This is a full English rendering of a dialogue from the January issue of the monthly magazine WiLL between journalist Takayama Masayuki and commentator Saegusa Gentaro.
They discuss Japan’s “old media,” the decline of trust in newspapers, the hysterical anti-Takaichi tone of Asahi Shimbun and related outlets, feminist and liberal attacks on Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, and the gap between progressive agendas (selective separate surnames, LGBT, multiculturalism) and ordinary citizens suffering under inflation.
The conversation criticizes Asahi’s labeling tactics, its alignment with liberal “alchemy” and public-fund “extraction,” and contrasts this with Takaichi’s work ethic, strategic stance toward China and South Korea, and surprisingly positive coverage in major U.S. media such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN.

Is “Bashing Takaichi” Now Asahi’s Editorial Creed?
A Dialogue Between Takayama Masayuki and Saegusa Gentaro

Even if you attack Takaichi with distorted emotional arguments, no reader will follow you.
Newspapers you cannot rely on.

Takayama:
In 2025, the term “old media” was nominated for the “New Words and Buzzwords Awards.”
It was probably chosen in a critical sense, but I was surprised that “old media” itself became a focus of attention.

Saegusa:
That is precisely the power of social media.

Takayama:
Newspapers are no longer reliable.
You can hardly understand what they are trying to say.
Komeito broke off its coalition with the LDP, yet not a single paper wrote the real reason.
It is obvious that they were mindful of Soka Gakkai’s pro-China stance, but no one points that out.

Saegusa:
Because they do not write the essence, everything becomes even more incomprehensible.

Takayama:
Sanae Takaichi has been chosen as LDP president and prime minister, and the Takaichi administration has been launched, yet Asahi and the other media are in a state of hysteria.
For example, the journalist Soichiro Tahara, on BS Asahi’s program “Gekiron! Crossfire,” said of Takaichi, who opposes allowing married couples to have separate surnames, “We should just say, ‘Someone like that should die.’”
The program was later terminated, but it was not live.
Which means that the production side sympathized with Tahara’s remark and decided to air it as it was.
In fact, remarks this far to the left used to be considered within the allowable range.
In that sense, old media may have changed a little.
I want to see whether this change is the result of Takaichi’s momentum.

Saegusa:
As for Asahi, I was shocked by the “Multiple Views” column written by editorial writer Junko Takahashi (November 8).
It was titled “The Bounding Prime Minister, Smiles Toward America—Does She Have Okinawa in Her Sight?” and included passages like this:
“Even though my TV should be on mute, I hear shrill, chirpy sounds.
On the screen, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi was frolicking beside President Trump.
(…)
The United States and Japan.
A victor nation and a defeated nation.
Man and woman.
The prime minister who, in a single day, made visible the nested structure of oppression.
Lucky you, riding the wave, working fast, yeah!
Nihon Gaikō Blooming Proudly in the Center of the World!
(…)
I do not know where the ‘center of the world’ is supposed to be, but a flower that blossoms by forcing burdens on the residents of the southernmost prefecture and feeding on their sacrifices must surely be grotesque.”
I have no idea what she is trying to say.

Takayama:
It is a backlash against the line in Takaichi’s policy speech—“We will regain a Japanese diplomacy that blooms proudly at the center of the world”—but even so, it is completely unhinged.
In the October 28 “Tensei Jingo” column as well, they wrote:
“Prime Minister Takaichi’s abilities will be tested.
The red hat, the rubbing of hands, the flattering obsequiousness—we have had enough of all that.
We do not need to stand in the middle of the world; a corner is fine.
What we need is calm, dignified, orthodox diplomacy.”
It is as if Asahi’s wish is for Japan to remain weak.
However, there was one thing on Asahi’s front page that surprised me.
The day after Takaichi made her diplomatic debut at ASEAN, the top photo on the October 27 front page showed Japanese diplomacy literally “blooming in the middle” of the world.
Knowing Asahi, the photographer who took it and the layout editor who chose that placement are probably being punished as we speak.
(All burst into laughter.)

Saegusa:
With Asahi, that is entirely possible (wry smile).
Regarding the Japan–U.S. summit, former Diet member and Communist Party member Saori Ikeuchi wrote on social media:
“Scene after scene of the prime minister allowing his arm to be slipped around her waist and accepting it with a beaming smile are so painful that I cannot even quote them.
On top of Japan being a power submissive to the United States, we see the pitiful figure of a person who climbed up by disregarding discrimination against women.
Her personal craving for self-display is also painfully obvious.
Watching Takaichi, I was reminded of the sad expression ‘local mistress.’
This is serious.”
She was flooded with fierce criticism.
In the end, Ikeuchi had no choice but to apologize for what she posted.
That alone shows just how enormous the current popularity of the Takaichi administration is.

The alchemy of the liberals.

Takayama:
In Abe Shinzo’s time, Wakamiya Yoshibumi, then Asahi’s editorial page editor, boasted that “bashing Abe is Asahi’s editorial creed.”
So how serious are they about bashing Takaichi?
We saw a glimpse of that in Asahi’s October 23 editorial.
It was titled “The First Female Prime Minister Has Broken the ‘Ceiling,’ But…” and spent the whole piece disparaging her.

Saegusa:
From Asahi’s perspective, unlike former Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, Prime Minister Takaichi is not “one of our camp.”
Precisely because she is such a figure, they cannot wholeheartedly rejoice, even though the first female prime minister in history has broken the “glass ceiling.”

Takayama:
Their reasons for not welcoming her are clearly written in the editorial.
They say: “She is negative toward efforts for individual rights and gender equality such as selective married couple separate surnames and same-sex marriage.
(…)
She stirs up anxiety toward foreigners, and immediately after being chosen she said, ‘We should discard the phrase “work–life balance.”’”
And then they conclude:
“The new prime minister should go beyond Nagatachō and increase opportunities to listen directly to the voices of minorities.
Rather than being locked into traditional values, she should listen to how women, foreigners, sexual minorities, and people with disabilities live and what kind of society they want.
New scenes and new voices should emerge.”
I cannot understand the mindset of people who think that is simply what any prime minister ought to do.
They seem to believe that a Japanese prime minister is supposed to carry out little tricks that suit Asahi’s taste.
For example, when a fishing boat collided with the MSDF destroyer Atago, then Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba went and apologized to the bereaved families before the cause had even been clarified.
That is a classic case of someone who cannot see the larger national interest, but to Asahi it probably looked admirable.
What a foolish newspaper.

Saegusa:
Asahi even criticized her phrase “discard the term ‘work–life balance’” as if it somehow violated the Labor Standards Act.
They wheeled out bereaved families together with lawyers for karoshi victims.
In the past, Asahi’s criticism would have carried a certain weight.
But now, on social media, where I and many others participate, the dominant view is that Takaichi’s words were not directed at ordinary citizens but were simply an expression of her own determination, and Asahi’s attack was blown away.

Takayama:
In fact, Takaichi is practicing what she preaches, holding study sessions at the prime minister’s residence at three in the morning.
She is literally living out the phrase she repeated five times: “Work hard, work, work, work, and toil.”
That alone should be next year’s buzzword award.

Saegusa:
Absolutely.

Takayama:
On top of that, Asahi ran an interview with feminist Ueno Chizuko on November 1, in which she posted on social media:
“I am not at all pleased at the talk of a possible first female prime minister.
Next year, Japan will probably climb up the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Index rankings.
But that does not mean politics will become more women-friendly.”
There is no woman more deceitful than Ueno.
She tells women, “Do not rely on men; live alone,” but secretly married the historian Daikichi Irokawa.

Saegusa:
Exactly.
She also calls on people to “let us all become poorer,” yet she herself lives in a tower apartment.
Her words are full of contradictions.
Ueno frequently gives lectures related to LGBT issues.
This is nothing but the alchemy of the liberals.

Takayama:
It is literally sucking up public funds.
A truly outrageous story.
In Asahi, Ueno made all sorts of excuses about her earlier post.
She said: “If a female political leader who wanted to push for selective separate surnames were to emerge, feminists would welcome her much more.
Because that would mean a politics that actively listens to the voices of women, who tend to be placed in weak or subordinate positions.”
And then she added that feminists cannot welcome Takaichi because she opposes selective separate surnames and is a copy of the Abe administration.
She is literally speaking from the same standpoint as the editorial.

Saegusa:
From the perspective of ordinary people struggling with inflation and the cost of living, things like selective separate surnames, same-sex marriage, and multicultural coexistence are trivial topics.
Yet Asahi and the other liberal media relentlessly demand that such issues be accepted.
Even if they force these things on people, daily life will not become richer; it will simply become more twisted.
Hence the gap between old media and public sentiment grows ever wider.

The better performer.

Takayama:
Asahi’s only point of attack on Takaichi is that she is a “hawkish woman.”
In the headlines they disguise it as “hawkish color,” but still.

Saegusa:
In “Weekly Toyo Keizai,” former Asahi editorial writer Hoshi Hiroshi and others, as well as Yomiuri, predict that the Takaichi administration will lose support over the “slush fund” issue and over Japan–Korea and Japan–China relations.
But is that really so?
Even the so-called “unreported contributions” scandal happened two years ago, and no lawmakers have been criminally charged.
In the House of Councillors election, all the so-called “slush fund” lawmakers were re-elected.

Takayama:
The reality is merely “failure to report,” but Asahi rebrands it as “slush funds.”
Asahi is extremely skilled at that kind of labeling.

Saegusa:
As for Japan–Korea and Japan–China relations, we can imagine the old pattern in which a cabinet minister says something that can be construed as a gaffe, the newspapers and TV exaggerate it into a major scandal, and then rush off to “report it” to Korea or China.
But nowadays, aggressive diplomacy that bullies other countries—like China’s wolf-warrior diplomacy—is more likely to be condemned, and I do not believe it will go so far as to topple the administration.

Takayama:
What comes to mind is the Tanaka Kakuei–Zhou Enlai talks at the time of the normalization of diplomatic relations between Japan and China.
Tanaka apologized for the past war, but the interpreter rendered it as “Sorry to have caused trouble” (“tian le mafan”), which sounded like a light apology on the level of “Sorry I stepped on your foot,” and Zhou supposedly became furious.
That, we are told, gave China the excuse to seize the moral high ground and triggered the massive ODA program.
But Zhou had longed to study in Japan and spent more than two years here; his Japanese was fluent.
Though he was not smart enough to get into the teachers’ college he wanted, he had no trouble understanding Tanaka’s Japanese.
If the interpreter had really mistranslated, a grown adult would have laughed and corrected it.
Instead, he pretended to understand nothing and put on airs.
It is the same thug-like way of picking a fight.
China’s reaction to Takaichi’s remarks this time likewise reveals its desire to grab the upper hand.
Regarding South Korea, Takaichi intends to practice Abe Shinzo’s “strategic neglect,” but on the surface she disarms them by saying, “I like Korean nori, I use Korean cosmetics, and I watch Korean dramas.”
She may actually be one step ahead of Abe as a performer.

Saegusa:
In the end, Asahi reported on the Japan–Korea summit that President Lee Jae-myung formed a favorable impression of Prime Minister Takaichi after their first meeting.
It said he focused on the fact that at the summit, Takaichi bowed her head to both the Japanese flag and the Taegeukgi displayed at the venue.
The left-wing Korean paper Hankyoreh wrote that “it is unusual for a leader to bow to the other country’s flag at the summit venue,” and President Lee said, “Before meeting her, I cannot say I had no worries, but I felt she was a very fine politician who shared the same ideas.”
He even proposed visiting Nara, Takaichi’s home prefecture, and she agreed.
“Mainichi Shimbun” and the conservative “Dong-A Ilbo” both praised her for “showing proper respect,” and online people commented, “She seems different from her reputation.”

Takayama:
A Jiji Press photographer reportedly said, “I’ll shoot her support rate down,” but it does not look like he will succeed in lowering Takaichi’s approval rating at all.

Saegusa:
Because Nippon TV broadcast the events live for so long, a careless remark slipped out.
That snippet was clipped and viewed more than a million times on social media.
Jiji Press must have been chilled by the power of SNS.

Takayama:
Yet the photographer received only a light punishment.
Jiji Press was once a respectable outlet that carried columns by people like Takuho Tada and Yashiro Taro.
But fools always flow downward.
The reporters have become stupid, Jiji has turned into another Kyodo, and the photographers have become infected and turned red as well.
In any case, Takaichi’s rise has drastically changed media coverage around the world.
The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN have all given her extensive coverage.
I am surprised at how many positive assessments there are.
Until now, The Washington Post only wrote about Japan twice a year.
Apart from the Tanaka “money scandal,” it hardly ever expressed a view on a Japanese prime minister.
That the American old media, which never even regarded Japanese prime ministers as worth mentioning, are now devoting space and airtime to her is extraordinary treatment.

Saegusa:
That is wonderful.
It feels as if Abe’s diplomacy has returned.