profIdent-draft1 copy.txt

---
date: 14 February 2017
style: Article
bibliography: /Users/spkb/Documents/bibliographies/mybib.bib
csl: /Users/spkb/Documents/bibliographies/apa6.csl
abstract: The role of a professional identity for journalists around the world is part of what allows them to act as the watchdogs on power that society expects. How and where is this identity acquired? Is Japan different? If so does this explain the idiosyncratic nature of journalistic activity in Japan?
title: Professional Identity, Press freedom and Journalism in Japan
+as: Asahi Shimbun
+sb: Shimbun
---

# Introduction #

Japan is home to a vigorous press, both national and local, levels of newspaper readership have traditionally been high, and they remain so, yet despite its apparently healthy state Japan has fallen down press freedom rankings over the past few years. Particularly abrupt was the drop in its ranking between 2010 and 2011/12 in the aftermath of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear disaster. The situation for the press in Japan seems to present two different faces; while the industry as a whole seems to be healthier than many around the developed world, Japanese journalism, and the journalists that produce it, is in a much less confident mood. <!--2220_18–01-->

Japan's press still up there in the 'free' zone but its ranking is at  the lowest level since the Reporters Sans Frontiéres(RSF) series began in 2002, such a rapid fall - from 11th 'free-est' in the world in 2010 to 72nd just six years later - must surely be cause for concern. RSF noted that the precipitous drop after the 2011 triple disaster was in part due to complaints from freelance journalists that,

> public debate was being stifled [and was] subjected to censorship, police intimidation and judicial harassment.[^rsf]

[^rsf]: https://rsf.org/en/world-press-freedom-index-2013


<!-- : **Table 1:** Reporters without Borders (https://rsf.org/en/ranking) N.B. the ranking combined the 2011-2012 ratings in one figure, this has been graphed as 2012 below.

| 2009 | 2010 | 2011/12 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 |
|-----:|-----:|--------:|-----:|-----:|-----:|-----:|
|   17 |   11 |      22 |   53 |   59 |   61 |   72 | -->


![](/Users/spkb/pix/rsf-ranking-japan2.png){ height=200px }

: **Figure 1:** Reporters Sans Frontiéres Press Freedom rankings for Japan since 2002, red line shows 3-period moving average.

<!---
| 2006 | 2009 | 2011    | 2015   | 2016   |
|------:|------:|---------:|--------:|--------:|
| 35| 33| 32| 25/100| 26/100|
-->

These concerns were further exacerbated during the debate over the introduction of the 'Specially Designated Secrets Protection Law' in 2013, which @Repeta:2014 argues 'poses a severe threat to news reporting and press freedom in Japan'.

The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression (actually, UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression), David Kaye, visited Japan in October 2016, he confirmed the existence of a sense of unease within the Japanese press, particularly with regards to its ability to maintain an attitude of independence toward a government taking an increasingly proactive approach to 'press management'. During a press conference at the end of his visit, Kaye reported journalists concerns in the following terms;

> quote 1

He summarised his experience of talking to various actors within the Japanese mass media system as follows;

> the problem is, the **system of journalism** and **the structure of media itself in Japan** doesn't seem to afford journalists the ability to push back against government encroachments, and you see this [...] in the example of the _kisha_ club[^kk] system, we learned about serious concern about senior members of the independent media meeting with senior members of the government, we heard these stories repeatedly, and **I would really encourage journalists to organise themselves, to adopt a professional organisation, a union in effect, in which journalists can express media-wide solidarity**, can perhaps enjoy self-regulation through a press council, in short, the media itself has a role to play, the media itself bears some responsibility for this situation (emphasis added)

[^kk]: This paper uses the words 'press club' as a translation of the Japanese term, _kisha kurabu_. However it should be noted that the highest-profile 'press club', the Japan National Press Club (in Japanese, _Nihon Kisha Kurabu_), is entirely different from typical _kisha kurabu_ in its aims, membership and journalistic function.

<!--  and I hope these two different tasks [change law, organise] could protect the independence of the press. -->

This paper reviews Japan's 'system of journalism' and the media structures structures that Kaye identifies as being inimical to journalistic autonomy, and the difficulties which tend to discourage or stand in the way of any professional-level organisation.

Japan must be understood as a (in this case genuine) special case: The mainstream media in Japan is highly dominant in a very isolated market, Japanese readers, unlike readers of English, do not have the luxury of turning to say the US, Australian or even Russian press for alternative views; Japanese media firms are the pretty much the only producers of Japanese-language news and information.[^brasil] The seven _zenkokushi_ (newspapers with national daily reach) employ just under 20,000 staff, about half of these in editorial roles [(METI 2015 Report)](http://www.meti.go.jp/statistics/tyo/tokusabizi/result-2/h27.html). Between them they have daily sales of roughly 30 million copies, that is they supply daily news to over half of Japan's 52 million households.[^hhs] Add to this the influence of the main news agencies, Kyōdo and Jiji, who supply news to newspapers, and radio and television broadcasters(JMH:2015 - p59) @JMH:2015 (CITATION! RAUSCH? [@Rausch:2012]), it can be seen that there is little scope for alternative and 'left-field' voices.[^fail] Kyodo claim over 170[^kyod] national outlets as clients, Jiji another 140[^jiji].

[^hhs]: http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/nenkan/66nenkan/index.htm

[^fail]: the repeated failed attempts at 'public journalism' and the mobilisation of the 'citizen reporter' also illustrates this dominance, and also perhaps a lack of interest on the part of audiences for 'alternative' sources. MyNewsJapan etc.

[^kyod]: http://www.kyodonews.jp/company/members.html

[^jiji]: http://www.jiji.com/c_profile/about_us.html

[^brasil]: Some exceptions - such as news sites catering for Japanese overseas communities in Asia and the Americas, e.g. [http://www.nikkeyshimbun.jp/]. The 海外日系新聞放送協会 OJPA claims 20 members, the majority of whom are based in South America.[OJPA](http://www.jadesas.or.jp/shinbun/) - 4 Jan 2017.

<!--also see - http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/page4_002455.html
kyodo members - http://www.kyodonews.jp/company/members.html-->

Thus the structures that shape the way the mainstream media report events, and in which the mainstream press is particularly implicated, matter perhaps more deeply in Japan than in many other modern industrial states.<!--1632_29–01-->

As far as broadcast news is concerned, the picture is similar; the most watched news program, NHK's 7pm news is regularly watched by 16-17 million people, news on commercial channels brings in combined audiences of over 30 million; the top-rated commercial news show, TV Asahi's _Hōdō Station_, gains in the region of 14 million viewers, NTV's early evening _news every_, about 12 million.[^scr]

[^scr]: This adopts the rough approximation, 1 per cent = 1 million viewers, suggested by @Torigoe:2002 [, 29]. This estimate is close to the estimate offered by Ozeki Kōji, torishimariyaku at Video Research in an interview with TV Asahi (_Hai! Terebi Asahi desu_) broadcast on 19 Feb 2017. Figures compiled from Autumn 2016 ratings data - [Video Research](https://www.videor.co.jp/data/ratedata/backnum/2016/index.htm)

It should be noted that it is these major media companies --- six Tokyo-based television networks, the five major national daily newspapers, and the two national news agencies --- that make up the core 13 members of many of the 'press clubs'.

## Aims

Ultimately the question this paper seeks to address is: Why, given the obvious concern with independence and what Kaye describes as the deep commitment to freedom of speech and expression in Japan, and the obvious concern of many journalists, have news-workers in Japan not organised in the way he suggests?

Also review bodies which have existed in Japan for reporters and those involved in news. Brief review of reporting organisations.

Also, what of the rumoured 'collectivistic' instincts of Japanese society? Why no collective action from journalists to respond to this common threat? ANSWER: collectivism seems to revolve primarily around the most concrete of structures, thus the firm trumps any abstract idea such as a 'profession' or 'society' - you don't get a membership card for those they are a matter of self-identification rather than formal membership.<!--1655_29–01--> **try matsumoto - New Japan as source?**

REMEMBER: **'systems' and 'structures'** TODO

This paper argues that the root causes of this failure to organise, can be found in a) the nature of the professional education of journalists, and b) the nature of employment structures for journalists in Japan. The effects of these social institutions can be observed manifested as the 'professional ideology' of journalists in Japan, this paper uses certain aspects of this ideology as proposed by @Deuze:2005.

This has led to a situation where reporter identity is centred on entities - companies as employers - which are required (at least as far as rhetoric is concerned) to be in a relationship of 'fierce competition'. 

Are Japanese journalists equipped to push back against the forces that pressure them? Can the 'professional identity' of the journalist be seen as a protective barrier, a layer of insulation, which allows journalists a psychological cushion and promotes the kind of activity and relationships expected of the ethical journalist. Does the lack of this cushion contribute to the state of journalism in Japan at the current time?

This paper will not deal with the influence if the *kisha kurabu* 'press club' system, probably the most widely documented aspect of journalism in Japan, as it has been dealt with extensively  elsewhere [see for example @Freeman:2000; @Iwase:1998], but it is worth summarising the effects of press club journalism; the collective responsibility implied by press club membership leaves the press open to pressure both from peers - to not rock the boat and upset relations with sources - and from sources who can deny access more or less at will. Given the possibilities offered by social media for politicians to simply bypass the main stream media, it is difficult to see how the traditional "balance of power" for control of access (press to politicians, politicians to the public) can be maintained. Japanese politics has been rather late to the social media jamboree with the use of online campaigning in general elections prohibited until 2013, but this will change.[@Osaka:2014, p51]

## Ideology of Journalism

Discussion of the elements of the nature of the journalistic identity has been an integral part of academic understandings of news and news-gatherers since the very early days of the field (eg?). Deuze[-@Deuze:2005] sums up the essential features of what he refers to as the journalistic ideology:

>   • Public service: journalists provide a public service (as watchdogs or ‘news-hounds’, active collectors and disseminators of information);\
>   • Objectivity: journalists are impartial, neutral, objective, fair and (thus) credible;\
>   • Autonomy: journalists must be autonomous, free and independent in their work;\
>   • Immediacy: journalists have a sense of immediacy, actuality and speed (inherent in the concept of ‘news’);\
>   • Ethics: journalists have a sense of ethics, validity and legitimacy.\

[@Deuze:2005, p447]

Where and when are these beliefs about journalism acquired?

*ANSWER THIS FOR THE GENERAL CASE*

What has been the effect of a strong bureaucratic tradition on the role of professional ideas in journalism in Japan?

*THIS IS WHAT I LOOK AT HERE*

# Journalism in Japan #

**LIT REVIEW in here**

Japan has a history of journalism stretching back to its emergence from under the control of the Tokugawa Bakufu in the latter decades of the nineteenth century.

Early journalism was often politically sponsored and overtly partial,

the individuals considered the first modern journalists in Japan - Yanagawa Shunsan (1832-70) publisher of the _Chūgai +sb_, and Fukuchi Gen'ichiro, well known for his work at the _Tōkyō Nichinichi +sb_.[@Huffman:1997: 32] had 'close personal ties to the _bakukfu_ shogunate'[@Schafer:2012, p9]

It was only with the adoption of the 'objective' mass circulation model, and the printing techniques that made them possible, that the press began to require something like the 'professional' journalist rather than the partisan supporter and advocate of a cause.

@Shibata:2003 [: 12--3] suggests that the current worrying state of journalism in Japan began to take place in the aftermath of the Vietnam War; during this period newspapers in Japan had maintained an 'opposition party spirit' (_yatō seishin_) and had been critical of both US and Japanese foreign policy in Southeast Asia. From the mid-'70s the _Sankei +sb_ broke ranks and began to take a more government (Jimintō) friendly line, it was followed in the '80s by the _Yomiuri_ with its pro-Reagan/Nakasone attitude. This led to the current situation with the _Asahi_ and _Mainichi_ on the oppositional side and the _Yomiuri_ and _Sankei_ being conservative, pro-(LDP)government. As Shibata states, it is perfectly reasonable, and indeed desirable, for newspapers to offer different point of view to their readers, but, he argues, the shifts in the attitudes of two of Japan's largest papers fundamentally affected the ability of the press to perform their 'watchdog' function.(QUOTE better?)

## Development of journalism as a trade

The first move to give form to journalism as a trade in Japan was the [@Schafer:2012: 10] 1875 formation of the Alliance of Newspaper Reporters (*+sb Kisha Rengō*) in reaction to increasingly restrictive laws which affected the press and protection against libel.[^law]

[^law]:*shimbunshi jōrei*, *zanbōritsu*

1880s - new university graduates began to move into journalism, numbers increased through the 1920s, economic recession meant a dearth of graduate employment opportunities at a time when the popular press was expanding and looking to increase the quality if its content by employing better educated reporters.[@Schafer:2012: 36]

During the years of political turbulence between the 1880s and the first decade of the 20th century, the nature of the relationship between politics and the press underwent a series of changes; @Kawabe:1921 breaks this period into four distinct phases, during which the nature and role of the newspaper business and its employees gradually approached the form it took until the end of WW2.

kawabe four phases TODO

One recurring theme in his narrative is the way that journalists in these years acted together to oppose policies they thought acted against their interests, or impede their ability to carry out their work, and thus, to keep their publics informed. It seems that the now much-criticised 'press clubs' were, during this period, a focus for journalistic action. REFME

However along with this shift toward employing individuals who had passed through the system of imperial universities - and reducing the number of 'enthusiasts' - who saw themselves as 'educators of society' - came an increase in the number of 'company employees'. In 1917, Motoyama Hikoichi[^moto] had characterised this shift with the following words,

[^moto]: journo at *Osaka Shinpō*, then *Jiji Shinpō*, 1888 reorganised *Osaka Mainichi SB*, became pres in 1903: Advocate of foundation of newspaper studies depts at univs and later president of *Osaka Mainichi* newspaper [@Schafer:2012: 36n].

> a journalist, just like a salaryman of any other profit-oriented company, needs to spare no efforts in favor of his company. [@Schafer:2012: 37, citing @Ono:1971: 52]

The journalist was increasingly seen as primarily a company employee like any other. And the _shimbun-gaku_ 'newspaper studies' departments established at universities were aimed at providing potential journalists with the requisite knowledge to allow them to gain employment at newspapers on graduation. It took until 1929 for a Tokyo Imperial University to establish a 'Newspaper Research Seminar' as part of its literature department.[@Schafer:2012 p40]

Ono??? was the prime motivator in the establishment of this body, he saw the professional training he sought to offer as a way to push back against the 'degeneration' of the press he perceived in the 1920s, and to raise journalists who would again act as educators of society, ensuring that expert and specialist opinion would be made available to the newspaper's mass audience [@Schafer:2012 p45--5].

It can be seen that discussion of the role of formal journalistic education has not been lacking in Japan; nevertheless, despite what seems to be an acknowledged consensus on the part of educators that such an education would be beneficial (they would say that wouldn't they) few Japanese tertiary institutions offer any sort of practical journalism, probably due to the lack of enthusiasm on the part of potential employers who continue to place little value on specialist knowledge.

[@Huffman:1997; @Lange:1998]

## Education of Journalists ##

Deuze, in his typology of global journalism education approaches, categorises the Japanese system as characterised by

> [p]rimarily on-the-job training by the media industry, for example through apprenticeship systems (Austria, Japan; Great Britain and Australia started this way, as this is a typical
feature of the Anglo-Saxon model).[@Deuze:2006 p22]

It should be noted that the US is not included in the 'Anglo-Saxon' model, instead being grouped with countries which prefer:

> [t]]raining at schools and institutes generally located at universities (see e.g. Finland, Spain, United States, Canada, South Korea, Egypt, Kenya, Argentina, the Gulf States, increasingly in Great Britain and Australia ...)

It should be noted that the Japanese press' attitude towards its work, and its wider role within society, and indeed some its it fundamental regulatory structures (see BROADCAST LAW), is based on the 'objective' model established in the US in the early part of the 20th century, yet the way it educates and trains its journalists is still close to the systems which emerged in the highly politicised and openly partial press found in the UK and Australia. [REFME]{.adm}

See parts of...

[@Cooper-Chen:1997a; @Fujita:2004; @Hanada:2003; @Hashimoto:2003a; @Ikuta:2004; @IwabuchiY:2004; @Tsukamoto:1993; @Tsukamoto:2006]

Also refer to @Aldridge:2003.

Indeed, outside employment there is little opportunity for potential journalists in Japan to acquire knowledge, skills and experience of their chosen trade. @Splichal:1994 [135] surveyed students in journalistic education in 22 countries in the mid 1990s, they found that 90 per cent of Japanese respondents had no experience of engaging in any sort of journalism before entering their course, the highest proportion of any of the countries surveyed. The average rate for all countries was just over 60 per cent.

As a route to employment an education in journalism can be all but irrelevant, as @Cooper-Chen:1997a [: 22] suggest, company recruitment relies on testing general skills (general knowledge, literacy) so a degree from *any* department in a prestigious university may be worth more than specialist knowledge from a less prestigious institution. Theses attitudes and the expectations of media employers - virtually no value attached to any sort of university-based journalistic education [@Fujita:2004: 1] in Japan seems to go back to at least the 1930s [@Uchikawa:2003: 14].

@Willnat:2013 [167] found that over 95 per cent of journalists in Japan had a college degree, among the highest rate of countries surveyed, yet the proportion of those with a degree specifically in journalism was the second lowest at just 15 per cent. Japan also had the oldest average age for journalists at 53, seeming to indicate that, unlike many other countries, journalists in Japan tend to stay in their work longer.

@Fujita:2004 points to changes in the environment as a cause of the growing perception that the 'on-the-job training' (OJT) system was not producing the desired results, this led to a renewed debate about the role of university-based journalist education in Japan in the later 1990s and early 00s - the increasing use of technology at all levels of newspaper production and the increased pressure on workers which left little time for senior reporters to train new staffers.[@Fujita:2004: 3]

This debate took place in reaction to a number of incidents (plagiarism[^plag], invasions of privacy, 'overheated' herd reporting (*media sukuramu*), libel)[@Ikuta:2004: 1]. Ikuta also identifies the pressures of adapting to new technologies as a root cause in the drop in journalistic standards.

[^plag]: About one-third of an article in the 8 Jun 2000 edition on the *Asahi Shimbun* was found to have been plagiarised from the local *Chugoku Shimbun* by a reporter in the Hiroshima office.[@Shibata:2003: 137]

Ikuta describes the actual content of OJT at the _+as_; new employs spend four or five years at a local office where their development can be overseen trained by experienced reporters, traditionally the local office would be a mix of new, middle career and 'veteran' reporters. However Ikuta argues that this system broke down due to the HR policy of concentrating middle-career reporters in the head offices, which led to an over-reliance on early-career reporters in local bureaus. (ibid. p224/1180) This breakdown seems to be confirmed by one of the junior journalists interview by @Minami:2011[, 242], 'Shota' explains;

> In the past, editors or managers would take care of young reporters in their departments. They had time and room to do that. They used to take young reporters out for drinks or something after work. But nowadays, their workload has also increased so that they have lost such leeway. So, they can't pay close attention to what young reporters are doing. It‟s kind of a vicious cycle.

A significant effect of a primarily OJT-based system might be that it becomes more difficult to have any external standard (what kind of standard?); if the measure of professionalism is how closely one approximates the work of one's mentor then it is easy for _practical_ understandings of how one does journalism --- rather, how one does the job of journalist --- to become prioritised over how should (according to some exterior abstract measure - whether a code, an exemplar or whatever) journalists set about doing their work. It might also be readily supposed that such a system might turn out to be more 'malleable' from the political sources' point of view with the local (in time and space) understandings of the  necessities of practical reporting being passed on, and thereby taking on the status of 'common sense', within a single generation.

## Sources of Ethics
[link to Deuze's list]{.adm}

>Both the creation of codes of ethics and the emergence of formal education and training for journalists fostered a shared culture among journalists. @Tumber:2005 [66]

What are the sources of ethical understandings in Japan? How widely are these shared across groupings within the industries in which journalism takes place?

## Employment Structures in Japan

The NSK carries our annual surveys of employment within the newspaper industry; according to these surveys there are approximately 20,000 'reporters', this number has remained more or less constant over the past 15 years. IN the same period the total number of newspaper employees has dropped from 54565 in 2001 to 41396 in 2016. The proportion of employees engaged in reporting work has thus increased from 38 per cent in 2001 to 46 per cent in 2016.[^emp-data]

How many people work as journalists in Japan?
How may do the mainstream mass media employ?
What are their backgrounds? Who are they?

Average career length?

Typical career development?

Reference [Minami PhD](http://0.0.0.0:8080/Newspaper%20Work%20in%20a%20Time%20of%20Digital%20Change-%20A%20Comparative%20Study%20of%20U.S.%20and%20Japanese%20Journalists%20MINAMI(PhD)%202011.pdf#page=158)

@Minami:2011

_Tenshoku_?



# Living the ideology?

Deal with whether journalism is a profession? Greenwood, Tumber etc.
May exhibit different levels of professionalisation in different systems, so perhaps a matter of degree rather than anything else.

> Within the professional category of its occupational classification the United States Census Bureau includes, among others, the following: accountant, architect, artist, attorney, clergyman, college professor, dentist, engineer, journalist, judge, librarian, natural scientist, optometrist, pharmacist, physician, social scientist, social worker, surgeon, and teacher. What common attributes do these professional occupations possess which distinguish them from the nonprofessional ones? After a careful canvass of the sociological literature on occupations, this writer has been able to distill five elements, upon which there appears to be consensus among the students of the subject, as constituting the distinguishing attributes of a profession. Succinctly put, all professions seem to possess: (1) systematic theory, (2) authority, (3) community sanction, (4) ethical codes, and (5) a culture.

[@Greenwood:1957]

> Greenwood’s five attributes of a profession – systematic theory; authority; community sanction; ethical codes; and a culture (Greenwood:1957)

This section surveys how the five aspects of the journalistic ideology outlined by Deuze(see above) are materialised in Japan; it concentrates on 'ethics' and 'autonomy' as areas which can be seen to have a particularly significant impact on journalistic practise.

I will deal with the less controversial aspects - public service, objectivity, and immediacy - before moving on.

See NSK Ethics Guide[^guide]

Also see Society of Professional Journalists Ethics Guide.[^SPJGuide]

## Public service

Journalists relations with the 'public' - public journalism? Surveys of Japanese journalists understandings of the audience?

Central term for Japanese discussion of the role of journalists is 'the right to know' (*shiru kenri*); this would seem to indicate a pervasive consciousness of journalism as a service to the general public. Of course, this leaves open the question of how this idea is operationalised; in any particular instance, which public is to be served and how?

Willnat survey?

## Objectivity

The prime concern of reporters in Japan (see Weaver info) is the accurate reporting of fact. Is the corollary a reduction in the amount of comment and context provided?

When the broadcasting of television news started on NHK in the 1960s, the newspaper model was adopted as an organisational template and standard.

However, the political implications of 'objectivity' and 'balance' are continually debated and have been much criticised(CITATIONS) as a way to avoid the responsibility of making moral judgements and providing useful, informed evaluation of so-called 'facts', which, in many cases, may not be as 'self-explanatory' as they might at first seem.

If it is, as @Tuchman:1972 suggests, primarily a 'ritual' through the enactment of which reporters and editors avoid potential censure, it is reasonable to expect - in a media system such as Japan's where there has developed the constant threat of pressure from powerful sources, that achieving 'objectivity' - and therefore insulating oneself from pressure as much as possible - would become a prime concern.

There are also commercial benefits; these were recognised early on by the press is Japan.[@Huffman:1997: p?]

## Immediacy

No doubt about this. Companies like immediacy as a measure of journalistic performance; results are generally quantifiable and unambiguous - it's usually fairly obvious 'who was first'.

Japanese newspapers still issue *gōgai* sheets, single sheet 'extras' handed out free, often at major railway stations (and thus coincidentally also useful for television news cameras), covering major and breaking stories such as the death of Fidel Castro or the resignation of President Park of South Korea.

The importance of immediacy for the printed press - the discourse of newspapering in Japan is still largely ambivalent about the existence and importance of the web - might also be detected in the ongoing commitment of all newspapers to deliver to subscribers homes[^deliv] very early in the morning thus ensuring the presence fo a daily paper and access to the news it provides 'at the breakfast table'.

## Autonomy

What is it that allows the journalist this autonomy? Identity as a professional that extends beyond the fact that they work for a company which 'does news'. Basis for maintaining the 'chinese wall' between business and editorial, insulation from source pressure etc.

The Japanese journalist, as a result of the diversity of educational backgrounds - surely a strength in terms of diversity of knowledge - lack a strong external power base [@Soloski:1989, 212--3]

To be autonomous invites suspicion - to be outside a publicly legitimised organisation - the reputation of trades unions, other than the 'company unions' prevalent across much of Japanese industry is as 'trouble makers obsessed with Marxist doctrine'(CHECK!) - is to lose a credibility and social trust. Thus, without some sort of legitimate (by whose standards?) body to which they can refer, journalists are effectively restricted to acting within the bounds of the vertical company-based structure. The 'media-wide' cooperation that David Kaye referred to necessary to effect a concerted push back against top-down pressure is near impossible.

> ジャーナリストというより朝日新聞社員としての仕事をしている図式です

quote from - 新聞協会賞を2度受賞した*依光隆明*朝日新聞社編集委員
[@JCEJ:2014]

Then there is the question of industry autonomy from government power. The structures of the mass media (and in the broader economy in which media companies exist), gradually put in place over the 70 years since the end of WW2, has turned out to be a double-edged sword. The sections below focus on the linkages between legislation/regulation and media industries which can be seen as political pressure points, which are none the less so for not being employed as such.

### The Broadcast Act{-}

Identified by Kaye as an obvious political pressure point. Takaichi Sanae statements during 2015/6. Kaye suggests some third party regulator equivalent to the US Federal Communications Commission(FCC). Such a body, the Radio Regulatory Commission (RRC), did exist for just over one year during the period between the passing of the Broadcast Act and the end of the US occupation; the body's two most significant acts were to grant a broadcast licence to Japan's first commercial broadcaster, Nippon TV, and then to dissolve itself, returning control of broadcasting to a ministry (at that time the Ministry of Posts, _Yūsei-shō_).[@Ito:2010a, Ch2] So, while there is a precedent for such a body, it is not altogether a promising one.

What are the problems with the Broadcast Act?

According to arguments put forward in _Hōsō Ripōto_ the government may not actually be able to use the Broadcast Act in this way.(HR 263+64)

#### Article 4{-}

This article is divided into two sections, the first deals with programming content, the second with encouraging broadcasters to provide services for the visually impaired. It is the first section which Kaye refers to.

> (Editing and Other Matters of the Broadcast Programs of Domestic Broadcasting, etc.)
>
> The broadcaster shall comply with the matters provided for in the following items when editing the broadcast programs of domestic broadcasting or domestic and international broadcasting (hereinafter referred to as “domestic broadcasting, etc.”):\
> (i) It shall not harm public safety or good morals;\
> (ii) It shall be politically fair.\
> (iii) Its reporting shall not distort the facts;\
> (iv) It shall clarify the points at issue from as many angles as possible where there are conflicting opinions concerning an issue.

#### Article 174{-}

> (Suspension of Operations)
> Article 174
>
> If the broadcaster (excluding terrestrial basic broadcasters) has violated this Act or an order or disposition based on this Act, the **Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications shall set a period within three months and shall order the suspension of the operations of the broadcasting**. (emphasis added)


### Newspaper Resale System & Antimonopoly Rules {-}

* Weakness of JFTC
* Pricing cartel
* _Saihan seido_

The _tokushū shitei_ status of newspapers is a purely regulatory matter, the JFTC could decide to rescind it at any point. Occasional government reassessments of its social value serve to remind the newspaper industry of this.

## Ethics

The NSK model:

Should be noted that the subject of the NSK code is 'the newspaper', rather than the individual journalist

Limited to the company motto!

Discussing the reaction of the New Delhi correspondents of the major Japanese media during the media restrictions which were part of the Emergency (1975?), and the reaction of the mass media in Japan when government took the decision to intervene in the 1994 *Tsubaki Hatsugen*[^tsuba] incident [@Berger:1995].

[^tsuba]: Explain this

> 日本人ジャーナリストが全員、ジャーナリストとしての使命に生きるよりも、私企業の倫理に従った [@Yamashita:1996, p37]

> 新聞記者[...]のたいがいの自己認識は、「企業内記者」である。[...] 競争は企業間競争であり、企業の枠や国境を超えたジャーナリストの意識は、弱い。[Kamata in Hanada p 50]

> ここが日本とそれ以外の国のジャーナリストとの大きな違いだ。例えば米国のメディアで働く者は、報道基幹の社員である前に、ひとりのジャーナリストであるという考え方が強い。
[@Uesugi:2008: 115]

Uesugi also tells the tale of how an NYT exclusive interview with then Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi, was stymied --- with the collusion of the PM's office --- by the related _kisha kurabu_. The grounds given for the press club's actions were that the NYT was not a member and any interview with the PM could only go ahead once they had made an application to join (which would be refused!) and been accepted (which wouldn't happen!) [@Uesugi:2008: 95--6] The notion that the prime minister should be questioned by the press seems to be of lesser priority than the political-hierarchical position of the press club.

# Discussion

Inability of J press to act for common good: Yamashita India Emergency anecdote [@Yamashita:1996, p35--6], also perhaps the profusion of microphones that one sees in front of speakers at a press conference in Japan[^mike] attest the unwillingness (lack of desire) of Japanese media companies to cooperate, even where the benefits are obvious, and the gains from non-cooperation negligible to nil.

[^mike]: It is common practise in many countries for the host of the press conference to provide feeds of the main microphone audio to all camera crews via a 'break-out box' positioned near to the designated camera position. Among other advantages to this system is that it helps reduce visual clutter in front of the speaker.

Does the newspaper press prefer a long decline into oblivion to any effort to reform?  Backward-looking, attempt to revert to golden era, rather than dealing with a changed world and being pro-active in defining a new and relevant role.

Some kind of equivalent of the National Council for the Training of Journalists [(NCTJ)](http://www.nctj.com/) ?

## Broadcasting: Legal Reform ##

Kaye suggested that one of the root problems impinging on the freedom of television news broadcasting in Japan is the structure of regulation embedded in the Broadcast Law and the _Denpa-hō_. It is worth looking briefly at how this structure developed and why it poses the potential 'pressure point' Kaye points to.

_Hōsō Repōt_ 263 and 264

### Establishment and initial interpretations
The debates leading to the passing of the Broadcast Law, and the two other laws which made up the three pillars of broadcasting regulation, have been well documented elsewhere. [ REFME ]{.adm} This brief section focusses on how the interpretation of those parts of these regulations that can be seen to have the potential usefulness for a government bent on exerting influence over the press.

Until ????, Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications officials were explicit in their view of the potential for the relevant section of the Broadcast Law (Article 4 - CHECK ) to act as the basis for government action against broadcasters whose output seemed to be in breach of the stipulated standards. It was practically impossible.

This interpretation changed when...


### Takaichi Sanae

## Non-company journalistic groups

There are a number of bodies already established in Japan which could theoretically act as a focus for concerted action. However, to abuse Andy Tanenbaum's famous dictum - 'The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from' - the problem may be that the 'ethical and professional body' is ultimately _too_ fragmented for any one body to gather a critical mass of journalists which can be agreed on as forming a representative understanding of the journalistic profession.

### JNPEA - Nihon Shimbun Kyōkai {-}

Primarily an industry group. Focussed largely on promoting the business interests of newspaper publishers; encouraging readership, surveying the effectiveness of advertising, monitoring copyright, and lobbying for continuation of legal privileges. It also issues the _Shimbun Rinri Koryo_ 新聞倫理綱領;

### Japan Congress of Journalists(JCJ) {-}

_Nihon Jānarisuto Kaigi_

Formed in 1955, currently claims a membership of 800.

Unlikely to be able to perform a uniting role as the focus of it's activity seems to be political rather than journalistic. This is --- however just the causes they choose might seem to be --- likely to alienate journalists who see themselves as being first and foremost 'objective' observers of, and reporters on society.

### Jiyū Hōdō Kyōkai  {-}
[FPAJ](http://fpaj.jp) Free Press Association of Japan

### Japan P.E.N. Club {-}

More focussed on independent writers with literary aims. Still concerned with 'human rights', 'world peace', 'freedom of speech/expression' etc but not really at the level of the everyday activities of journalists. [P.E.N.](http://www.japanpen.or.jp/about/activity/)

### International solidarity {-}

Might this provide the impetus for Japan's journalists to organise?

Representatives from Japan attended the 4th International Press Congress, held in Stockholm in 1897 (Nordenstreng and newspaper reports)

International P.E.N.?

[IFJ](http://www.ifj.org/en/members/asia-pacific/#c652)? (_Minpōren_ (commercial tv company unions), _+sb Rōren_ (Newspaper company workers unions), [Nippōrō](http://www.nipporo.com/) (NHK Non-management Union, about 7000 people, 70% of NHK workers) are member organisations)

IOJ?International Organization of Journalists - Association of Korean Journalists in Japan was a member in 1966 - now... who knows. Also in 1978 - only source [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_of_Journalists)!

[IPI](http://ipi.media/national-committees/)- represented by head of NSK. Kojiro Shiraishi, head of NSK, president of Yomiuri Newspaper.

Parochialism rampant, seems unlikely that this would happen in any significant way. Media companies are almost exclusively focussed on domestic matters and have few interests outside Japan. If Uesugi's experiences, as a Japanese working for the foreign press in Tokyo, are anything to go by, relations between domestic journalists and foreign correspondents are characterised by mutual misunderstanding, distrust and, at least on the Japanese side, a feeling that all foreign reporters do is rock the boat, upsetting the comfortable and painstakingly cultivated reporter-source relationships essential to much reporting in Japan. @Uesugi:2008 [92--8]

### Specialist Groups
[JMS - Motorsports](http://www.jms.gr.jp/2sc)



# Conclusions and Summary

Mainstream media companies in Japan have seen their audiences gradually slip away as other forms take their attention, in this sense they are experiencing the same worrying transitions as media in other developed countries. However, the pace of loss has been significantly slower in Japan; newspaper readership is still at over 80 per cent of its 2001 levels whereas the US and UK industries have more typically seen declines closer to 30 per cent, for the US or even 50 per cent, for the UK industry. For press-as-business then, any talk of crisis seems overblown, and without crisis continuity will prevail.<!--0708_19–01-->

Television audiences are ???

![](/Users/spkb/pix/circulation-2001-15-JP-US-UK.png){ height=200px }

: **Figure N:** Relative decline in daily national newspaper circulation in Japan, the US and the UK, 2001-2015 (Oct 2001=1). Data Sources: _Nihon Shimbun Kyōkai_ (NSK) website, UK ABCs (Guardian Newspaper website), Newspaper Association of America (latest NAA data available is for 2014).

The Japanese media, in the sense that it has managed to preserves itself (as 'business') in the face of competition from new media, is a success. Why would media businesses want to change?

Another aspect worth considering is the fact that newswork is becoming increasingly desk-bound, meaning journalists have less contact with people outside their own organisation.(CITATIONS)

# References


[^guide]: 新聞倫理綱領\
2000（平成12）年6月21日制定\
　21世紀を迎え、日本新聞協会の加盟社はあらためて新聞の使命を認識し、豊かで平和な未来のために力を尽くすことを誓い、新しい倫理綱領を定める。\
　国民の「知る権利」は民主主義社会をささえる普遍の原理である。この権利は、言論・表現の自由のもと、高い倫理意識を備え、あらゆる権力から独立したメディアが存在して初めて保障される。新聞はそれにもっともふさわしい担い手であり続けたい。\
　おびただしい量の情報が飛びかう社会では、なにが真実か、どれを選ぶべきか、的確で迅速な判断が強く求められている。新聞の責務は、正確で公正な記事と責任ある論評によってこうした要望にこたえ、公共的、文化的使命を果たすことである。\
　編集、制作、広告、販売などすべての新聞人は、その責務をまっとうするため、また読者との信頼関係をゆるぎないものにするため、言論・表現の自由を守り抜くと同時に、自らを厳しく律し、品格を重んじなければならない。


[^deliv]: over 95 per cent of newspapers sold in Japan are delivered to the homes of subscribers, the remainder are sold through outlets like railways station kiosks and convenience stores.

[^SPJGuide]: https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

[^emp-data]: http://www.pressnet.or.jp/data/employment/employment03.php


<style>
.adm {background-color:#f79696;border:1px solid #a84d4d;padding:4px;border-radius:4px;}
</style>