Tokyo Shimbun evolved into a newspaper that suppresses dissent internally while preaching “listen to opposing views” externally. Under the banner of power monitoring, criticism of the Abe administration intensified, eventually producing reporters who crossed the line into political activism aimed at toppling the government.

2017-08-02
The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
The Reason for Hating Abe
Several years later, the “News Girls” controversy occurred, leading to the demotion personnel decisions mentioned earlier.
As a result, Tokyo Shimbun has become what it is today.
While openly suppressing dissent internally, it has turned into a newspaper with a double standard, preaching convenient platitudes to the government such as “listen to opposing views.”
From around the time I was prohibited from writing editorials, Tokyo Shimbun’s leftward tilt intensified markedly.
It was once a newspaper so free and open that even rank-and-file reporters were allowed to criticize the editor-in-chief in print, but now no trace of that spirit remains.
Why is that?
Because subsequent editorial leadership made criticism of the Abe administration the basic policy of page production.
I once heard from a veteran reporter at another company that “a Tokyo Shimbun reporter said, ‘Our editor-in-chief says we must criticize the Abe administration and that no other articles are needed, so we can only write critical pieces.’”
I have never heard directly from anyone inside the company that “criticizing the Abe administration is company policy.”
I am an editorial writer and am not familiar with the internal affairs of the newsroom.
However, I do know that the Tokyo Shimbun editorial department markets itself as practicing “power-monitoring journalism.”
For example, in its April 6, 2017 issue, Tokyo Shimbun reported on discussions of its “Committee on the Nature of Newspaper Reporting,” in which then editor-in-chief Kengo Suganuma stated, “I would like to hear opinions on this paper’s power-monitoring reporting,” thereby making clear that monitoring power was the basic editorial policy.
Monitoring power sounds plausible, but what they are actually doing is criticizing the administration.
And now, criticism has piled up to the point that reporters have appeared who have even stepped into political activism aimed at toppling the government.
Where, and how, did things go wrong?
This article continues.