Former Ehime Governor Moriyuki Kato’s testimony on the Kake Veterinary School case revealed long-term regulatory distortion, yet was largely ignored by major newspapers—an emblematic case of selective reporting.

During Diet hearings on the Kake Gakuen project, former Ehime Governor Moriyuki Kato testified that the plan had been pursued for over twelve years. Despite its significance, major Japanese newspapers downplayed or ignored his remarks, highlighting a systemic pattern of narrative control and media bias.

2017-07-18

What truly stood out in the closed-session Diet hearings held on the 10th regarding the plan by the educational institution Kake Gakuen to establish a new veterinary school was the testimony of former Ehime Governor Moriyuki Kato.

“For Ehime Prefecture, it had been ‘Kake first’ for twelve years. It is not something that suddenly became ‘Kake first’ in the past one or two years.”

“For ten years, we endured rigid regulations like an unyielding rock. By drilling through them, what was achieved was not ‘administration being distorted,’ but rather ‘administration that had been distorted being corrected.’ That would be the accurate description.”

Kato spoke with deep emotion, rebutting claims by former Vice Minister of Education Kihei Maekawa, who argued that administration had been distorted by the Prime Minister’s Office.
The words of someone thoroughly familiar with the long process carried weight and were persuasive.
Many who watched the Diet proceedings on television likely found themselves nodding in agreement with Kato’s explanation.

However, when one read the morning newspapers of the 11th published by major Tokyo-based dailies, Kato’s testimony was given minimal treatment.
In particular, despite devoting extensive space to the hearings, both the Asahi Shimbun and the Mainichi Shimbun failed to mention Kato even once in their general news coverage.
It was as if testimony that did not align with their anti–Shinzō Abe administration narrative had never existed.

While this outcome was half expected, the sheer brazenness of it was astonishing.
Readers of Asahi and Mainichi who had not watched the Diet broadcast were effectively blinded to the facts.
The much-criticized phenomenon known online as “the freedom not to report” had reached its extreme.

To make matters worse, Mainichi ran a front-page social affairs headline stating, “Deflecting ‘impression manipulation’—Former Vice Minister Maekawa calmly withstands questioning,” writing that the ruling party attempted to undermine the credibility of Maekawa’s statements through “impression manipulation.”
In other words, while withholding Kato’s testimony from readers and highlighting only Maekawa’s claims—engaging in impression manipulation themselves—they accused the ruling party of doing precisely that.

This brought to mind a remark by Katsu Kaishū:
“Nothing in this world is stronger than insensitivity. Look at that dragonfly in the garden—cut off its tail and release it, and it flies away as if nothing happened.”

Already derided as “mass garbage media,” Japan’s mainstream press will only continue to lose trust and become an object of contempt.
Observing the reporting on Moritomo Gakuen and Kake Gakuen only deepens that concern.

In an interview with the Sankei Shimbun (June 16 morning edition), Kato cited the summer of 1982 textbook misreporting incident as a genuine example of politics distorting administration.
The media had falsely reported that textbook screening had changed the term “invasion” to “advance,” turning it into an international issue.

“The Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Kiichi Miyazawa saying the government would correct the textbooks. The Cabinet Office forcibly interfered with what should have been handled by the Ministry of Education. It was obvious political maneuvering ahead of Prime Minister Zenko Suzuki’s visit to China. But I did not say that administration had been distorted—that is the pride of a bureaucrat,” Kato recalled.

Kato’s comment in the interview—“Perhaps Maekawa crossed the line there”—was particularly striking.
In the end, it was proven that no such textbook revision had occurred.
The Sankei issued a large, seven-column correction and apology, while most other media outlets refused to correct their reporting.
This incident led to the addition of the so-called “Neighboring Countries Clause” to textbook screening standards, further distorting textbook content.
The media, already warped at the time, became even more twisted thereafter.