This record presents the discussion by Takamasa Kadota, Yoshiko Sakurai, and Rui Abiru concerning The Asahi Shimbun’s examination of its comfort women reporting, including questions surrounding Uemura’s Seoul assignment and the changing terminology from “forced recruitment” to “coercion.”

August 18, 2020
“Forced Recruitment”: Wording That Changed Repeatedly Even in Asahi Editorials

Kadota: The special feature says that the information originally came from the Seoul bureau chief, but why did Uemura, who was with the Osaka City News Department, go all the way to Seoul on an overseas assignment to conduct the interview? That is another question. An overseas assignment is quite different from a domestic business trip. It is rather difficult to believe the claim that there was no special relationship with his mother-in-law.
Sakurai: I have the same question. This was a scoop, was it not? From a journalist’s point of view, I think it would be virtually inconceivable for a Seoul bureau chief to hand over his own scoop to a reporter from another department. Regarding Uemura, the special feature quotes him as saying, “I never obtained special information by taking advantage of my family relationship with my mother-in-law.” However, it is certainly true that the articles he wrote worked to the advantage of his mother-in-law’s assertions. Seen in that light, further questions arise: Why did he omit the information that she had been “sold by her parents”? Why did he write an article linking the matter to the Women’s Volunteer Corps? The special feature provides no explanation whatsoever on these points.
Kadota: Asahi itself probably understands that forced recruitment lies at the root of the issue. Was there forced recruitment or was there not? That is the central issue behind the expression “sex slaves.” If one uses the term “sex slaves,” it would presumably require circumstances in which women were taken away against their will, confined, or forced through rape to engage in sexual relations against their wishes. Without forced recruitment, it would be very difficult to call them “sex slaves.” If that premise collapses, the next question becomes, “Then what was all of The Asahi Shimbun’s reporting up to now?” If it were established that there had been no forced recruitment, I think The Asahi Shimbun would face an extremely serious situation. That is why, I believe, it is desperately trying to defend this point and still refuses to lower the flag of the claim that “there was coercion.”
There is far too little direct testimony in the special feature from Uemura himself or from the Seoul bureau chief. Conversely, however, the way the feature is put together gives me the impression that Asahi is somehow trying to bring the matter to a close and get through the situation.
Abiru: If you look at Asahi’s editorials, around 1992 they treated forced recruitment as a self-evident premise. But as the claim of forced recruitment gradually became more questionable, the wording retreated to “there probably was forced recruitment.” Later they began writing that “whether or not there was forced recruitment is not the issue,” and eventually they stopped using the term “forced recruitment” itself in recent years.
Sakurai: It became “coercion,” did it not?
Abiru: This is clearly an attempt to obscure the issue. I also think it amounts to treating Asahi’s readers with contempt. They are not trying to convey the truth. The Japanese public has suffered considerable consequences as well, and I think this has been a deeply insincere response.