This essay examines the dispute involving Tokyo Shimbun reporter Isoko Mochizuki, the Mainichi Shimbun, and the Tokyo Shimbun labor union.
Drawing on Rui Abiru’s argument, it criticizes media outlets that indulge in “anti-power” self-righteousness while neglecting factual reporting, and questions opposition parties and media that continued to prioritize the “cherry blossom viewing party” issue over the national challenge of infectious disease response.

March 11, 2020
In any case, the day may be near when the people will brand as “out of the question” those opposition parties and media outlets that, even at this late stage, seem to think the “cherry blossom viewing party” is more important than responding to infectious disease.
The following is a continuation of Rui Abiru’s essay.
The “infighting” between Tokyo and Mainichi.
In the process of reporting, as facts are gathered, or in the process of publishing reports, criticism of power may emerge as a by-product.
But it goes without saying that the purpose of the media is not, strictly speaking, the monitoring of power, but the reporting of facts.
To place ideology above facts and indulge in the self-intoxication of being “anti-power.”
Is not the typical example of this Isoko Mochizuki of the Tokyo Shimbun?
She attends the chief cabinet secretary’s press conferences and repeatedly asks incomprehensible questions.
On Twitter, she wrote that the beat reporters had privately decided, “Do not let Mochizuki point her finger.”
In response, the Mainichi Shimbun criticized Ms. Mochizuki for “spreading tweets contrary to fact.”
Then the Tokyo Shimbun labor union joined the fray.
“The most important point is not whether there are factual errors in Ms. Mochizuki’s tweet, but rather the nature of the Prime Minister’s Office press conferences and the stance of the Cabinet Press Club in confronting the administration.”
So it argued back against the Mainichi Shimbun on Twitter.
Both the Tokyo Shimbun and the Mainichi Shimbun are birds of a feather, still pursuing the “cherry blossom viewing party.”
This series of “out-of-ring brawls” was mocked online as “infighting” (laughs).
The Sankei Shimbun sent written questions to the Tokyo Shimbun editorial department regarding Ms. Mochizuki’s erroneous dissemination of information.
It asked for their view of the tweet, whether they intended to delete it, and how they would deal with Ms. Mochizuki.
However, the answer ended with just a few words: “It was a tweet from Ms. Mochizuki’s personal account, and we will refrain from responding.”
What can be seen from the tweets by Ms. Mochizuki and the Tokyo Shimbun labor union, and from the answer of the editorial department, is their attitude of disregarding facts.
“What we are doing is justice, so even if some facts are wrong, it should not matter.”
That is their posture.
Incidentally, during the Suga administration, I attended prime ministerial press conferences about ten times.
Of those occasions, I was called on after raising my hand only twice, including once when the Sankei Shimbun was serving as the managing press company.
At that time, did the Tokyo Shimbun regard it as a problem that I was not being given the opportunity to ask questions?
They probably thought no more than, “There goes Abiru raising his hand again.”
Takashi Uemura, the former Asahi Shimbun reporter whose comfort women reporting complicated Japan-Korea relations, once said something to the effect that only after leaving the Asahi Shimbun did he realize how strong the headwinds against him were.
This can also be said of large zaibatsu-related corporations.
In large organizations, everything is completed internally.
Because the organization protects them, people can live comfortably without being exposed to criticism from outside.
In the case of the Asahi Shimbun, if it were to listen to criticism, everything it has done until now would be completely negated.
So perhaps it is simply covering its ears (laughs).
In any case, the day may be near when the people will brand as “out of the question” those opposition parties and media outlets that, even at this late stage, seem to think the “cherry blossom viewing party” is more important than responding to infectious disease.