By Junko Kaneko

On January 25, most of the media reported Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka crying at a news conference. This is one of the reports of the disputes over the exclusion of two Japanese non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from an international conference for reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan. A series of reports about the issue showed us three points. First, the authorities of administration of the Foreign Ministry decided to exclude Peace Winds Japan (PWJ), one of the NGOs, from the conference, without giving Foreign Minister Tanaka any consultation or report about it. Second, Tanaka reversed the decision and let PWJ participate in the conference. Third, Tanaka replied, in the Diet, that Suzuki had influenced the first decision. Through the disputes over these facts the Diet did not function well, and finally Prime Minister Koizumi made a decision: the Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka was fired, the chairman of the House of the Representatives Rules and Administrative Committee Muneo Suzuki, and the ministry's Administrative Vice Minister Yoshiji Nogami were forced to resign from their posts.

Some mass media dramatically reported the news as entertainment; "Tanaka vs Suzuki, the enmity revived?" at first. But, after they were dismissed, the media immediately turned around to support Tanaka, saying, "She received an undeserved punishment." Since their reports changed, a question arose among the public why the media did not investigate and pursue the connection between the bureaucracy and Suzuki before dismissing either of them. We can see it in the public opinion poll after Tanaka was forced to resign. Now, Suzuki who has been at the center of this issue along with Tanaka became the object of attention in the Diet and the media. On the other hand, however, the media must not forget they are also under scrutiny on their reports.

Concerning this argument over the NGOs, the media just reported the discrepant allegations between Tanaka and Suzuki, mainly through question-and-answer sessions at press interviews. But the media should open their eyes to obtain reliable information based on their own investigations, and should not simply accept what the Ministry and Suzuki say. Without this investigative attitude, the inner truth of the Ministry may not come out, and its reform will be never urged.

The media (radio, TV, newspaper and magazine reports) give information to the public. If there are some false reports, it will be difficult for them to correct those reports completely. They should realize again how much influence they have on the public.

There have been some problems before which have questioned the way the media reports. In a case of murder using the poison gas sarin in Matsumoto in June 1994 in Nagano, the first man who reported it to the police was suddenly made out to be the criminal by the media after the incident. The media simply accepted and reported that the police suspected him at first. Nobody doubted that he was the criminal until the next spring, in 1995, when Aum Shinrikyo released sarin gas on the subway in Tokyo. The incident in Nagano also turned out to be committed by them. Consequently, the Nagano man's innocence was proved, but his social life suffered greatly.

While we bring these sensational reports into question, there are also some critical opinions about the public, the receiver of the reports. The media claims that they hold the position of giving information to the public. Since it is their occupation, it is natural for them to pursue a profit. Therefore, they have to provide widely acceptable information for the public. They need information which the general public wants. We, the general public, feel our ears burned by this view. Many TV programs are criticized as vulgar and the media often goes overboard with sensational reports. However, this is just a reflection of the general public who debase themselves as receivers of these reports.

The media may have been appreciated for reporting about Prime Minister Koizumi and ex-foreign minister Tanaka in order to help the public get interested in politics after the Koizumi Administration started last April. But, it is doubtful whether or not they really reported the truth. Didn't they take up the row just half-heartedly and comically? As for the public, did they really become interested in politics considering the light turnout in the previous elections?

Now, the media are expected not to report matters too easily, but to investigate fully on their own and elucidate the truth.