Published on August 5, 2019.
This article introduces Sakurai Yoshiko’s essay “A Sense of Unease over the Hagiuda Coverage,” published on the front page of the Sankei Shimbun.
It criticizes Jiji Press, the Asahi Shimbun, and other media for reporting remarks made by Hagiuda Koichi on Genron TV as if they were a call to replace the Speaker of the House of Representatives in order to force constitutional revision.
The article argues that such an interpretation would not arise if the entire program had actually been watched, and examines the responsibility of the Diet, the role of the Speaker, the Asahi Shimbun’s reporting methods, the Constitutional Democratic Party’s opposition to revising the National Referendum Act, and the weakness of ruling-party politicians who are drawn into the negative energy of the media.

August 5, 2019.
Did the other media outlets and the people who commented on this really watch the whole Genron TV program?
If they had watched it, they would not have arrived at such an interpretation.
Therefore, first, I will introduce the facts.
The following is from an essay by Sakurai Yoshiko titled “A Sense of Unease over the Hagiuda Coverage,” published on the front page of today’s Sankei Shimbun.
She is, in the words of Saicho, a national treasure, and she is the person most worthy of the People’s Honor Award.
On July 26, Hagiuda Koichi, Acting Secretary-General of the Liberal Democratic Party, appeared on Genron TV, the internet program that I host.
I cannot dispel my suspicion that a series of reports concerning his remarks at that time involved impression manipulation.
On the 27th, Jiji Press reported that Hagiuda “mentioned the possibility of replacing House of Representatives Speaker Oshima Tadamori toward a Diet proposal for constitutional revision,” and that “the opposition parties are likely to反発する, seeing it as showing an attitude of trying to push forward constitutional revision forcefully.”
On the 30th, Okubo Takahiro of the Asahi Shimbun reported under the headline “Ripples from Hagiuda’s Speaker Replacement Theory,” as if Hagiuda had developed a “House of Representatives Speaker replacement theory” while “letting dissatisfaction show.”
However, as one of the parties involved in the program, I do not think there was any scene in which he let dissatisfaction show.
The Asahi also reported that a senior administration official “openly expressed anger, saying, ‘Interfering in the personnel affairs of the Speaker is something that deserves punishment,’”
and that Koike Akira, Head of the Secretariat of the Communist Party, also反発した, saying, “It is a statement that overturns the very foundation of parliamentary democracy.”
Did the other media outlets and the people who commented on this really watch the whole Genron TV program?
If they had watched it, they would not have arrived at such an interpretation.
Therefore, first, I will introduce the facts.
The House of Councillors election had ended, Japan was facing a drastic change in the international situation, and I approached the July 26 program with the awareness that constitutional revision was an urgent issue.
The discussants included Hagiuda, as well as Ishibashi Fumito, former political editor of the Sankei Shimbun and a political journalist.
For the ruling parties, the Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito, the election result was a delicate victory in which the “pro-constitutional-revision forces” fell four seats short of the two-thirds required for a Diet proposal.
Hagiuda spoke with welcome about the fact that constitutional revision now required broad cooperation.
“The Constitution is not something to be decided by 51 to 49.
We are not thinking of voting while fighting over microphones and then showing that proposal to the people.
We want to show the people, in a quiet environment, the place where we can come together even with the opposition parties, based on the greatest common divisor.”
Under the rules of the Commission on the Constitution, a draft constitutional amendment can be decided by a majority.
However, Hagiuda said that the Liberal Democratic Party would not take such a hard-line measure, but would speak broadly with Komeito, of course, as well as the Japan Innovation Party, the Democratic Party for the People, conservative independents, and others, aiming for the greatest common divisor.
It was a moderate idea that stands at the opposite pole from Koike’s accusation that it “overturns parliamentary democracy.”
Later in the program, from the viewpoint that the Liberal Democratic Party, above all, should become proactive about constitutional revision, Ishibashi analyzed the matter by naming individuals at the center of the political world.
“This time, unusually, the personnel affairs of the House of Representatives Speaker are attracting the most attention.
The Commission on the Constitution is a Diet matter, not a government matter.
Mr. Oshima has also been there for quite a long time, and he is truly a conciliatory type and does not move.
I think it may not work unless the Speaker has considerable strength over both the ruling and opposition parties.
If you think that way, it would be Mr. Nikai.”
Jiji, Nikkei, Mainichi, Sankei, and others have also reported that the focus of the September Cabinet reshuffle and LDP executive appointments is Secretary-General Nikai Toshihiro.
In the program, discussion continued on other related personnel matters, and I asked Ishibashi whether, if Nikai were to become Speaker of the House of Representatives, that would show how serious Prime Minister Abe was about constitutional revision.
Ishibashi answered to that effect, saying, “The House will not move under a weak Speaker.”
Next, I asked Hagiuda, focusing on the role of the Speaker’s post, whether making a powerful figure who could also exert pressure on the opposition parties Speaker would show the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for constitutional revision.
In response, Hagiuda explained the responsibilities of the Speaker.
“It is not the Prime Minister but the Diet that revises the Constitution.
Originally, Diet members must operate the commission, and the final person responsible is the Speaker.
Speaker Oshima is a splendid person, but he is a coordinating type.
It is also the Speaker’s job to move deliberations forward while paying attention to the opposition parties.
If things do not move easily with the present members, it is extremely important for the Diet to place a powerful person in the Speaker’s post and adopt a constitutional-revision shift.”
Hagiuda’s remarks were a concrete explanation of the role of the Speaker’s post, and all the details can now be viewed on the Genron TV homepage.
The Asahi Shimbun reported the discussion on Genron TV after deleting the preceding part of this matter, namely Ishibashi’s remarks.
The issue of replacing the Speaker was the point brought out by the sharp sense of a veteran political reporter.
Was the omission of that part not due to an intention, arising from the Asahi’s faith in attacking Hagiuda and defending Article 9, to block any movement toward constitutional revision?
It is only natural that criticism of the Asahi’s bad method of “putting an angle on the news,” as pointed out by a third-party committee in its検証 of the notorious comfort women reporting, crossed my mind.
The Asahi also, while quoting Genron TV, writes only “an internet program” as the source of the information.
When quoting, clearly identifying the source is the minimum rule that journalists and researchers must observe.
The Asahi’s quotation is vague and careless.
Does it not violate both journalistic ethics and copyright law?
This issue does not remain within the framework of the media.
Even if Hagiuda went somewhat deeply into explaining the Speaker’s post, the problem itself is that powerful figures in the party get carried along by media that seize on the wording and attack him.
Ishiba Shigeru, whose name is listed among candidates for prime minister, criticized him, saying, “It is frightening that the party’s Acting Secretary-General would interfere in the personnel affairs of the House of Representatives Speaker,” but this is utterly laughable.
First of all, did Ishiba watch the program?
Also, are the personnel affairs of the Speaker such a sacred thing?
Has the Speaker built up the authority to be worthy of a sacred existence?
For a very long time, I have not seen the figure of a Speaker who exhausts himself for the people and the nation.
At a time when dissatisfaction with the U.S.-Japan alliance is being frequently conveyed from the United States, constitutional revision that raises Japan’s degree of independence is precisely in the national interest and is what protects the lives of the people.
During these three years, when Japan had been given, for the first time since the war, an opportunity to achieve that great objective, what on earth was done?
Is it to be said that the Speaker does not intervene in details, and that discussion in the Commission on the Constitution is not the Speaker’s responsibility?
The will of heaven resides in small matters.
Excuses in the face of great matters cannot escape the accusation of evading responsibility.
Tsujimoto Kiyomi, Chairperson of the Diet Affairs Committee of the Constitutional Democratic Party, said of Hagiuda’s remarks, “Has constitutional debate not been delayed by ten years?” (Asahi Shimbun Digital, August 1, 10:51 a.m.).
Is she mocking the people?
The Constitutional Democratic Party, which continues to oppose a bill to revise the National Referendum Act in order to provide convenience to voters in the same way as the Public Offices Election Act, should realize that it is the root of all evils obstructing democracy.
Politicians, especially ruling-party politicians, are drawn into the negative energy of the media.
I want to ask the ruling parties sternly: will you once again repeat the bad cycle in which you could not even debate and could produce nothing?