Are the media and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Japan friends or foes? How should the media cover NGOs? Should NGOs stage media stunts? Those were some of the questions posed to a panel of activists and journalists in Kyoto last month. Though the Japanese civil society sector has traditionally been smaller than in other major developed countries, the growing role of NGOs is one of most fundamental changes occurring in Japan today.

Since 1998, when a law was passed making it easier for organizations to register as NPOs (non-profit organizations), 23,608 groups have gained NPO status. As NPOs take up their new role in Japanese society, how NPOs use traditional and new media, and how the media portray NPOs and their work, will be crucial to the development of Japan’s still relatively young civil society sector.

The Nov. 12 seminar, titled “Human Rights NGOs and the Media: Allies or Adversaries?”, was held at Kyoto Sangyo University as part of the 2005 Peace as a Global Language Conference. Moderated by Eric Johnston of the Japan Times, the seminar featured Masami Ito, a Japan Times reporter, Yuji Yoshitomi, an Osaka-based writer from weekly tabloid Friday magazine, and activist, writer and American-born naturalized Japanese citizen Debito Arudou.

The first speaker, Masami Ito, explained how her work covering immigration issues brings her into contact with many NPOs. She stressed the importance of objectivity. “News reporters are not activists. News reports must just communicate facts and it’s our job to let the readers form their own opinions.” Ito also gave advice to activists hoping to communicate through the media, suggesting that they “network with media people and become a source of information.”

Yuji Yoshitomi, Friday magazine journalist and author of “Osaka Bankrupts”, an expose of corruption in the Osaka city administration, spoke next. In his speech Yoshitomi confided that he has never deliberately set out to write about everyday NPO work, but he has had to report on NPOs involved in acts of criminal deception. He said he has been told by police sources that some organized crime Yazuka groups have set up NPOs as a front for their activities.

Debito Arudou was on hand to give an activist’s perspective. He had plenty of practical advice for activists dealing with the media. “Activism in Japan can be a tough job, but not impossible,” he said. “I do not consider [the media] ‘adversarial.’ It’s a matter of having the right message and knowing your audience.”

Arudou stressed that anyone with a message to spread can hold a press conference. “Contact the press club connected with the agency or outlet you are trying to canvass, and tell them the time and place. Simple as that.” Although organizing the kind of coverage you need may be a different matter, he said, “Remember any article your issue gets is a minor miracle—a major one if they get the information right.”

He also had advice for those dealing directly with journalists: “Even more miraculous is a one-on-one with a reporter. But remember that due to editors and editorial constraints, things rarely, if ever, come out in an article as you wanted.” Arudou recommended that activists provide primary sources because “reporters love photocopies.”

Lastly, Arudou listed some barriers to activism that he has bumped up against in Japan. They include: a culture of information control (“just about every organization, and especially the bureaucracy, is closed to outsiders”); the press club system (“one-stop shopping, but also self-censorship and information control”); and the threat of violence from extremist groups.

In the question-and-answer session, moderator Eric Johnston introduced the question of credibility: how do journalists tell if NPOs are bona fide or not? Japan Times reporter Ito said she began by checking NPO’s past activities and how they have spent their funds. She also talks to her own legal and NPO contacts. Friday magazine journalist Yoshitomi noted that some NPOs have no choice but to get involved in business because they have considerable trouble raising funds. Activist Arudou countered that some NPOs are bad, but so are some companies and government institutions; NPOs should be prepared to be judged on their deeds.

Another questioner asked the panelists if they thought the media’s attitude to the NPO sector had changed significantly in recent years. While Ito and Arudou were unsure that it had, Yoshitomi argued that “the work done by NPOs and NGOs is now more appreciated by the mass media. NPOs involved in low-profile activities have come up with visible outcomes.” He drew on an example from his research on the Osaka administration. “An NPO was the first to disclose evidence of corruption by the Osaka authorities,” he said. “The mass media have strongly praised their work.”

One more question from the audience drew the seminar to a close: “Are media stunts necessary or useful for activists in Japan?” Arudou was emphatic that they are. “You have to draw attention to an activity. It’s not news if it’s not new,” he said. “Sometimes stunts are very useful.” He referred to one well reported stunt he undertook last year with a group of fellow activists. Dressed as seals they held a picnic on the banks of the Tamagawa river in Yokohama in protest against the issuance of a residency certificate to “Tama-chan,” a seal living in the city’s Tama river—something denied to non-Japanese human taxpayers.

While Yoshitomi was unconvinced that such stunts are really necessary, Ito described one “unintentional stunt” she witnessed during a press conference with a group of Kurdish asylum seekers. When news of one member’s deportation came mid-press conference, the family started weeping in front of the cameras. Even Japan’s right-of-center Yomiuri daily newspaper carried the story. “I don’t know if stunts are good or bad,” Ito said, “but when something conspicuous happens, it gets media attention.”

By chance, NPOs were in the news only a few days before the event with controversy surrounding the Japanese branch of the global “Whiteband” anti-poverty campaign. Earlier this fall the media reported that none of the money from sales of 4 million 300-yen wristbands was actually going directly to developing world charities. Initially, the group stressed that the campaign’s aim was simply to raise consciousness of the poverty issue. Following further hostile publicity and hundreds of angry e-mails from purchasers of the bands, in early November the group of NPOs backtracked and pledged to give $250,000 (30 million yen) to Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, and $50,000 (6 million yen) to various related civil society activities.

While some might see this and other coverage of apparent NPO scandals as evidence of the media hostility towards NPOs, Temple University professor Jeff Kingston stresses that the media in Japan have in general been “cheerleaders for the NPO movement.” He says that the media’s support dates back to the 1995 Kobe earthquake when the media contrasted the incompetence of the official response with the effectiveness of volunteer groups. The earthquake was a powerful impetus to the development of the NPO movement.

Kingston noted how publications of differing political perspective support NPOs for their own different reasons. The left-of-center Asahi newspaper supports NPOs as watchdogs and a check on establishment power, but the financial daily Nikkei supports NPOs because they advocate small government. He says if the media focuses on scandals, it is because most of the day-to-day work of NPOs is less obvious – and perhaps less likely to sell newspapers. “The media is not well suited to focus on the gradual and incremental changes and mundane work that are ongoing now because they won’t be bearing fruit for 10, 15, 20 years down the road. Ultimately, the media has a short attention span and much of the work of NPOs is not headline-grabbing.”

As for NPOs themselves, how they make use of the media – particularly the Internet and new media—is likely to have a big influence on the success of their activities. “Create a Web site,” said activist Arudou. “You need an information center, and a Web site will act as your 24-hour setter of the record straight. Saves time, energy, and money. It will also give reporters a place to shop for information beforehand. Many reporters write their articles before they even meet you, and are just looking for live quotes.” Arudou also recommends that activists build an e-mail list of supporters and journalists. “Takes years before it becomes effective, but I have thousands of recipients (and hopefully readers), some of whom forward around what I write, even to fellow reporters.”

So what does the future hold in store for Japan’s NPOs and what role will the media play? In his book Japan’s Quiet Transformation: Social Change and Civil Society in the 21st Century Jeff Kingston argues that the growth of NPOs, as well as new information disclosure legislation and judicial reform, are fundamental changes that are incrementally and fitfully bringing about a quiet transformation of Japanese society. He says that the economically stagnant 1990s, rather than being a “lost decade,” were “a time of dynamic transformation and reform.”

Kingston argues that the government may do its best to keep NPOs “on a short leash,” but are unlikely to be successful in the long run. “I think what the government wants is to control them and decide,” he says. “Ultimately, I think society is going to play a role in deciding what role [NPOs] play, and the media will play a big role in shaping people’s awareness of them.”

Election 2005: Did the Press Do Its Job?

Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party scored a landslide win in the Sept. 11 general election. The LDP-New Komeito coalition captured a combined 327 of 480 seats in the House of Representatives, which exceeded the two-thirds threshold of 320 seats needed to override an upper house veto. Just as importantly, voter turnout surged to 67.5 percent in single-seat constituencies, the highest since 1990.

In the past, the higher the turnout, the more likely opposition parties would gain ground. But this time, the trend did not apply. According to exit polls conducted by the Yomiuri media group, unaffiliated voters accounted for 19 percent of those who had cast their ballots. And an unprecedented number of swing voters (32 percent) chose LDP candidates.

Analysts agree that the election results were unprecedented. But we shouldn’t be too surprised because the mainstream media helped the LDP achieve the big win and solidify the “1955 System,” the arrangement that has governed the nation for most of the postwar period.

The 1955 System arose when the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party merged to form the LDP. It was designed to cement the LDP’s monopoly of power — literally as well as figuratively. To that end, a horde of pork-barrel operators in the Diet have kept the system in place with public works projects built on the foundation of corrupt, collusive and close-knit ties uniting business and government.

Nihon Kisha Kurabu, or the Japan National Press Club, has always been an integral part of the 1955 System. Its major role is that of “political sandmen,” to borrow the phrase coined by Ian Buruma, author of Inventing Japan – 1853-1964. Buruma showed that as politicians scattered money around, the media sprinkled sleep powder all over the electorate.

In fact, the 2005 election didn’t bring about any change at all to the system, thanks to the concerted efforts of JNPC members.

Japan National Press Club: What It Really Is

According to “Declaration of Departure from The Press Club System” by Yasuo Tanaka, Nagano governor and now the head of the newly born New Party Nippon, there are more than 800 press clubs in Japan. Some are attached to prefectural or municipal governments and others to central government offices. At all levels, the press clubs are granted an exclusive privilege to report on government activities. So, of course, the privileged media cook the news to the satisfaction of the authorities. For instance, reporters stationed in a rent-free office at a prefectural police department are allowed full access to information concerning crimes on the condition that the rules imposed by the police chief are strictly observed.

On the surface, these press clubs are independent of one another, but they really form an integrated whole supporting the 1955 System. And at the top of the sub-system sits a de facto head office, the Japan National Press Club. The JNPC is a fish that is only viable in a murky stream. For a media organization, it is shy when it comes to media coverage. As a result, we know very little about who funds its operations, what it’s up to, or how it’s organized.

We can, however, tell something about its history. The JNPC was formally founded by Nihon Shimbun Kyokai (NSK), or Japan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association, in 1949, but actually it dates back to May 1941, seven months before the war in the Pacific broke out. The precursor of NSK was Nihon Shimbun Renmei (NSR), Japan Federation of Newspaper Publishers. NSR acted as the mouthpiece of Dai Hon-ei, or Headquarters of the Imperial Japanese Army. Suppression of the press during the war by the military led to suppression afterwards by the U.S.-led Allied occupation forces.

Japanese journalists blamed Gen. Douglas MacArthur only after he left for gagging them, but they didn’t resist new press restraints that followed. They generally accepted a subtler Jishu Kisei (self-censorship) in compliance with tacit demands by the LDP-led government, which wanted to protect its vested interests by taming the press. So the LDP granted favored members of the media a monopoly of information sources and distribution channels. Once the press struck a reciprocal deal with the politicians, the 1955 System was secure.

At every transition of power in Japan, the media automatically repledged loyalty to the new rulers.

Undertone of Mainstream Media’s Coverage of Election 2005

If the press did not change, society did. Now the 1995 System looks even more fragile.

Today, the Japanese media can no longer avoid questioning pork-barrel operators, both in and out of the government, in the wake of an endless series of scandals involving public agencies, lawmakers and private sector companies. So the press has turned the spotlight elsewhere, trying desperately to avoid an examination of itself.

To escape attention, the mainstream media employed the art of misdirection. In the 2005 election, the press tried hard to misguide the public by making it believe that something unprecedented was happening and that it was a prelude to a sea change. LDP president and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi even said he was going to “destroy” the 60-year-old LDP to replace it with a new LDP. The media promoted his deceptive rhetoric from Day One of the campaign through the end. For instance, the Aug. 18 Yomiuri Shimbun editorialized that the “waning of [intra-]LDP factions led to the birth of a new party,” where that wasn’t the case at all.

Actually, what we were seeing during the campaign period was not unprecedented. During the first half of the 1990s, intra-party “rebels” were smoked out of the LDP, or voluntarily fled it. New parties with fancy names mushroomed as a result of the spin-offs, some party mergers ensued, unholy coalitions were formed, and opportunists hopped back and forth between these parties. In the end, the 1955 System survived intact.

Now, the media are continuing their tradition of trumpeting change while nothing occurs. Today the mainstream press tirelessly promotes the fallacy that Japan is transforming itself under the strong leadership of the current prime minister. From Hideki Tojo to Douglas MacArthur to Junichiro Koizumi, the Japanese media love a strong leader.

Media’s Modi Operandi

On Sept. 7, Daniel Sloan, chairman of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan and Reuters business television senior correspondent, told Japanese reporters that the Sept. 11 poll would be a “watershed election.” The Yomiuri Shimbun and other press organizations liked Sloan’s phrase so much that they kept using “watershed” until the last day of the campaign.

Originally, Koizumi declared this election to be a single-issue poll, like a national referendum, to be fought solely over his postal privatization bills. That bill’s vote-down at the House of Councilors on Aug. 8 triggered the dissolution of the House of Representatives. Ever since, Koizumi has used “postal privatization” and “postal reform” interchangeably and opportunistically as if they were synonymous. The media echoed his tricky rhetoric.

In fact, the real issues all boiled down to one root problem — the government’s impending bankruptcy. But all along, the media chose to parrot Koizumi’s distortions about postal reform. The press did get around to reporting other matters — such as Japan’s bid for a permanent seat at the U.N. Security Council — but not with any enthusiasm.

As was true with past elections, there were no valid and viable alternatives for the voting age population at the ballot box. Nonetheless, in recent years the media had been ardently disseminating the false notion that a modern two-party system was taking root. But this time around, they had to drop this fallacy, in part because it was more and more apparent that the major opposition, Democratic Party of Japan, whose support groups include the Postal Workers Union, was nothing more than a double of the LDP.

However, knowing that the consistent downturn in voter turnout in recent years could lead to the collapse of the entire 1955 System, the media were making believe there were decent alternatives. Three new parties were born, and one, Shinto Daichi, formed by Muneo Suzuki whose suspected graft case is currently under litigation, was made to look viable.

To make sure the media’s tricks worked, the Yomiuri Shimbun editorialized, on the morning of the poll, that “the future of the nation [lay] in voters’ hands.” Voters, unfortunately, didn’t wake up in time from their daydream to understand that they had nothing but false choices.

Yet Another False Dawn

In the final chapter of Inventing Japan, Ian Buruma writes of a hiccup of the 1955 System in the tumultuous days of 1993: “It turned out to be another false dawn. The electoral changes did not go far enough to make a difference.” In the post-election landscape, we are now experiencing déjà vu.

On Sept. 20 at the Apple Expo 2005, Paris-based press watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) released “Handbook for Bloggers and Cyber-Dissidents,” which is meant to provide know-how and technologies to defeat Internet censors in such countries as China and Iran. Julian Pain, head of RSF’s Internet Freedom desk, writes in the handbook: “Bloggers are often the only real journalists in countries where the mainstream media are censored or under pressure.”

While “real journalists” in these countries are facing “Great Firewalls,” their Japanese counterparts confront a challenge of a different sort. In October last year, Reporters Without Borders released the results of its third annual survey of press freedom in 167 countries. The report ranked Japan No. 42 from the top, by far the lowest position for a G-7 nation. At that time RSF attributed Japan’s disastrous showing to the fact that the nation’s mainstream media are shackled by the press club system. The press clubs show little evidence of reform, so independent journalists — and bloggers — need to find new ways to bypass the “glass firewall” put up by the system.

Until they can have first-hand access to information sources and talk to the public directly, Japan’s Dark Age will continue.

Probably surprising Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi himself, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) gained a sweeping victory in the House of Representatives election on Sept. 11. Many pointed out that the television coverage of election campaigns had more impact than ever on the long-time ruling party’s historic triumph.

The LDP won a single-party majority, gaining 296 seats of a total of 480 that were up for grabs, while the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), the main opposition party, only gained 113 seats and lost 64. The defeat prompted Katsuya Okada to resign as DPJ party leader immediately.

As an ever-increasing number of Japanese people obtain information about political parties and candidates from television, broadcast news programs and talk shows seemed to have a profound impact on the election results.

“The TV election coverage inundated in our daily lives had enormous influence on the public,” said Toshio Ueki, a director of the public relations office at the Central Committee of Japanese Communist Party. “Many people call us to give us their opinion and request based on what they have seen on TV.”

As more people depend on television for information, one of the keys to the election victory is undoubtedly media management and whether a party wins air time. The LDP as well as Koizumi excelled in these areas, while the DPJ did not, analysts said.

In fact, most of the voters interviewed attributed the DPJ’s loss to inconsistencies among its leaders they saw on news programs and talk shows. They cited some comments made by Ichiro Ozawa, a DPJ deputy leader, which were different from what Okada had said.

Koizumi, however, from the start of the election campaign, was trying to monopolize election debates by focusing solely on postal reform, though opposition parties and experts harshly criticized the prime minister and his party, saying a variety of issues should be discussed. On the campaign trail throughout Japan, the premier, tossing his hair before large audiences, repeatedly threw around such slogans as “Don’t stop reform” and “This election is for postal reform.”

Furthermore, in order to defeat members of his own party who voted against his bills on postal reform in early July, Koizumi dispatched so-called “assassins” to their constituency. The LDP-backed “assassins,” some of whom have no experience in politics, included several telegenic women, whipping the media into a frenzy.

As Koizumi was attempting to turn the election into a national referendum on issues of postal businesses, “the media followed his line, calling the occasion the election of assassins,” the Communist Party’s Ueki said. “In that regard, the election coverage was not fair. In fact, on many occasions, we reported to some news programs about their unfair coverage.

“I’m not saying the media should more often broadcast our point of view, but I’m saying fair coverage is the basic principle. This is not for the sake of one party but for the sake of our democracy.”

Ellis Krauss, a professor of Japanese politics and policymaking at the University of California at San Diego, who was in Tokyo to observe the election, agreed that much of the TV and newspaper coverage was about a few celebrity races.

One of the races that Krauss pointed out was in the Hiroshima No. 6 constituency where Takafumi Horie, Internet mogul and president of Livedoor Co., was running as an “assassin” against former LDP legislator Shizuka Kamei. Kamei voted against Koizumi’s postal privatization bills. Horie, who boasts in his book, “Money can buy people’s hearts. Women can be lured by money,” chose to run as an independent, still backed by the LDP.

“Some of the more important issues got ignored. Even after the election, major stories seem to have been about these few celebrities,” Krauss said. “I think, to some extent, the media missed the real significance of this election — how Japanese politics has changed since the electoral reform.

“Here’s the election in which for the first time Mr. Koizumi is moving Japanese politics toward British-model, top-down cabinet government.”

Focusing on celebrity candidates as well as party leaders, the media made the Japanese public “invisible,” some critics pointed out. There was no such thing as a town meeting in this election.

In Japan, “only party leaders and candidates come out in the media, but the media hardly listen to the voice of the people,” said Yoko Yamaguchi, a member of Kanagawa Net, a local women’s party, who also serves as a city councilwoman in Atsugi near Tokyo. “We don’t see what kind of people are supporting this party, who are supporting that party, or why they are supporting the party. Neither did we see the media reporting undecided voters, asking them why they have not made a decision.”

Ken Takeuchi, CEO of the Japan Internet News, was also critical of the media coverage of the election, saying, “The media failed to look at the situations objectively and in a level-headed manner.”

Takeuchi, whose company launched Japan’s first serious alternative online newspaper, Jan Jan (Japan Alternative News for Justices and New Cultures) two years ago, described the election as “aberrational.”

“Mr. Koizumi set up so-called ‘Koizumi Theater’ and constantly captured media attention, and the media themselves got on the stage. And also voters as a whole seemed to get caught up in that theater,” said Takeuchi, a former Asahi Newspaper editorial board member who also served as mayor of Kamakura, near Tokyo.

In a written statement, the public relations office at Nippon Television Network Corporation (NTV) said the network tried not to be preoccupied with such celebrity races, but tried to practice objective reporting.

While major networks hosted more than a dozen TV debates among party leaders before the election, virtually all of them devoted more time to issues of postal reform and downplayed other issues, especially Koizumi’s controversial decision to deploy the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) to Iraq to support the U.S.-led rebuilding efforts, the first dispatch of the SDF to a war zone.

For instance, during “The Sunday Project” of TV Asahi on Aug. 28, one of the most popular talk shows in Japan, about 20 minutes were spent on postal reform and nine minutes on pension issues. The program’s host, Soichiro Tawara, however, spared little time for other issues. Many other TV commentators followed suit.

“The strongest theme [of this election] is the privatization of postal businesses,” declared Kenichi Takemura, a regular commentator on “Hodo 2001,” a major talk show program of Fuji Television Network Inc (FNN). Network representatives characterized FNN’s coverage of the election as “sober and fair.”

Most opinion polls, however, suggested most voters were not interested in postal reform. According to polls conducted by major daily Mainichi Shimbun a week before the election, 41 percent of those surveyed saw issues of pension, medical care and nursing care as a top policy concern, while 19 percent pointed out the privatization of postal businesses and 14 percent economy-boosting measures.

Analysts agreed that the media failed to raise various issues and let party leaders discuss them.

“The media hosted a number of TV debates, however, they did not ask party leaders a variety of questions such as issues of the U.S. military presence in Okinawa. Even Tetsuya Chikushi (TBS News 23 anchor) did not,” said Akikazu Hashimoto, a political science professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo.

NHK claims the network “had each party discuss wide-ranging topics such as pension issues, diplomacy, defense and constitutional revision, and we believed
we were able to provide voters with information for making a decision.” In addition, we reported
policy issues other than postal business privatization in our election-related news. Therefore,
They added,” We disagree with the criticism that ‘there was not enough discussion on issues other than postal reform.'”

TBS News 23, a nightly news program of Tokyo Broadcasting System Inc., whose anchor, Chikushi, used to cover Okinawa as a young Asahi newspaper reporter, is known for its reports concerning the U.S. military presence on the southern island and discussion on the issues more than other major news programs.

“The mainstream media also did not examine whether Mr. Koizumi had made good on his campaign promises or how such promises had been delivered,” added Hashimoto.

Moreover, critics said that TV news programs and talk shows did not report the contents of the postal businesses privatization bills submitted by the ruling coalition of the LDP andNew Komeito. The media appeared to focus too much on who supported Koizumi’s postal reform and who did not, but seldom reported why they opposed his reform. Oddly, most supporters of Koizumi said they did not know of the bills, but supported him because of his strong leadership and energy.

“The media did not talk about the substance of the postal privatization bills,” said Yamaguchi of Kanagawa Net, who worked in television production for seven years. “Neither did Mr. Koizumi. He just reiterated, ‘We make no headway on reforms without privatizing postal businesses.’”

Eisuke Sakakibara, an influential former vice minister who was nicknamed “Mr. Yen,” emphasized in an interview, “Mr. Koizumi cannot privatize the postal businesses with the bills … initially the government owns 100 percent of this postal company’s shares and at the end it will own one-third. That means the government will be the biggest shareholder and control the company. So this will result in the creation of a bloated state-run business, and we will see money flow from the private sector to the government.”

An expert’s comment like this was hardly reported in major newspapers and networks. Furthermore, on many occasions, Seiko Noda, an LDP member who voted against the bills, asserted on television, “The bills are riddled with flaws.” The media, however, did not report what she meant or what those flaws were.

The public relations office at NTV responded to some criticism, saying the network “made a strong effort to report the contents of ‘postal reform,’ the substance of the [postal privatization] bills and policies that each party put up for the election.”

What seems to be very strange is the restriction on the use of the Internet for political end in one of the most technology-obsessed countries. Japanese election law prohibits parties and candidates from creating or updating homepages or blogs during the 12 days of official campaigning.

The 55-year-old public office election law does not actually mention use of the Internet. According to the Tokyo Metropolitan Electoral Management Committee, a Web site is illegal because the information on the homepage could be printed out and disseminated as a fliers.

Critics said the LDP is reluctant to revise the law because their long-time supporters and members are not technology-savvy people.

“It’s odd, isn’t it?” asked Takeuchi of Japan Internet News. “The law is helplessly backward.”