The media in Japan is controlled by big business and politicians - discuss
Modern Japanese Society
BS2595
The media in Japan is controlled by big business and politicians
David Talbott
990205159
When asked to name world's best selling newspaper very few people outside of Japan would be able to give the correct answer, namely that of the Yomiuri Shimbun, which is printed almost 15 million times each day. Even its closest rival, Asahi Shimbun, which sells around 12.5 millions copies a day completely eclipses the 3.3 million circulation of The Sun, Britain's most popular daily newspaper.
The Japanese newspaper market is in fact huge: the average Japanese household receives 1.2 papers per day, almost one and a half times more than in the UK. The TV market is similar in size. Over 6 in 10 households own a television and the average Japanese person watches four hours of TV a day.
Given the size of the market and in light of the important role the media is expected to play in a modern society, it is disturbing to note that the Japanese media is consistently criticised in studies by western scholars. It is often charged with delivering a standardised product that limits customer choice.
Some critics attack the system even more vociferously stating that journalists and politicians collude to form "information cartels" that serve to "the creation of an informationally inferior product where the people do not get 'all the news that's fit to print'" (Freeman, 2000:178). However, in spite of all these criticisms the Japanese place more trust in NHK, Japan's public broadcasting organisation, than in any other major institution in Japan, ranking it higher than the Diet or the government in general.
Media ownership is highly concentrated in Japan. There are five large media conglomerates, which are based around the five big national newspapers Yomiuri, Asahi, Mainichi, Nihon Keizai and Sankei. Many of these papers are still held by decedents of the founders, and as foreigners are barred by law from playing any substantial role in media ownership in Japan, the Big Five are mostly owned by family, top-management and banks. Clustered around the newspapers are the five commercial TV networks in Tokyo, forming five media groups such as the Fujisankei Communication Group. The web of ownership of each of the groups extends out of Tokyo and almost every local newspaper, radio or TV station is in some way affiliated or co-owned by one of the big five media groups.
Although criticism is often levelled at the ownership structure in Japan the focus seems to be more on how the media gather news and on the relationship that exists between reporters and politicians.
Most critics of the Japanese media, such as Freeman and Hall, view the kisha, or reporter's clubs as the greatest obstacle to a free press
Kisha clubs are inherent to the Japanese media landscape and a probably the most contentious of all institutions that play a role in the news gathering process in Japan. All important institutions such was the Prime Minister's office, the Diet, all ministries, police departments and prefectural governments as well as large corporate enterprises have kisha clubs attached to them. These are intended to facilitate the flow of information between officials and reporters.
The first kisha club was established in 1890 and was attached to the Diet. So as not to grant the press free reign the number of journalists admitted to the club was limited to 20 and only reporters from the main stream press were granted access. Further clubs were quickly set up in other organisations such as the Imperial Household Agency and various other government agencies. The proliferation of kisha clubs was encouraged by the government as it was in their interest to be able to effectively communicate their side of events.
As the clubs played an ever increasing role they became more structured and institutionalised: charters were drawn up, membership was regulated and rules were established. As the overall number of members in each club was capped, newspaper companies had to decide among themselves how to allocate seats. They negotiated exclusive agreements to prevent journalists from smaller newspapers from joining the clubs - a practice that would become commonplace in Japan. The clubs survived reform attempts by SCAP (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers) after the Pacific War and exist today in similar form to when they were first ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
As the clubs played an ever increasing role they became more structured and institutionalised: charters were drawn up, membership was regulated and rules were established. As the overall number of members in each club was capped, newspaper companies had to decide among themselves how to allocate seats. They negotiated exclusive agreements to prevent journalists from smaller newspapers from joining the clubs - a practice that would become commonplace in Japan. The clubs survived reform attempts by SCAP (Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers) after the Pacific War and exist today in similar form to when they were first established.
Government officials hold press briefings and hand out statements almost exclusively in kisha clubs. Having access to the clubs is therefore vital as it is estimated that up to 90% of the news reported in the Japanese media comes from official sources (Freeman, 2000). Granting unrestricted access to all journalists should be a prerequisite to ensuring a fair press system. The government has however in the past absolved itself of any responsibility by saying that membership in the kisha clubs is a matter for the clubs to rule on internally. The clubs themselves, when approached, simply point to their conditions for membership, that state that membership in the NSK (Japan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association) is required before applying for a seat in one of the kisha clubs. The big five newspaper publishers dominate the NSK and are of course not interested in letting competitors into the clubs and instead have tried to uphold the status quo. This guarantees them a competitive advantage as their journalists receive information earlier than non-club reporters and ensures that only their correspondents are privy to the special news conferences held exclusively for club members.
This highlights the fundamental difference between how one would imagine a free press to function and the reality in Japan. The intense rivalry that is expected between reporters is by all accounts practically non-existent. Instead the opposite is true - sharing of information and reporting based on the consensus of journalists from ostensibly rival news companies is in fact the norm. This cooperation often plays a major role from the outset of most journalists' careers.
Often novice reporters are sent to cover important personalities as their first assignment. Their job as so-called ban journalists is to follow an important political figure all day in order to gain snippets of news. Such close proximity unavoidably leads to a close relationship between journalist and politician. Reporters are often invited into politicians' houses and are expressly told by their employers to foster close ties with the politician and his family, and should strive to become close friends. Ban journalists do not however follow their assigned politician around alone - as all major news organisations dispatch ban journalists, the daily ritual is performed within a group. Reporters often spend several years on such assignments which gives rise to two dilemmas that affect the journalist's ability to report freely.
The first relates to the close relationship of correspondents to the politicians they are covering. One of the inherent problems of the media in a democratic state, especially if the media is supposed to take on the role of the "Fourth Estate", that of a watchdog over the political establishment, is that in order to be able to report on and gain news about politicians it must conduct affairs und build trusting relationships with exactly the people it is trying to monitor. Ban journalists exemplify this quandary. Compared to western journalistic standards, the close relationships they form with politicians have allowed them in the past to gain unprecedented access to the inner sanctums of government and have in some instances resulted in information that if published would have amounted to a scandal. This is however the disadvantage of having such close ties with the politician one ought to be critically reporting on; the fact that journalists cultivate such friendly relationships means that it becomes harder for them to write negative stories. This raises concerns of morality and journalistic responsibility that are relevant in other situations.
Kisha clubs are not simply institutions in which press conferences are held and briefings handed out; as is the case with ban journalists, most reporters who are members of a kisha club spend more time in their club surrounded by journalists from rival publications than they do at their own news company. This has led to the second problem that affects the press' ability to function independently. The disproportionately high amount of time that is spent with rival journalists in the club often results in reporters identifying more with their club and fellow (rival) club members than with their colleagues.
Strong ties amongst club journalists are increased by the large number of social events organised by the club. Depending on what organisation the club is attached to, journalists will be invited to banquets, golf games or may for example have to accompany a politician on a tour where reporters are frequently housed in expensive hotels. The costs for these social events are mostly covered by the organisation the kisha club is attached to.
The atmosphere organisations and companies strive to create is one in which journalists will become indebted to whomever they are covering; if in doubt they would rather simply ignore issues that would usually be investigated further if reporters were fully independent. In some instances reporters have received free train passes, wine or other gifts from the organisations they are covering - in one case journalists were sent home with envelopes that later turned out to contain ¥20,000 (Freeman, 2000:81).
What is unique to the Japanese system of clubs is what action is taken and, more importantly by whom, when a journalist oversteps his mark and breaks one of the rules of the club. Although there is a written charter that sets out regulations that members must adhere to, in almost all cases they do not pertain to specific actions or boundaries members should not violate but instead state simply that journalists that "harm the honour of the club through their actions" should face punishment. This clause, that requires a considerable amount of interpretation before it can be implemented, highlights one of the other peculiarities of the kisha club system - the manner in which sanctions on club members are passed. The accepted norm in western systems is that the source, in other words the politician or government agency, becomes active and punishes the journalist by barring him from press conferences for example. This admittedly happens rarely, especially not in the US where the constitutional right to a free press is a much championed cause. The Westminster Lobby which is often equated to the kisha club system also includes provisions for parliament to expel journalists, although it has never done so in its 117 year history. The fundamental difference between the practices governing sanctions is that in Japan it is rarely the source that decides whether or not a member should be punished, but instead the journalists amongst themselves. Although one might assume that this would render the disciplining of journalists useless as one would never choose to punish one's own kind, especially in the case of the expected adversarial journalist-politician relationship, exactly the opposite is true.
Among club journalists there is tacit understanding that no one should engage in any form of investigative reporting that might give them an edge over other publications. To this end, exclusive interviews are all but unheard of. After learning that Rupert Murdoch had granted a correspondent from Nihon Keizai Shimbun an exclusive interview, a journalist from a rival newspaper commented on how he was "startled, really shocked", adding that "usually in Japan that kind of thing does not happen" (Agence France Presse, 1996).
In fact it is more often than not the case that a journalist who has approached a politician with details of a rumoured change in policy for example, will find the rumoured news the topic of the following day's briefing where it is announced to all journalists. This is consistent with the government's attitude where it is imperative they impose their slant of the news. It also increases the pressure on journalists not to "scoop" one another or engage in investigative reporting.
This practice goes even further, as journalists will generally share new information with their rivals within the group. Although this modus operandi is not exclusive to Japan, group reporting and the sharing of information is the norm and not the exception as it is elsewhere. The issue of group reporting affects reporters' motivation to scrutinise politicians' affairs for another reason. Traditionally writing articles has been a group effort and bylines are relatively rare. There are very few prolific newspaper journalists in Japan; as a consequence there is little motivation to engage in any form of investigative journalism due to agreements among rival journalists within the club.
If the kisha club's role in government control of the free press is so central then why have moves not been made to abolish or at least deregulate entry requirements? The reason is that this system is perfect on the one hand for the government to control the dissemination of information and on the other hand for the big news companies to stifle competition. The Big Five that dominate the news market in Japan have a vested interest in retaining the kisha clubs. As long as they are in place it is practically impossible for new companies to enter the mainstream press market as they have no access to the clubs which are still the only conduit for issuing news. The Big Five's dominance of the NSK who ultimately decide on whether or not an organisation may be permitted access to a kisha club has meant that any demands for reform have fallen on deaf ears. Calls on the government to become active have also been met by resounding silence as the kisha club system presents a very effective way of influencing the press as it insures that its version of events is very likely to appear verbatim in the newspapers and on television.
Although there have been some small reforms of the club system, notably agreeing to allow foreign press into certain clubs, many still refuse to admit foreigners, and domestic non-NSK members are still banned. Conversely it is the non-NSK press, that have no access to official sources at kisha clubs, that have uncovered most of the political scandals in the past. This is because they are not party to the agreements in kisha clubs that hamper investigative journalism.
It is often argued that the structure of media ownership in Japan, where power is concentrated in the hands of five companies who are, to all intents and purposes a news monopoly, is to blame for the press's shortcomings in suitably acting as the "Fourth Estate" in society.
Media ownership is quite different in other countries but has, especially in the recent past, attracted more and more attention as the focus has shifted to how media business agendas might affect how news is reported. In the UK the national press has been dominated by four companies at least since the mid 1950s. Other papers make up only around 15% of the market (Sparks, 1995). These four have diversified into other media markets and now own shares in television and radio stations. However, the power these media companies wield pales in comparison to some of the new multi-national conglomerates that are present in numerous markets. These companies use their shear size and control over news dissemination channels to influence politics and more frighteningly influence the public. Rupert Murdoch's now infamous News Corporation, one of the biggest media companies in the world is often charged with placing business principles ahead of journalistic values, in placating China for example (Ashley, 2001). This behaviour of media companies actively trying to shape government policy is almost non-existent in Japan. In contrast the Japanese media seems somewhat lethargic, having grown comfortable with the existing structure.
Government agencies and corporate enterprises have learned to play the big five media groups against one another and now exercise tremendous control over the media primarily through the kisha clubs. Paradoxically the press are often given all the facts and have complete access to the news but for various reasons choose not to live up to their role as the "Fourth Estate" and inform the public, but instead chose to engage in self-censorship and leave society in the dark.
Bibliography
Agence France Press, 1996. 'Murdoch miffs media on first Japan outing'. Agence France Presse, 12.06.1996
Ashley, J., 2001. 'Forget cash, here's real influence'. New Statesman, 14 (639), 8
Bagdikian, B.H., 1996. 'Brave new world minus 400'. In: Gerbner, G et al. Invisible crisis. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press
Cooper-Chen, A. et al, 1997. Mass communication in Japan. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press
Freeman, L. A., 2000. Closing the shop: information cartels and Japan's mass media. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press
Furita, A., 2000. 'Press hit for coverage of royal miscarriage'. Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 10.01.2000
Fuster, T., 2001. 'Japans Zeitungs-Riesen mit Übergewicht'. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 13.09.2001
MacGregor, H.E., 1995. 'Breaking the rules of the kisha club'. Los Angeles Times, 17.11.1995
Nation, The, 2002. 'The big ten'. The Nation, 271 (1), 27-37
Orr, R.M., 1994. 'Ozawa bashing misses the point: He's just a product of the system'. Tokyo Business Today, August 1994
Pharr, J.P. & Ellis, S.K. (ed), 1996. Media and politics in Japan. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawai'i Press
Preston, P., 2001. 'Enter the taxman, exit the free press in South Korea'. The Observer, 30.09.2001
Schneppen, A., 2001. 'Was passiert da?'. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 249, 56
Schmitt, U., 1994. 'Und die Presse spielt mit'. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 88, B3
Sparks, C., 1995. 'Concentration and market entry in the UK national daily press'. European Journal of Communication, 10, 2. London: Sage
Williams, K., 1998. Get me a murder a day!. London: Arnold
Yamagiwa, H., 1996. 'Free press clubs blackballed'. Japan Times Weekly International Edition, 36 (23), 7
Yanagisawa, T., 1997. 'Reform wave hits broadcasting'. Yomiuri Shimbun, 27.08.1997
2
