This article examines an incident at Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s press conference in Hiroshima on August 6, the day of the atomic-bomb memorial ceremony. Drawing on reports concerning an Asahi Shimbun reporter’s additional questions, the response of the Prime Minister’s Office press staff, and commentary in the Sankei Shimbun, it considers the right of journalists to question political leaders and the corresponding responsibilities of the press.

August 11, 2020
On August 6, the annual Peace Memorial Ceremony was held in Hiroshima, with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in attendance.
That evening, after watching a professional baseball broadcast, I had NHK’s News Watch 9 on in the background.
The program reported on the Prime Minister’s press conference, but it did not show the incident that I would later learn about.
At 11 p.m., I watched TV Tokyo’s World Business Satellite.
Near the end of its report on the same press conference, a reporter could be heard continuing to question the Prime Minister after the scheduled questions had apparently concluded.
I was deeply troubled by both the tone and the substance of the questioning.
To me, it sounded less like an attempt to obtain new information than another political attack on Abe along lines similar to those being advanced by his political opponents at the time.
More importantly, this was August 6.
It was the day on which Hiroshima remembered the victims of the atomic bombing.
I found it extraordinarily difficult to understand a journalistic attitude that appeared to give so little consideration to the meaning of the occasion.
In my original article, I used extremely severe language to describe the reporter.
That language reflected the anger I felt at the time.
I also wondered why TV Tokyo had broadcast the exchange without identifying the reporter’s organization.
NHK had not shown the scene.
TV Tokyo did.
But viewers were given the confrontational question without being told who had asked it.
The following day, a well-read friend asked me:
“Did you see the article on page three of the Sankei Shimbun?”
It was then that I learned that the reporter had been from the Asahi Shimbun.
For me, the episode reinforced criticisms I had long held concerning the Asahi’s approach to Japanese politics, history, diplomacy, and national security.
【The Asahi Shimbun Protests the Restraint of Its Reporter】
According to the account reported at the time, the Asahi Shimbun protested to the Prime Minister’s Office press division after an incident at Abe’s press conference in Hiroshima.
The newspaper said that a member of the press staff had grabbed the reporter’s right arm while attempting to stop further questioning.
The press division denied having grabbed the reporter’s arm.
Journalists had reportedly been informed in advance that four questions would be accepted—two from local reporters and two from reporters accompanying the Prime Minister.
After the fourth question, the Asahi reporter asked why Abe had not held a full press conference for nearly fifty days.
Abe responded that he had again taken considerable time to discuss COVID-19.
The reporter nevertheless attempted to continue questioning him.
The Asahi argued that interference with the reporter could deprive journalists of opportunities to ask questions and therefore could not be accepted.
The Prime Minister’s Office responded that the Prime Minister needed to leave promptly because his departure for Hiroshima Airport was approaching and that staff had simply urged a timely departure.
【What the August 8 Sankei-sho Argued】
I also read the August 8 Sankei-sho column.
It began by recalling Walter Lippmann’s observation in his 1922 book Public Opinion that newspapers were not uniformly malicious and did not necessarily harbor elaborate schemes.
The column then questioned whether that charitable assessment fitted the conduct of some modern Japanese media.
Its central point concerned context.
The press office had announced in advance that four questions would be taken.
The Asahi reporter asked an additional question after those four.
The Prime Minister answered it.
The reporter then attempted to continue.
The government side also said that the departure time for Hiroshima Airport was approaching.
If those facts are removed and the episode is described simply as “the government prevented a journalist from asking a question,” the public receives one impression.
When the surrounding circumstances are included, the picture can look very different.
The column also recalled Abe’s complaints during his first administration that multiple Asahi reporters would sometimes question him from different directions in an effort to induce a verbal mistake.
It further referred to an incident on August 4, 2020, when a Mainichi Shimbun reporter called after Abe, “Prime Minister, don’t run away,” as he left after answering reporters’ questions, and later publicly identified himself as the journalist involved.
【The Right to Ask Questions—and the Responsibility That Comes with It】
Journalists unquestionably have the right to question a prime minister.
Asking difficult questions of those in power is one of journalism’s essential functions.
But the existence of a right to ask questions does not mean that every agreed procedure governing a press conference can simply be ignored.
Nor should circumstances be irrelevant.
This was August 6.
Hiroshima Day.
A day devoted to remembering the dead and communicating the catastrophe of nuclear weapons to the world.
Should a Prime Minister’s presence in Hiroshima on that day be treated in precisely the same manner as an ordinary political confrontation in Tokyo?
I do not believe so.
Journalists possess rights.
They also bear responsibilities—to the circumstances in which they work, to the subjects they cover, and to the public whose understanding they shape.
【Why I Have Criticized the Asahi Shimbun So Severely】
My original article used exceptionally severe language about the Asahi Shimbun.
That judgment did not arise from a single question by a single reporter.
It reflected my accumulated assessment of the newspaper’s reporting on history, China, South Korea, national security, the comfort-women controversy, and the Abe administration.
The press has a responsibility to scrutinize political power.
That is indispensable.
But the press itself must also be open to scrutiny regarding its methods of reporting, framing, editing, headlines, and selection of images and scenes.
Calling an activity “journalism” does not automatically make every action taken in its name legitimate.
Those who scrutinize power must also recognize the power they themselves possess.
The Hiroshima press conference of August 6, 2020 brought that principle forcefully back to my mind.