(1) Change in insistence on editorials
It was in the Asahi and Yomiuri that the change in the tone of the argument was the most extreme. In three issues, both papers converted their standpoints greatly.
漓Asahi: From unconstitutionality to national interest
The change in the insistence by the Asahi was to have switched the issue of the Yasukuni problem from a constitutional problem to a diplomatic issue. The Asahi emphasized the danger of colliding with the constitution for Nakasone’s visit to Yasukuni consistently. This newspaper enumerates Article 20, clause 3 of the Con-stitution in which “the separation of religion and state” was provided, and not only insists, “The government should come back to the Constitution’s idea such as the
‘separation of religion and state’, and reconsider the official visit to Yasukuni Shrine” (editorial dated August 17, 1986) but also took up Article 89 of the constitu-tion (limitaconstitu-tions on expenses used for public property) and Article 99 (ordering all
Table 1 Change in insistence of Asahi and Yomiuri
Asahi Yomiuri
Period of Nakasone
Period of Koizumi
Period of Nakasone
Period of Koizumi Issue of
breach of the constitution
Unconstitutionality ( insistence posi-tively)
Unconstitutionality ( insistence pas-sively)
Doubt of unconsti-tutionality
No doubt of un-constitutionality
Perception of History
Emphasis of es-sence of Yasukuni
Reference of es-sence of Yasukuni
Oppose enshrining Class-A war crimi-nal
Affirm enshrine Class-A war crimi-nal
Diplomatic Issues
Don’t recognize as diplomatic issue
Loss of national interest
Consider to neigh-boring countries
Foreign interven-tion in domestic affairs
―４０ ―
public officials to have the obligation to respect and uphold the Constitution) and opposed the official visit.
The Asahi said, “The Constitution has imposed the obligation to esteem and pro-tect the Constitution on civil servants in Article 99. In a word, it is a major premise in the activities of the government to observe the Constitution, and it is natural to avoid the action with the doubt of unconstitutionality.” (editorial dated August 4, 1985)
Moreover, the tone of this paper during the Nakasone period showed anxiety in taking up the Yasukuni problem as a so-called “diplomatic issue.”
“The war dead memorial is a problem that the Japanese should voluntarily judge.
We think it is extremely regrettable that the intention of a foreign country is closely related to this problem. The prime minister has to assume the responsibility for invit-ing this situation. He did not have any international consideration and faced a lot of opposition and forced the visit to Yasukuni.” (editorial on October 17, 1985)
The editorials were also appealing for the necessity of consideration of the war-damage countries.
“There is a voice of repulsion: ‘It is foreign intervention in domestic affairs’ or
‘They yielded to the pressure of China’. However, we might have to think about what the existence is of Yasukuni Shrine for the people in Asia who were attacked by Japan, such as China.” (editorial on October 25, 1985)
However, in 2001, the voices of anxiety about the breach of the Constitution sur-prisingly shrank in the Asahi. When Koizumi clearly stated that he would make an
“official visit to Yasukuni” by all means, there was a strong controversy again among the Japanese people. The Asahi only lightly touched the problem, as follows:
“The visit to Yasukuni of the prime minister and cabinet ministers has started up the discussion by linking it with the principle of the separation of religion and state as embodied in the Constitution.” (editorial dated July 28, 2001)
These tones of argument have been expanded further. The criticism that
neighbor-―４１ ―
ing countries were using the Yasukuni problem for a diplomatic card appeared.
“It is possible to become a respected country by distinguishing a painful history.
However, we also want China to think. An apology over the historical issue was re-peatedly requested when President Jiang Zemin at that time came to Japan in 1998, and Japan was unpleasant. China might keep blaming Japan by using the ‘history card’.” (editorial dated November 23, 2004)
It is emphasized that the Asahi has taken a standpoint consistently opposing the prime minister’s visit to Yasukuni. However, it is only makeshift self-justification. It is a definite substitute of the problem that the Asahi applies the Yasukuni problem to the standard of: “Is it beneficial to the national interest or disadvantageous?”
According to the insistence by the Asahi in the Koizumi period, the Yasukuni problem is a diplomatic issue with neighboring countries and the loss of national in-terest is because of it. In a word, if a foreign country doesn’t reject it, then no diplo-matic issue occurs, and the national interest is not ruined. For the Asahi, the Yasukuni problem became equal to the diplomatic problems with countries which opposed Yasukuni. The Asahi only judges the issue by whether or not it is good for the national interest.
All historical details of Yasukuni Shrine and problems of historical viewpoint are excluded, and the doubts about unconstitutionality are also kept separate from the is-sue of the problem. Public opinion in Japan might be cold toward the protests of China and South Korea, and having become accepting of Koizumi’s visit to Yasukuni, may not be totally irrelevant to the posture of the mass media of Japan.
滷Yomiuri: Complete transformation by newspaper with highest circulation The Yomiuri, which boasts of having the highest newspaper circulation in Japan, changed the standpoint 180° from “opposing” to “agreeing with” the prime minis-ter’s visit to Yasukuni.
In each issue−the Constitution problem, diplomatic issues, perception of history
―４２ ―
−all standpoints of the Nakasone period and Koizumi period differ. It is not an ex-aggeration to say that this shows a recognition in symbolic change in the Japanese mass media toward the Yasukuni problem.
The Asahi switched the focus of the argument while maintaining an opposing standpoint toward visiting Yasukuni. On the other hand, the Yomiuri supported Yasukuni’s understanding of history and became a means of promoting Koizumi’s propaganda as his mouthpiece.
The Yomiuri, during the Nakasone years, declared its doubts about the unconstitu-tionality of the prime minister’s visit to Yasukuni.
“We admit that Yasukuni Shrine enshrines victims of war. However, the prime minister says something about the shrine, and his visit to the shrine in a Shintoist style by spending tax money is an absolute infringement upon the Constitution, which demands the principle of separation of religion and politics.” (editorial dated August 10, 1985).
“Toleration is a major pillar of fundamental human rights. Politicians should pay close attention to the principle of separation of religion and politics that secures this”
(dated same as above). Observing the separation of religion and politics principle was insisted on strictly.
However, this attitude changed radically in editorials during the Koizumi period.
“You should stop making a fuss over the issues of public figures or private citi-zens in the prime minister’s Yasukuni issue.” (editorial dated July 21, 2001).
“When Prime Minister Koizumi visited Ise Jingu shrine on January 5 of this year, he registered as ‘Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’. I have not heard any story such as about an unconstitutional lawsuit, though other prime ministers have also done similarly. Why does only the Yasukuni Shrine visit come to be made into a problem of unconstitutionality in recent years?” (editorial dated April 8, 2004). The discus-sion of the Constitution was abandoned.
The Yomiuri at this time bases the prime minister’s visit to Yasukuni on “the
tra-―４３ ―
dition and the custom of Japan, and very formal event of nature” (dated same as above), and adds criticism to domestic opposing public opinion.
The Yomiuri also came to take a hard-line attitude on the protests and repulsion from neighboring countries. The newspaper showed a careful view of the violent re-pulsion of China in the Nakasone period. These references are based on the idea of consideration of neighboring countries.
“(As for the reaction of China) It is necessary to think about the ideal way of the war dead memorial by the country in a considerate way” (editorial dated October 12, 1985).
“We can do nothing but warn about the importance that this problem conceives to think about the repulsion of countries such as China and Korea” (editorial dated No-vember 5, 1985).
It is easy to imagine that Nakasone gave up his plan to visit the shrine in 1986 because the Japanese mass media criticized his visit.
However, the idea of consideration toward neighboring countries had disappeared in the Yomiuri during the Koizumi period. The logic of the government that the re-pulsion of China and Korea is “foreign intervention in domestic affairs” was totally supported by the Yomiuri this time. They showed an outspoken dissatisfaction or dislike over the protests of China and South Korea. “There is no right meddling when it is said from another country” (editorials dated July 21, August 14, October 10, 2001 and April 22, 2002, and others).
It is thought that the tone of argument of newspapers such as the Yomiuri played a large role in the formation of the public opinion in which the protest of a foreign country is unjustified. This was exactly the strategy of the Koizumi administration.
Such a “transformation” of the Yomiuri originates in the fact that the historical view of the Yomiuri changed fundamentally. In the Nakasone period, this newspaper voiced doubts about the enshrining of class-A war criminals at Yasukuni Shrine:
“The responsibility of the national leaders who had led three million people to their
―４４ ―
deaths should not be ignored. Can we call these persons ‘martyrs’?” (editorial dated November 5, 1985)
However, the Yomiuri during the Koizumi period said, “Holding a funeral equally to the dead is a traditional culture, and the manners and customs of Japan through the enshrinement of the so-called class-A war criminal are made into a problem”
(editorial dated January 6, 2004), and turned toward protecting the historical view of Yasukuni Shrine in fact.
The Yasukuni issue became a problem because “China and Korea began to criti-cize the ‘class-A war criminal festivities’ suddenly” (editorial dated August 15, 2003). This is a cause of the so-called “Yasukuni problem.”
(2) Tendency in amount of article publishing(2)
The transition in the amount of publishing of general articles was observed as a clue as to how “agenda setting” is done by the mass media in the Yasukuni problem.
In what ratio will the three issues over the visit to Yasukuni by the prime minister have been treated in the report? As a result, a general way to catch the Yasukuni problem can be analogized: It can be said that the media emphasized diplomatic im-portance over constitutional issues. Journalism excessively took up only the side of a diplomatic collision with neighboring countries in the main discussion point that the visit to Yasukuni by the Prime Minister had caused. And the recognition of
“Yasukuni problem＝diplomatic issue” was defined. As a result, it is needless to say that the constitutionality issue and the issue of historical perception, which were other important issues in the Yasukuni problem, were neglected.
We examined the frequency in which the itemized discussion points were taken up by the articles, dividing the points under discussion of the Yasukuni problem into three (constitutionality issue, diplomatic issue, and historical perception issue). We can see that diplomatic issues are most frequently discussed during the Koizumi pe-riod.
―４５ ―
It is since China’s opposition to Yasukuni of September 1985 (during the Naka-sone period) that the diplomatic issue has been taken up importantly with the news-paper. It can be said that the general recognition was that the most important issue of the Yasukuni problem was the issue of constitutionality up till then. It is certain that journalism has become sensitive to the reaction of neighboring countries since China’s demonstration of opposition. But a great difference is not seen in the fre-quency of articles (constitutional issue 39.5%, diplomatic issue 44.9%). The mass media can be said to have been balanced and fair in covering the Yasukuni issue at that time. However, the number of articles in which the issue was the constitutional problem decreased sharply, and the diplomatic issue exceeded 70% of the whole dur-ing the Koizumi period.
Moreover, it has been observed that many diplomatic issues were taken up from the beginning of the Koizumi period, although there were no specific occurrences such as major demonstrations in China during the Nakasone period.
Finding out the problems in society and showing people how to resolve them is one of the important roles of journalism. It is also assumed to be a key role to inves-tigate the cause and current state of the problem from diversified viewpoints, and to show the route of the solution. But it is not an exaggeration to say that journalism in Japan rounded down the various sides of the problem, and advanced the discussion in the direction where the complaint of the government was justified, at least in the Yasukuni problem.
Table 2 Appearance frequency of issues [n (%)]
Issue of breach of Constitution
Perception of
history Diplomatic issue Total Nakasone period 221 (39.5) 87 (15.6) 251 (44.9) 559 (100)
Koizumi period 137 (12.8) 173 (16.2) 758 (71.0) 1,068 (100)
―４６ ―