While reporting official explanations, some media continued to claim “doubts remain” without conducting direct interviews.
This section questions the responsibility of journalism that raises suspicion without thorough investigation.

The Asahi Shimbun continues to maintain this stance even now, repeatedly writing that “doubts remain” and “the public is not convinced.”
2018-01-30.
The following continues from the previous section.
Of course, during my time as Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary, each media company had its assigned reporters, and I explained matters to them one by one.
Indeed, I even told them, “Just because you are assigned reporters does not mean you should defend me. Simply report to your editors what I myself have explained regarding the facts.”
However, with the exception of Sankei, none of the media outlets—including the Asahi Shimbun—came to conduct direct interviews.
At most, they sent follow-up questions by fax.
The Asahi Shimbun has reported government comments and the contents of Minister Matsuno’s press conferences regarding this document.
However, in the same article it wrote the following.
“Regarding the series of documents surrounding Kake Educational Institution, including the document created by the Ministry of Education bearing phrases such as ‘Prime Minister’s intention,’ the explanations of Mr. Hagiuda, the Cabinet Office, and the Ministry of Education all differ. However, Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga stated at a press conference that ‘each minister is responding responsibly.’ When asked whether the Prime Minister would explain the situation in a press conference or elsewhere, he denied this, saying ‘we are not considering it.’” (Asahi Shimbun, June 20).
In other words, “The government offers such explanations, but the truth has yet to be clarified. If they wish to dispel these doubts, the Prime Minister himself should explain properly.”
The Asahi Shimbun continues to maintain this position, writing that “doubts remain” and “the public is not convinced.”
Certainly, bureaucrats at the Ministry of Education and the Cabinet Office, when it comes time to testify in the Diet, sometimes speak in self-preservation and say things like “I do not recall,” which may make their explanations appear inconsistent.
However, if proper reporting were conducted, the facts should naturally become clear.
Nevertheless, journalists—who should know better—did not even request interviews with the person they themselves describe as the “central figure of suspicion.”
Is this not an extremely irresponsible stance for a media organization that has raised the issue in the first place?
To be continued.