Despite extensive surveys in which former personnel of the Fushun Coal Mine and the South Manchuria Mining Company denied having seen or even heard of the alleged “mass graves,” objections to the reporting were dismissed with the explanation that the journalist had merely repeated what the Chinese side had said.
This episode raises a fundamental question of journalistic responsibility: whether a newspaper can publish serious allegations without adequately investigating testimony from those directly involved, and then deflect criticism by attributing the claims to another source.
May 4, 2016
The following continues from the previous section.
Questionnaires were sent to people who had been involved with the former Fushun Coal Mine and the former South Manchuria Mining Company.
After meeting approximately sixty respondents, every person surveyed gave essentially the same answer:
“I have never seen a ‘mass grave.’”
“I had never even heard the term ‘mass grave.’”
In 1990, Tanabe published the results of his investigation in the August issue of Seiron, concluding that “there were no mass graves.”
Honma responded by saying, “It is strange to draw a conclusion from such a small number of questionnaires.”
In response to the discrepancy between the two claims, the Tokyo Fushun Association, composed of former personnel of the Fushun Coal Mine, sent questionnaires to approximately 1,000 of its members.
After carefully examining the 469 responses it received, the association concluded that “it has become clear that there were no ‘mass graves’ functioning as ‘human dumping grounds’ for victims of forced labor.”
At the time the series was published, executives of the former South Manchuria Mining Company had already demanded that the Asahi Shimbun retract the articles, arguing that the claims concerning the “mass graves” were completely unfounded.
Their demand, however, was flatly rejected.
Kentaro Kuno, who had worked as an electrical engineer at the Fushun Coal Mine, also sent a letter of protest directly to Honma.
In March 1986, Honma sent Kuno the following reply:
“I was merely repeating what the Chinese side said, so if you wish to lodge a protest, could you not do so directly with the Chinese side?”
At the time the series was published, many of the people who had actually been involved were surely still alive.
Yet there is no indication that Honma or the Asahi Shimbun made any serious effort to interview the Japanese side before publishing the allegations.
If a journalist reports a grave accusation as fact, journalistic responsibility cannot be avoided simply by saying afterward that the claim originated with the Chinese side.
The responsibility of a newspaper is precisely to investigate, verify, compare conflicting testimony, and determine whether what it publishes can withstand scrutiny.
To publish one side’s narrative without adequately examining evidence from those directly involved, and then to deflect objections by saying, “I was only repeating what the Chinese side said,” reveals a fundamental failure of journalistic responsibility.
This article continues.