‰Ô“c’B˜N@e | |||
2020.03.24
Yesterday, 23 March 2020, in Room 712 of the Tokyo District Court, chief
judge Mr. Hiroaki Tanaka read the main text of a judgment, "The court
dismisses the plaintifffs appeal. The legal costs should be accounted
for by the plaintiff." This decision is the result of a lawsuit by
journalist Mr. Hideaki Kimura against The Asahi ShimbunCo.
The court ruled in favor of the newspaper and rejected the journalistfs appeal.
In March 2018, the former Asahi
reporter and current Waseda Chronicle (an independent, non-profit,
investigative newsroom based in Tokyo) managing editor sued The Asahi
Shimbun for libel. He and his attorney insisted that the retraction of an
article written by Mr. Kimura and his colleague, Mr. Tomomi Miyazaki (who
currently heads the monthly investigative journal FACTA) published by the Asahi on 20 May 2014, as well as the
content of the article in the Asahifs 12 Sept. morning edition
announcing its retraction, both fall under the category of
defamation. The scoop had revealed the harsh reality of the chaos at the Fukushima
Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant during the 2011 disaster, using the testimony
of then plant manager Mr. Masao Yoshida. In the story, Mr. Kimura, after
analyzing the bulky document, raised questions about who should be tasked
with reigning in such a severe accident when respondersf lives are on
the line : TEPCO, firefighters, Japanfs Self-Defense Force, or even the
U.SHThe government had kept Mr. Yoshidafs testimony secret from the public,
but the journalist got the document from a whistleblower. From the release of the article until
shortly before the press conference announcing its retraction on 11 September
2014, even the companyfs management recognized the high value of the scoop. On
the other hand, there was increasing criticism of the article from rightwing
writers and press sympathetic to the Abe Administration. The Asahifs
president changed his opinion on the article suddenly and retracted it.
Retraction is extremely rare in journalism. It can happen only in cases of false
news, such as the Asahifs 1950 interview with Mr. Ritsu Ito, a leading
member of the Japanese Communist Party, and who was in hiding at the time,
which was a complete fabrication by the reporter. Mr. Hideaki Kimura, the author of the
retracted article, was punished because of the "mistake." He
subsequently quit The Asahi Shimbun because he felt that it no longer
supported investigative journalism. He aimed with the lawsuit to force the Asahi
to reverse its retraction, so that social and political discussion about the
severe nuclear disaster could take place once again. Under Japanese law, there
was no other way than to sue the newspaper for libel to achieve this aim. Now, what does the judgefs decision mean? The judge avoided touching the core of an issue
that occurred at a media institution, and instead entered into the question of
interpretation of defamation. Again, the plaintiff insisted that "the
retraction of the scoop against the author's will caused a notable fall in his
social confidence as a journalist and damaged his reputation." However,
the judge observed, following the position of the Asahi's counsel for
the defense, that the content of the retraction announcement article didn't
damage the reputation of the reporter, because the publication contains no
particular passage of defamation against the reporter. There is a difference in the ways of
focusing on defamation. But it is easy to see that the judge tried to adopt the
usual and narrow interpretation of defamation to throw out this case. The judge
concluded that the plaintifffs claims fail under any premise, without entering
into a discussion about the core points of the conflict. This is to say, they
slammed the door in his face. The decision shows a lack of understanding
of journalism praxis and journalistic identity among judges. Or rather, the
judge wouldn't try to understand them. In this way, the judge and The Asahi
Shimbun hand in hand rejected the professional dignity of the
journalist. It is strange to see that the 12-page
decision spent one full page citing books written in Japanese by former New
York Times Tokyo Bureau Chief Mr. Martin Fackler, one of supporting
observers of the Mr. Kimurafs lawsuit as journalist. Every quote referred to
professional viewpoints regarding the Asahi's retraction. The judgefs decision
said that Fackler's premises are not compatible with "standards based on
ordinary awareness and literacy of general readers." This discourse must
mean that the court rejects opinions that represent journalism as a profession. Leaving the courthouse, the attorney for
the journalist, Mr. Yoichi Kitamura (representative director of The Japan Civil
Liberties Union), said, "Of course, we will appeal the decision to a high
court." Another part of the journey for pursuing independent journalism in
Japan through legal means has begun. Notes https://apjjf.org/2016/24/Fackler.html 2 This piece is a kind of flash news for
friends abroad. I will write a more detailed one with analysis and comments in
Japanese soon. |
|||
![]() |
¡ | ![]() |
|