Media law professor Takaaki Hattori has kept a close eye on the growing -- and apparently readily accepted -- government restrictions on Japanese media coverage of the nation's reconstruction efforts in Iraq. An instructor in the sociology department at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, Hattori is an outspoken advocate for freedom of the press and has been quoted by major Japanese news outlets. Since the controversial dispatch of the Ground Self-Defense Force in January, Japan's Defense Agency has repeatedly asked the media to refrain from reporting security issues regarding the forces. More than 1,000 military personnel, including maritime and air forces, are performing humanitarian operations in Iraq, the first time Japan has sent troops to an overseas conflict since World War II. Although media organizations responded to the agency by saying they would follow their own judgment in covering news on the troops, critics like Hattori have said that few news organizations have reported on the restrictions against them. Media outside of Japan have been criticizing the call for self-censorship as a restriction on freedom of speech, which is guaranteed in the Japanese Constitution as Article 21, and as a threat to democracy. The Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association accused the agency of not holding regular press conferences since the first dispatch of the troops, despite the agency's initial promise to provide sufficient information. In March the Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association, the National Association of Commercial Broadcasters and the Defense Agency finally agreed on rules for covering activities in Iraq. In the statement the agency said it would respect press freedoms, while the media agreed to ensure the safety of troops and not "hinder" the forces in their duties. The Japanese government continually warned reporters about safety. It claimed insurgents were targeting journalists when a mortar attack in February came close to a building used by the Coalition Provisional Authority and a hotel where journalists were lodged. Those warnings hit a fever pitch after Japanese aid workers and journalists were kidnapped by Iraqi militants earlier this month. In Japan the media's selective coverage of the hostage crisis led some to believe the ordeal was a conspiracy to remove the SDF troops from Iraq. The hostages' families, who had asked the government to bring the troops back, even received hostile phone calls. In an interview conducted before the hostage crisis, Hattori also gave his thoughts on the use of freelancers in Iraq, saying the mainstream media were shirking accountability by using freelancers instead of their own staff. Born in 1950, Hattori is a graduate of Sophia University in Tokyo, where he majored in law and print journalism. He has taught at Tokai University in Kanagawa Prefecture and Keio University's Institution for Media and Communications Research in Tokyo. He has been teaching at Rikkyo University since 1989, where he focuses on media law, information society theory and modern society analysis. He has written on such topics as freedom of speech and privacy, news coverage during the Gulf War and mass media ethics in Japan. Recently, he has been conducting historical research on restrictions in media coverage. Hattori spoke by telephone with Japan Media Review associate editor Keiko Mori. This is an edited transcript of the interview. Japan Media Review: I would like to look back on the three months since the dispatch of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Especially since January 9, restrictions on media regarding the SDF have been reported. Could you explain in what context the media restrictions happened and what seems to be a problem? Hattori: First of all, on January 9, at the press conference -- foreign media are not included here -- the Defense Agency called the media organizations, such as The Asahi Shimbun, Mainichi, and NHK, and asked executives from those media not to report from Iraq. So, Shigeru Ishiba, director general of the agency, asked the media to refrain from reporting information, especially on the safety of the members of the Self-Defense Forces in Iraq. This is where the problem started. The issue at that moment is, first off, those top executives from the media organizations attended the conference and heard the request, yet they didn't ask questions. They just came back to their offices, receiving a request letter, a written form of the announced request at the conference. After that, many press conferences for executive officers of the SDF have been cancelled, and many forms of media restriction have occurred.
 |
"In America, once freedom (of speech) is about to be violated, all the media gather together and fight for the First Amendment, but this can't be seen in the Japanese media." |
|
JMR: How have the media organizations reacted since then?Hattori: On March 11, they made an agreement, but the media have not formally charged (the Defense Agency) nor have they published opinions in their editorials. Only Mainichi and Hokkaido Shimbun have written editorials. Others have criticized in small articles. So almost no media have shown their opposition. JMR: So newspapers and television have not covered sensitive issues regarding Iraq? Hattori: Take this for an example. The image of four American civilians attacked in Fallujah and hung from a bridge was covered by CNN and The New York Times. The Japanese newspapers reported this incident, saying that The New York Times had reported this ... while three major American networks blurred the image. The picture itself was not shown in any media here. JMR: The Japanese newspapers report in the way you just described, but not the event itself in detail? Hattori: Not at all. The same can be seen in the case of the murder of two Japanese diplomats in Iraq. The picture of the bodies was shown via Reuters, but none of the Japanese newspapers showed anything. Shukan Gendai (a weekly magazine) published the photo, but the Defense Agency criticized it as too brutal. And other papers merely reported that the magazine had been criticized by the agency. In this sense, it is difficult to see the reaction of the Japanese media toward the news coverage on Iraq. It seems that the media do not have their own opinions. JMR: What about Japanese people? What kind of reactions have they shown? Hattori: To be blunt, they say, "You are talking about freedom of speech? Are you serious?" I taught at Keio University around 1985 or '86, and I can say Keio students -- and any students in the nation, for that matter -- have become apathetic. I taught media law there, and students have shown little interest in that kind of topic. For instance, when you hear the term Article 21 in the Japanese Constitution, you can quickly refer to freedom of speech, can't you? But I'm afraid students (not majoring in political science) wouldn't recognize Article 21 in the same way the First Amendment would be known in America. JMR: You think it's only among students? Hattori: Even in general, Article 21 -- which actually came up in the discourse about a politician's daughter fighting Shukan Bunshun in a privacy case (see Week in Review, 04.01.04 and 03.22.04) -- is becoming less known. A good example of this is, while more than 10 books titled "The First Amendment" are published in America a year, no book is published with the title of "Article 21" in Japan. We have such a different situation from America where the First Amendment is socialized. JMR: American media have related the restrictions on Japanese media to an attack on freedom of speech. I wonder if that type of discussion has ever been raised in Japan? Hattori: I don't think the term "freedom of speech" has completely died, but it is very weak. The authorities have made various laws that repress freedom of speech. But the media have a weak acknowledgement that they exercise the freedom themselves. In the case of this media restriction on Iraq coverage, the social criticism is weak, or I could say, almost as nonexistent as it is in the media. JMR: That's a serious problem. How do you feel about that? Hattori: This is actually unbelievable to me. We now have Article 21 in the Japanese society, yet in the 1930s it didn't exist. The Meiji Constitution stated that freedom of speech was restricted within the realm of laws, and there were lots of laws, including laws regarding newspapers and cinema. Now, although we have Article 21, we have this situation. If we were in the era of the Meiji Constitution, the media restrictions could have happened. Moreover, it was a time when just a small percentage of the population had a college education. But now 50 percent of people receive a college education, which makes me wonder why this kind of situation is happening. In that sense, I feel we have reached the point of no return. JMR: Do you think the current media situation bears a similarity to media censorship during the World War II? Hattori: It's not really a resemblance. Since press freedom was restricted by laws before the war, it is easy to understand. The present situation is that the media are not aware of their situation. This problem -- aside from being for or against the deployment of the SDF -- should be expressed in the media, but it seems all media are hesitant. Also, in America, once freedom is about to be violated, all the media gather together and fight for the First Amendment, but this can't be seen in the Japanese media. Japan is perceived as a group-oriented society from an outside point of view, but I guess it is weak when it comes to resisting something. JMR: Or maybe apathetic? Hattori: Yes, I think so, too.
|
"It seems that the media do not have their own opinions." |
|
JMR: You mentioned earlier the March 11 agreement between the media organizations and the Defense Agency. In January, after the SDF entered Samawah, The Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association (NSK) submitted a proposal to Yasuo Fukuda, chief cabinet secretary, that the Defense Agency should provide timely and correct information. Why do you think it took such a long time for the two to discuss the issue?Hattori: There had been discussions all the way. But we couldn't obtain any documents about discussions. I could only get the last draft before the final agreement. You could check the agreement on the Defense Agency's Web site. While the discussion was going on, several newspapers and wire services joined the talks, but the document drafts have not been disclosed at all. The only one I obtained, a few days before March 11, showed the Defense Agency wants the media to report only the information that the agency disclosed or agreed to report. In other words, it can't be much reporting -- they didn't use the word "censorship," though. JMR: And the media again didn't editorialize any of their opinions? Hattori: The issue that the media -- which agreed on the last draft -- have here is that they play a public relations role after all. It is the same kind of problem the press clubs have. The press clubs listen to a statement from the ministry they belong to. I think the media are giving up their identities. JMR: So, the last draft basically became the agreement. Hattori: On March 11, The Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association, The National Association of Commercial Broadcasters (NAB) and the Defense Agency made this agreement, but it turned out that the two associations were swallowed by the power of the agency. I think it is supposed to be done by individual media -- say, by each newspaper and broadcast station. But they were treated as a whole, which implies the weakness of the Japanese society. If this happened in America, for example, during the Gulf War, the major papers would fight against the Pentagon with their own names. In Japan, in contrast, individual names of the media organizations are buried, and the accountability of each doesn't appear in the documents. In this sense, I can say we are involved in a tangled situation. JMR: The March 11 agreement didn't lift the restriction order on the media? Hattori: The request for the restriction was removed, but now it says, "Do not do anything problematic (regarding the safety of the troops)." But information that could have a bad impact on the security of the troops or in the smooth operation of the Self-Defense Forces could be applied to anything. In that sense, media becomes a PR section of the Defense Agency. JMR: Can you tell how the media feel about this situation? Hattori: I asked newspaper reporters, because I wondered if the media were not ashamed of it, and they said, "We're doing our job. This isn't a good agreement, though." I guess they accepted the agreement because it was decided as the Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association's agreement. At the moment, we're on spring vacation here, so I'm not teaching now. But if I had a class, I would be discussing this point with my face red with anger. JMR: I would like to ask about independent journalists in Iraq sending reports to the Japanese media. Recently, three journalists were given awards for their reports from Iraq. It is difficult for us to see how their coverage is aired or published in the Japanese media. Hattori: At the beginning of January, when the Defense Agency requested the media restriction, it also contained a threatening statement that "Iraq is a very dangerous place. What if your employees die there?" Of course, for companies, the lives of their employees are paramount, so they weren't sent to Iraq. That's where those freelance journalists come in (see Week in Review, 04.21.04 and 04.09.04). So the media companies took their employees away and sent freelancers instead, with whom they have some kind of contract. Those freelancers have enough experience (of reporting in dangerous places), so the companies think they should be fine. And the Japanese media quite often use coverage from those freelancers, but as I said earlier, no footage of the two murdered diplomats was shown. That makes me think the media have filtered, or cleaned what they show. JMR: Aside from this self-censorship, do you see any problems the media have with freelance journalists? Hattori: Those freelance journalists aren't employed by media companies. It is like this: If you look back at the main anchorpersons in the major broadcasting stations, you'd remember that they aren't employees of the stations. There are anchorpersons who earn 700 million or 800 million yen (between $6.4 million and $7.3 million), say on TBS, but they are not employed by the company. Hiroshi Kume, main anchorperson of the TV news program "News Station," resigned. Since April, the program is known as the "Hodo Station" with Ichiro Furutachi. When they faced the transition, there was an idea of selecting an anchorperson from inside of TV Asahi. But when there is a problematic commentary (from that person during the news program), the company would be afraid that the viewers would regard it as TV Asahi's opinion. In that sense, it's a way of escaping (accountability). And the same thing is happening in the contract with those freelancers in Iraq.
|
