Tomoko Ohji is one of just a handful of women working as a news reporter at one of Japan's top newspapers -- she works at Japan's No. 3 paper, the Mainichi Shimbun. But that's not what makes her extraordinary: This year, Ohji won one of Japan's top journalism awards -- the Japanese Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association Editorial Division Awards -- for the second year in a row. The association has given out this award since 1957, but Ohji is the first woman to ever win it; she may also be the only person -- male or female -- to ever win the prize two years in a row. Ohji won the 2002 award for an article that showed that the federal Defense Agency had illegally gathered information on people who used Japan's new Freedom of Information law to request information about the agency. She won the 2003 award for an investigation that found that the Defense Agency illegally collected information on potential army recruits. Her articles were published as Japanese legislators were considering new laws governing personal privacy. As a result of her articles, legislators toughened up the Personal Information Protection Law, adding harsher punishments for officials who violate the rules and adding stronger privacy protections.
 |
"We have some 90 people in our section, but women occupy less than one-tenth. ... So, a female reporter receiving the award for the first time isn't because women are inferior or something, it is simply because of the percentage [of the female reporters in companies]. If we had more female reporters, they would definitely get awards." |
|
Born in 1965, Ms. Ohji studied in Waseda University in Tokyo. Upon graduation, she became a reporter in the Mainichi Shimbun, and worked in bureaus in Hanshin, Kobe and Yokohama. She also worked for the magazine "Sunday Mainichi." Since 2001, she has been a news reporter at the company's Tokyo office.Tomoko Ohji recently spoke with Japan Media Review associate editor Keiko Mori in Mainichi Shimbun's Tokyo office about her investigations and about being a female journalist in Japan. Q: First of all, I would like to ask you about your award-winning article, "Defense Agency used private information to screen soldiers," published in 2003. Would you explain the article and its results? Also, is there any relationship between this and your previous award-winning article "Defense Agency dug up personal details on information seekers"? A: Yes, you're right. There is a connection. I will talk about the 2002 article first. The article published on May 28, 2002 reported that the Defense Agency collected private information on those who asked for access to the agency's records via the Freedom of Information Act. In April 2001, the Freedom of Information Act started, and it allows anyone -- including foreigners and children, regardless of age, gender or occupation -- to have access to information stored in administrative organizations. Government officials used to decide how much information should be disclosed, but this new act enables information to be disclosed fairly to anyone.
|
"Anyone with passion could break through obstacles -- whether it is a thick bureaucratic wall or a nation's wall ... If you keep making a hole with a drill, there will be an opening." |
|
However, the Defense Agency illegally gathered personal information of those who requested the agency's information, like "What kind of organization does this person belong to?" "Does this person have any problem with the agency?" "Does this person have any hatred toward the agency?" "Has this person applied for the agency?" or "What is this person's medical history?"I obtained the list that the Defense Agency had made, in which something like this was written: "This person applied to the agency on such-and-such a date, and failed due to this medical history" -- and I wrote the content of the list and the complaints of people whose private information was written on it in the article. Q: It is a secret how you found the list, isn't it? A: (laughing) It is from a cooperator. The report on the Defense Agency's list was published on May 28, 2002, and around that time, the Personal Information Protection Law was under discussion in the Diet (Congress/Parliament). This law was considered a good one; members of the Diet wanted to pass it quickly, but the media had a different perspective. This law had two problems. The first one is, if a Diet member did something wrong, he/she would escape the media's investigation because of the Personal Information Protection Law -- in other words, it would have created regulations for journalism. So it was called the "Media Control Law," as well. The second problem is there was a difference between the rules dealing with government officials' personal information and that of civilians' personal information. There was a stricter rule applying to civilians. So, the law was considered "easy for government officials, strict for civilians." Even in the media, some were for it and others were against it. Then the article came out, and it affected the discussion. The government insisted that since government officials are ruled by the National Public Official Law, there should be no need for a specific penalty for them included in the Personal Information Protection Law. The article pointed out that government officials had done a wrong deed -- illegal information gathering -- in such a concrete way that the Diet had to reconsider the law. During the spring Diet of 2002, the Personal Information Protection Law couldn't be passed, and in December, the same year, the law was repealed. Then in January 2003, the government submitted a new law, including the penalty for government officials, and the discussion regarding it began once again. Q: So, your investigation and the article caused the law to be amended. And it led to the 2003 article? A: Yes. I was thinking I would like to report something that would help create a meaningful discussion and a better law. I wanted to find a concrete problem, like a case. People may think that I was targeting the Defense Agency, but honestly, it didn't matter where [I found a case]. I was investigating if there was an agency that dealt with personal information in an illegal way, and I came up with the Defense Agency again. Why did it happen that way? I think it is based on history. Because those agencies had been treated in a special way -- due to their special responsibility for the nation's safety -- it is difficult for them to change with the arrival of the Freedom of Information Act. Even though they were told to behave in the same way as others, they couldn't shake off the consciousness that they were special. The report on April 22, 2003 reported that the Defense Agency and more than 580 local governments nationwide were recruiting new members for the Self-Defense Forces via direct mail, and before sending that mail, in addition to person's name, address, age and gender, they collected unnecessary private information, like registered permanent addresses, parents' occupations and family relationships. One's registered permanent address leads to the issue of discrimination of people from a specific region and foreigners, especially Korean people in Japan -- which is difficult to write in newspapers, so we haven't written. Also, there are people who don't want to share their parents' occupations. Information regarding one's family relationship might reveal a secret about an illegitimate child, which will also lead to discrimination against that child. The agency still did inappropriate information gathering. Not only the agency but also local governments across the country.
|
"When I ask questions at the press club, other male reporters would say ... 'Don't take our time for Q and A.'" |
|
Q: By pointing out the problem to the public -- just as you said, more concretely, not in the abstract -- people felt that they had to do something about it, didn't they?A: Yes. While they were discussing the law since January, this article came out. As a result, the provision that information has to be collected appropriately was added to the resolution in the Personal Information Protection Law, because of the Defense Agency?s issue. So, the 2002 article led to the penalty for government officials, and the 2003 article brought the provision to the resolution of the law. Q: Without those articles, the Personal Information Protection Law would have been passed without deliberate consideration -- A: (Nods) What I believe to be important is, if you would like to make a difference in the world through news reporting, there are two ways: first, through an argument, say, in an editorial. Based on the historical context and various materials, we would make a coherent and convincing argument. But with only an argument, the public wouldn't be moved. For about two years, newspapers had issued arguments before the Defense Agency issue came out. Yet nothing changed. Then were those arguments wasted? No, they contributed to making a foundation. It is necessary to have both arguments and facts or information, just like both wheels on a car.
Page: 1 . 2 next>>>
|
