   |
 |
Japanese Media Forced to Decipher Political Jargon
Ofer Feldman
For much of Japan?s postwar history, lawmakers have done their politicking behind closed doors and have rarely had to emerge from their smoke-filled rooms to speak to the media. ?Japan doesn?t have a tradition of viewing eloquence as a virtue,? Feldman notes. ?Basically there was no need to talk to be selected as a minister, or even the prime minister. Rather than preferring a strong, visible, articulate leader, the Japanese concept of leadership values the virtues of a behind-the-scenes consensus builder.?
But by the early 1990s that had changed. The collapse of nearly 40 years of Liberal Democratic Party hegemony meant that politicians suddenly found they had to communicate with the public to get elected. Though the LDP quickly regained power, the tone of political coverage was permanently altered. Japan?s charismatic current Prime Minster, Junichiro Koizumi, is particularly known for his media savvy.
Although political coverage has become more varied and interesting, it has not led to more straight talk from politicians. While the media are now making politicians talk, most have retained their wariness of committing themselves, argues Feldman. In effect, the media are asking more questions, but politicians are replying with equivocation and obfuscation.
So how does anyone untangle the dense web of vagueness and miscommunication emanating from the Japanese Diet? Are the Japanese media helping the public understand and engage with Japanese politics ?- or is coverage just exacerbating the public?s alienation? In trying to answer these questions Feldman looks for a path through the maze of Japanese political jargon and metaphor -? explaining such enigmatic terms as ?portable shrine? (the office of the prime minister) and the epithet of one unfortunate leader, ?cold pizza.?
As well as examining the complex and incestuous relationship between politicians and reporters, Feldman argues that the shift to an LDP-led coalition government and an influx of younger, less-disciplined politicians have fundamentally altered the relationship between the media and Japanese lawmakers.
Ofer Feldman is a professor of political psychology at Doshisha University in Kyoto. ?Talking Politics in Japan? is published by Sussex Academic Press. This is an edited transcript of a series of interviews conducted by e-mail.
Japan Media Review: You have written, ?Japan does not have a tradition of viewing eloquence as a virtue.? How then do politicians communicate their ideas?
Ofer Feldman: Politics is talk -- you can?t have politics without discussion -- but you have to distinguish between public and private talk. Former Japanese prime ministers didn?t speak in public; they didn?t have to.
Up until Koizumi, while politicians needed some initiative and ability to talk in order to win elections, the situation was much more structured and stable once they had entered the world of politics. As with most Japanese institutions, promotion was based upon seniority more than ability. Very few politicians who had not made it to a fifth term in the Diet could expect to sit in the Cabinet.
For example, Zenko Suzuki was a very minor prime minister. In a television interview he likened himself to an orchestra conductor whose role is to achieve harmony among the players of his administration (rather than making public statements on policies and politics). This characteristic was the main, perhaps even the sole, criterion for his selection as prime minister.
Masayoshi Ohira, who was elected in 1970, was always mumbling. They called him the ?mm ... mm ... mm ...? prime minister because he couldn?t talk.
JMR: Have there been politicians who refused to keep quiet?
Feldman: Very few. But Yoshiro Mori (prime minister from 2000-2001) was an example of a politician who talks too much. He made a lot of gaffes. In the late 1960s he said that Osaka (Japan?s second city) was like a garbage can.
In June 2000, Prime Minister Mori put his foot in his mouth by saying he hoped that voters who were still undecided would not participate in the upcoming general election: ?It would be okay if they remain uninterested in the election and stay asleep. Unfortunately, that's not how it will go.? Mori?s remarks were widely interpreted as meaning that the prime minister was hoping for low voter turnout.
Another contemporary example of course is Shintaro Ishihara, the governor of Tokyo. In December 2002, Ishihara claimed in a Shukan Josei magazine interview that the worst side effect of civilization is the proliferation of "old hags" (?baba?). He explained that "it's meaningless for women to live after they lose their ability to reproduce."
Traditionally you didn?t need to talk. But if you talked too much, you caused yourself a lot of trouble.
JMR: Isn?t present Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi known for his skill in dealing with the media?
Feldman: Since he entered office, Koizumi has established new standards for dealings with the news media. His attitudes to political reporters have affected their routine newsgathering methods and led journalists to adopt new practices in their coverage of the national leader.
When Koizumi became prime minister he immediately informed reporters that he would "not talk to the press while walking" either in the prime minister's official residence or in the Diet corridors. Instead, Koizumi agreed to appear daily in front of reporters to briefly answer their questions about important issues of the day.
Koizumi has completely replaced the traditional spontaneous news-gathering style with interactions in which reporters must pool precise questions and submit them in advance. Now it is easier to keep the press focused on a specific set of issues, and he is more likely to leave himself maneuvering room while limiting the danger of being pulled into uncharted waters.
This type of media strategy has let Koizumi talk "directly" to TV watchers while appearing to be knowledgeable, well-informed and in control of political events. From the moment of his inauguration, Koizumi strongly emphasized dialogue with the public.
Suddenly here is somebody who is standing in front of the public and talking ? and not only verbally but with gestures, his hairstyle, his smile, the way he walks and waves to the public.
JMR: But hasn?t Koizumi often been accused of equivocation?
Feldman: Basically, Koizumi does not answer any question that he is asked in the Diet. For example, he was asked when he would go and visit the Yasukuni Shrine (Japan?s highly controversial memorial to its war dead). He said, ?When the time arrives.? This is the politics of equivocation.
It is not the less you talk the safer you are, it is the more you equivocate the better politician you are.
JMR: Have the media changed the way they cover politics too?
Feldman: TV coverage of politics in particular has changed a lot since the LDP?s almost 40 years of unbroken rule ended in 1993. There are more and more programs which give politicians a chance to talk on television. One is Takeshi Kitano?s program on Monday evening, ?TV Tackle.? He invites not only veteran politicians and former Diet members, but also young politicians too -- from both the ruling coalition and the opposition parties. It?s partly entertainment but partly a very informative program that deals with important issues that are on the political agenda.
Another factor was Hiroshi Kume. He was the anchor for Asahi Television?s "News Station." He made television a major political tool. He didn?t just read the news; he did something like Walter Cronkite did in the United States. He put a lot of emotion, a lot of criticism, a lot of cynicism in the way he talked about society and politics. He spurred more political interest among the public.
JMR: What happened to have such an effect on media coverage?
Feldman: The political game before 1993 was that there were two political camps ?- there was the LDP and there was the socialist party. Then the LDP lost an election for the first time in 40 years. After 1993, the rules of this game broke down. The LDP was then replaced by coalition rule.
The prime minister at the time, Morihiro Hosokawa, suddenly changed a lot of things, including politics behind closed doors. He said, let?s talk politics in front of the people, in front of the cameras. Communication between politicians and the public started from there.
JMR: What about Japan?s public broadcaster, NHK? Recently it was accused of altering a program after pressure from the LDP.
Feldman: The scandal was not an isolated event. NHK is supposed to be a public broadcaster with no relationship to politics. What happens is that, in order to get their budget passed in parliament, they are going day in, day out to leading members of the LDP to tell them what they are going to air. Sometimes to the extent that they are presenting politicians with the anchorman?s script. This is unacceptable in a democracy.
The point was the timing. The Asahi Shimbun, in order to boost sales, just waited for an opportunity to bash NHK on something their reporters face basically every day.
JMR: How about print media? Have they changed their style of coverage since 1993?
Feldman: From my viewpoint, it is interesting that Asahi wrote the story because Asahi accepts the same pressure every day when they interact with sources of information. Because of the close relationship between reporters and the sources of information, the reporters are advised about what to write. But in many cases they are not told, ?Write this and this.? The source of information just says, ?I am expecting fair coverage.?
There is a very close relationship between reporters and politicians. Politicians give a certain type of information to reporters, and they expect them to publish this information. They also give them other kinds of information, but they limit it by off-the-record and other means and prohibit reporters from publishing it.
There are official press conferences in Japan. But the information is very limited, only to the official side of the government or organization. Right after the press conference the source of information will leave with the reporters to his private office and give them the real information.
JMR: Younger politicians seem to be interviewed in the media more often now, not just the party big-wigs. Does that mean that political reporters have freer access to information?
Feldman: Put it this way, reporters gather more information now, but they do not publish it. You can hear more of the information on TV than in newspapers.
To access this type of information reporters need to understand politics in Japan ?- real politics, not gossip politics. They only need to be in contact with, say, 10 particular Diet members. But what they cannot give is flavor to this political information, information about the real mood among the young Diet members.
From the beginning of the 2000s, you see people on TV political programs who have only been elected once or twice. They have no official position; they come on the program to express the opinions that exist in their constituencies.
When you are live on television you can say whatever you want. But when you are interviewed by a reporter, after that, he or she selects what will appear in the newspaper.
JMR: Why have younger politicians started talking to the media?
Feldman: During the period that the LDP held power, from the 1950s to the 1990s, there was a seniority system. People were promoted on the basis of the time they were elected to the Diet.
Also, during the time the LDP had power, the faction bosses controlled the behavior of the people belonging to the factions through money. If somebody said good things they got money, if they said bad things, no money.
Because of the electoral reforms in the 1990s there are now more regulations about the money that the faction bosses can gather and distribute to members. Eventually the bosses lost power ... nobody wants to be a yes-man because the faction doesn?t have any power.
What happened was that young Diet members -- who had traditionally been afraid of their bosses -- started to talk. Young Diet members are now very talkative, very provocative. They speak against Koizumi, against the faction bosses ?- something that never happened before the 1990s.
JMR: You mention political metaphors in your book. Are they a tool the media can use to bring the workings of Japanese politics into the open?
Feldman: Metaphors help people take ideas from one area and use them to understand politics. Take ?mikoshi? -- the portable shrines that Japanese people carry on their shoulders during festivals. This is the way people refer to the prime minister ?- he needs to be "carried about" by fixers and others who have to support his administration like the portable shrines carried on long poles during festivals.
It is a kind of shorthand. When you use the term ?mikoshi,? people immediately have the image of the prime minister being carried around.
Political roles and issues are better explained using subjects familiar to the audience. There are a large number of metaphors used in Japanese politics, including a ?security guard? or ?bodyguard? role played by faction members and the ?heckling shogun? role played by noisy politicians.
Metaphorically, prime ministers were labeled by terms that illustrated either their personality or leadership style. Eisaku Sato was the ?the waiting politician? and ?quick ears Eisaku??; Kakuei Tanaka was a ?computerized bulldozer?; Yasuhiro Nakasone was a ?weathervane?; and Keizo Obuchi was termed an ?ordinary man? and ?cold pizza."
The topic of metaphors is extremely interesting and important in the context of political behavior, especially in Japan, because many people feel that the political process and policymaking are complicated and difficult to understand.
© 2002-2006 Japan Media Review.
