In the autumn of 2014, while serving as deputy editorial director, the author was effectively barred from writing editorials after a manuscript was altered without consent. This section documents how internal dissent was suppressed at Tokyo Shimbun, even in defiance of the owner’s stance, revealing the erosion of genuine freedom of expression.

2017-08-02
The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
The Suppression of Dissent Inside Tokyo Shimbun
I will also write about the circumstances under which I was no longer allowed to write editorials.
It was in the autumn of 2014, when I was serving as deputy editorial director.
I wrote a major editorial manuscript on the issue of political leadership.
Since the editorial director performs the final check of manuscripts, I had firmly requested, “If you are going to make revisions, be sure to contact me in advance.”
However, the editorial director at the time made changes on his own without contacting me.
He disliked the part at the end of the manuscript where I gently criticized the opposition parties.
This led to a brief argument between us, during which I was told on the spot, “I will no longer let you write editorials.”
After careful thought, I consulted Hirohiko Oshima, the supreme advisor and owner of Chunichi Shimbun, the publisher of Tokyo Shimbun.
Mr. Oshima had previously told me, “If anything happens at the company, tell me.”
This was the only time, before or since, that I actually sought his counsel.
Mr. Oshima then said, “In that case, you and the other editorial writers should take turns writing. You write what you want to say, and others write what they want to say.”
I conveyed the owner’s words directly to the editorial director, but he flatly declared, “No matter if he’s the supreme advisor, that’s something I absolutely will not allow.”
A line director who was merely an executive openly defied the policy of the company’s owner.
I was stunned, but I did not continue the argument any further.
I thought it would be pointless to argue on the spot.
Instead, from that point on, I stopped attending the editorial meetings held every day at noon.
If my opinions were not to be adopted and I was not allowed to write editorials, there was no point in attending those meetings.
The company could have disciplined me if it truly wanted to.
After all, I was not coming to the office.
Nevertheless, they continued to leave me alone, likely because the owner supported me.
By tacit understanding, they had no choice but to acknowledge my existence.
The owner’s statement, “Even if opinions differ, people should write in rotation,” goes straight to the essence of freedom of expression.
Publishing diverse opinions is precisely what protects freedom of speech and of the press.
I believe he was truly a great owner.
However, the situation did not change.
This article continues.