress a publication without a court order, if the press is unable to establish an effective system for preventing people from violating human rights.
Freedom of speech will hardly be able to survive in Japan if any of those media-regulating measures is adopted.
The Japanese Federation of Bar Associations, which has protected freedom of speech since the Constitution of Japan was enacted in 1947, in October of 2000 recommended that the government pass a law that would require a news council and news ombudsmen.
This came as the media were being severely criticized by citizens because media show too little concern for privacy and their newsgathering is often tainted by unethical conduct.
Allow me to present some background.
Dentsu Inc., Japan’s largest media company, an advertising agency, admitted in June 2000, its liability in the suicide of a worker due to overwork. Dentsu and the parents of the employee agreed on an out-of-court settlement following a recommendation of the Tokyo High Court that some 168 million yen (US $1.61 million) be paid in compensation to the parents.
This was a typical case of karoshi, or death by overwork. Japanese employees will tell you that they prefer to work than to enjoy their lives. They pledge loyalty to their company as a samurai did to a daimyo, or feudal lord.
The media world is no exception. Most media professionals have a narrow outlook and are far more interested in their company or country’s interest than in justice and fairness to the readers, listeners and viewers.
In one of his books, Ivan P. Hall, an expert in Japanese studies and a journalist who has been living in the country for more than 30 years, named Japan an “intellectual closed shop.” Japanese society seems protected by two barriers: isolation as an island and isolation thanks to the Japanese language.
Journalists in Japan are not seen as independent professionals working in the public interest; instead, they are seen as, first and foremost, employees of a company. This allegiance has the effect of keeping Japanese journalism from reporting on important issues and from being accountable to readers.
Japanese newspapers enjoy the most prosperous and profitable business circumstances in the world under protective laws and regulations, which include price controls.
Since business is good, newspaper companies are not seriously concerned about independence and accountability to readers — contrary to journalists and newspapers in other democratic countries.
At the International Press Institute’s conference held in Kyoto in April 1991, the organization’s director praised Japan for its “free and democratic press,” whereas Dutch journalist Karel van Wolferen, one of the guest speakers, was unreservedly critical of the Japanese press, saying: “I do not think I exaggerate when I say that nowhere else in the industrialized world is self-censorship so systematic.” The fact that he was quoted only in the English-language newspapers published in Japan provided evidence of the truth of his comments.
Japan has many exclusionary systems and taboos on newsgathering that reflect Japanese culture.
The press club system excludes any reporter that is not a member from freely gathering news at that source and it generates an extraordinarily close relationship between reporters and decision makers.
For instance, the day before Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori’s scheduled news conference on May 26, 2000, in which he was to defend his “divine nation” comment, a copy of an elaborate memo was found in the press club room at the prime minister’s office that contained advice on how he should defend himself against questioning by reporters, as well as secret information about media companies and journalists. An unidentified public broadcasting reporter, assigned to the Cabinet, had reportedly written the memo. Some magazines and newspapers reported the incident a couple of weeks later, attaching a copy of the memo, but most dailies have never mentioned the incident. No one was accused of any violation of journalistic ethics and no media company never seriously tried to find and fire a suspect.
The Imperial family is the most difficult beat for reporters, since they must learn a mass of traditions and special customs, and must also obey strict regulations to the letter.
When Emperor Showa passed away on January 7, 1989, many readers wondered why the media had so many stories portraying only the good side of the Emperor and the imperial system, instead of also mentioning more negative aspects, such as the emperor’s responsibility in World War II, or the so-called “chrysanthemum curtain”, the barrier put up by servants of the court which isolate the royal family from media and the public. Critics in magazines questioned such an editorial policy, but no newspapers.
Now, I would like to come to the main topic of this article, media accountability systems in Japan.
The most common system for enforcing ethical standards in the Japanese press is Kijishinsa-iinkai or Kijishinsa-shitsu, that is, an “internal committee for newspaper contents evaluation.” This system plays a major part within newspapers by guaranteeing good quality contents and by ensuring the ethical education of employees. Scholars of media ethics would, of course, say that its main function has little directly to do with accountability to readers.
The main function of shinsa-shitsu in each newspaper has been “quality control” for a long time. This kind of commission has guaranteed the comparatively high quality of newspapers, in particular since the end of World War II, when the press was given its freedom. Most newspapers did not give their shinsa-shitsu any accountability function—- yet, inevitably, some of the shinsa-shitsus have been gradually increasing their accountability functions.
The history of content-checking in the Japanese media goes back to the 1920s. Most newspapers have operated such a program for more than 35 years, and a few newspapers started it before World War II.
The major reason why they don’t, and shouldn’t, name their checking accountability system an ombudsman system is their lack of openness towards readers and their lack of independence from their superiors. “The news media are the most exclusive society,” says Professor Seiya Ikari. “They refuse to disclose information, which they must if readers are to trust them… No bylines, no responses to readers: that all shows their lack of accountability.”
Also, of course, it would be next-to-impossible for the members of this system independently to investigate their colleagues, critically to evaluate the contents of articles by them and to submit a candid opinion to their superiors. It is far from easy in any journalistic environment, but remember that these people are average employees in a Japanese company.
A committee composed of seven representatives of shinsa-shitsu did a research tour of the U.S. in 1987 to gather information that could help . One document which they found most interesting was the “Guidelines for Ombudsmen”, which states:
“The ombudsman must be independent, and that independence must be real. He should be answerable only to the person with the highest authority over the news department.”
In contrast, the people operating “newspaper contents checking systems” are reluctant to disclose information about them and to invite readers to a discussion meant to raise ethical awareness. These systems are not made to be responsive and they have no tradition of dealing with readers who have complaints, suggestions or questions.
These accountability systems have been functioning as quality control bureaus for printed newspapers, but they have seldom disclosed the full information necessary to achieve credibility because of their lack of full independence from the newsroom. What information? For example, information on why so often newspapers don’t identify public officials in news stories or attribute documents to anonymous sources. Journalists seldom answer questions about their jobs, because the media world is one of the most self-contained and uncommunicative communities.
One of the problems about respecting media ethics is that Japanese media companies and organizations are reluctant to draft a meaningful ethics code. Actually, judging from past cases, it would be impossible for media persons to keep within such practical guidelines.
On June 21, 2000, a new Canon of Journalism was drafted, not only for journalists, but also for everyone engaged in newspaper work. Many journalists found that the real aim of the revision was not to make the canon better but, as we say, to “oil the government’s hand” and obtain that the “retail price maintenance” policy be maintained for newspapers. As a result, the new canon provided neither specific nor concrete guidelines. Nevertheless, it is of great interest to Japanese journalists that the notion and definition of “independence” was added to the new canon.
The most questionable point is the absence in the new canon of any provision regarding “conflict of interest”. If the practical guidelines regarding “conflict of interest” and “the appearance of conflict of interest” were provided, the new canon would have been found excellent and meaningful. Newspapers in Japan too easily admit the fact that the government appoints many executives and employees of newspapers as members of political and administrative advisory committees; how can they avoid conflict of interest?
Sam Jameson, an American journalist who has been living and working in Japan for more than nearly 40 years, told me, “Some of Japanese media people are working as messengers for politicians or performing the same roles as politicians. I suppose they don’t know ‘Conflict of Interest’ in journalism.”
I responded, “I think they know well what it is. But actually they don’t care about it.”
I wish to conclude by saying that Japanese journalists should be independent and respect disclosure, and that media should promptly “improve their checking mechanisms and their system for responding to readers’ inquiries” — thus echoing the official view of the NSK presented on December 14, 1999, in a hearing session conducted by the Council for the Promotion of Civil Liberties at the Ministry of Justice.
The previous report was edited significantly for length by Mike Clark, editor of the ONO Web site.
Excerpted from: The Journal of Communication Studies, No. 12, March 2000, Association for Communication Studies, Tokyo Keizai University.)
