Originally published on October 23, 2019.
Continuing from the previous chapter and based on an essay by Fujioka Nobukatsu, this article examines the written debate with Honda Katsuichi that unfolded in Weekly Bunshun and Weekly Friday.
It discusses criticism of Journey to China, the appearance of a mysterious “Reporter A” on Honda’s side, the structure of evading responsibility, and how the debate failed to become a proper exchange.

October 23, 2019.
As insurance for such a time, if the remarks were made not by Honda himself but by “Reporter A,” whose statements occupied 90 percent of the text on Honda’s side, he would be able to escape responsibility.
The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
A miniature version of Experiential Theory of Honda Katsuichi.
Now, I myself also had an opportunity to experience Honda’s true nature.
That said, compared with Tonooka’s 20 years, mine was only a mini-experience of about two months, but even so it was a rare experience.
The starting point was a special feature article in the September 4, 2014 issue of Weekly Bunshun, released on August 28, just after the Asahi Shimbun admitted that its reporting of Yoshida Seiji’s testimony on the comfort women issue had been false.
The title of the special feature was “The Asahi Shimbun’s ‘Traitorous DNA.’”
In it, a short comment of mine appeared.
“This article was one in which Mr. Honda reported under the guidance of the Chinese Communist Party and wrote without corroboration, and such things as 300,000 victims are complete nonsense.”
I never imagined for a moment that such an ordinary comment would become an issue.
Dated August 29, the day after the issue went on sale, a delivery-certified letter arrived from the editorial department of Weekly Friday to the editorial department of Weekly Bunshun.
It was titled “Open Letter of Inquiry to Mr. Fujioka Nobukatsu Concerning His Comment to Weekly Bunshun.”
It contained six questions.
The first of them was, “Are you aware that the statement that approximately 300,000 people were killed was not the conclusion of Editorial Board Member Honda, but a hearing of the experience of Mr. Jiang Yanfu?”
Jiang Yanfu is a 43-year-old sailor working for the Nanjing Port Authority who appears in Journey to China, and Honda wanted to say that he merely wrote it because Jiang testified to “300,000,” on page 230 of the paperback edition.
Upon receiving this, the editorial department of Weekly Bunshun proposed that, rather than having me answer detailed open questions, Honda and I should hold a public debate in the presence of both the Weekly Bunshun and Weekly Friday editorial departments, and that both editorial departments should turn it into articles under their own respective responsibility.
There were various circumstances afterward, but provisional rules were decided, and the debate between the two magazines began.
In his first letter, Honda did not write the text himself.
He said, “Since the origin of this is Weekly Friday, I will introduce a dialogue with my 담당 Reporter A,” and after that, the document took the same form as a magazine dialogue, with the speaker names “Reporter A” and “Honda” printed in bold Gothic type.
I was truly astonished and appalled by this.
I had agreed to a written debate with Honda, but there was no fact that I had consented to debate with an unidentified person called “Reporter A.”
It was extremely rude and a violation of the rules.
The rules put in writing by both editorial departments did not include an item saying “the manuscript must be written by the person himself,” but that was only because it was an obvious premise.
The first-person pronoun “ore” was also inappropriate as a statement in a public forum and looked down on the other party.
Already at this point, I had sufficient reason to refuse this debate.
To begin with, who is “Reporter A”?
There were three kinds of voices I heard from readers around me.
(1) The commonsense view that, just as Honda said, it was probably the reporter in charge at Weekly Friday.
If so, at the very least the person’s name should be made clear.
(2) The supposition that “Reporter A” does not actually exist, but is perhaps the name of a group collectively dealing with this controversy.
(3) The theory that, in the first place, “Reporter A” is a fictional, created person.
There were various views.
In any case, the purpose of the method of introducing this “Reporter A” is clear.
It is evasion of responsibility.
In the future, a situation might arise in which responsibility is questioned for statements made in the written debate.
As insurance for such a time, if the remarks were made not by Honda himself but by “Reporter A,” whose statements occupied 90 percent of the text on Honda’s side, he would be able to escape responsibility.
In order to continue the debate, I declared that everything written in the letters, including the remarks of “Reporter A,” would be treated as Honda’s statements.
Logically, there is no other conceivable reason to continue the debate.
Astonishingly, in Honda’s third letter, “Reporter A” said, “Is it not a ‘fabrication’ to regard my statements as Mr. Honda’s statements?”
Honda then responded, “It would be troublesome if my statements were mixed together with his.
We can see Mr. Fujioka’s attitude toward historical materials,” and even used this as material for a personal attack on me.
The written debate proceeded in this way, and because of Honda’s side’s unserious attitude and its failure to answer my questions, it did not become a proper debate.
I felt sorry for the readers, but I understood very well that Honda was an insincere person who did not even understand the manners of controversy.
This essay continues.