The following is from today’s Sankei Shimbun, Sankei Sho.
It is an editorial that proves that the Sankei Shimbun is the sanest newspaper today.
Ten years ago, after the Great East Japan Earthquake and the subsequent accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, I was invited to a meeting with several Tokyo correspondents of a Korean newspaper.
We exchanged opinions over “bomb liquor,” a shot glass filled with Korean soju and beer, and I was puzzled by the difference in thinking between us.
“Why doesn’t the Japanese media incite more about the dangers of radiation?”
They were all saying this and questioning the reporting attitude of the Japanese mass media.
They were not convinced, though, when I argued with them that “they should report based on objective evidence.”
This approach has not changed in the Korean media coverage of the Tokyo Olympics.　
However, it is not uncommon for Japanese media to use sensationalism to simplify facts or stir up more anxiety and fear than is the case.
I often feel the need to write about scandals, especially those involving politicians, athletes, and other celebrities, in such minute detail with a bit of self-reflection.　
That’s why I would like to see scholars and experts in various fields provide accurate information based on scientific evidence.　
“In terms of the flow of people, the holding of the Olympics had an impact on people’s awareness.”
Shigeru Omi, chairman of the government’s Subcommittee on Countermeasures to Combat Infectious Diseases of New Coronaviruses, stated this at a press conference on August 12, but it provided no evidence.　
Mr. Omi has made similar statements in the past, but I do not understand what he is referring to.
The flow of people during the Olympics was on a downward trend in Tokyo and other cities due to the hot weather.
From the high viewership of the Olympics programs, it is evident that many people were watching the games at home.
If the Olympics had been canceled, the flow of people would have increased with people who were bored and went out for a distraction.

The following is an article I found in a tweet by Arimoto Kaoru and introduced earlier in this column.
Preamble omitted.
Professor Shigeto Yonemura of the University of Tokyo’s Graduate School of Law and Politics, who is also a doctor, said
“I have no idea on what basis they decided to extend the period. The government should be identifying places with a high risk of infection based on the data and restricting the flow of people there. Still, they are just prolonging the declaration of a state of emergency in the dark,” he added.
“A subcommittee is a group of experts on “infectious diseases,” but it is a group of amateurs in the field of “countermeasures against infectious diseases. Of course, the government should listen to a wide range of opinions before making a decision, but the current situation where the government only listens to the subcommittee’s view on how to declare a state of emergency makes it seem as if the government wants to blame the subcommittee when something inconvenient happens.
I omitted the second sentence.