Written on June 27, 2019.
This essay criticizes the structure by which the Japanese mass media uses opinion polls, experts, and readers’ letters to make its own agitation appear to be public opinion itself.
It argues in particular that the anonymous article system, in which reporters’ names are omitted, not only obscures personal responsibility but also functions as an arrogant mechanism that presents articles as though they were “the voice of heaven” or the voice of the people at large, thereby shutting down rebuttal.

2019-06-27
What further strengthens the method of creating media opinion on the basis of guided or fabricated public opinion is the system of “anonymity” in the Japanese mass media.

The intention of anonymous articles that make themselves appear as though they were the voice of heaven.　
If opinion polls are not enough, then by printing things such as the views of experts or the opinions of readers, the mass media tries to leave a strong impression that its own agitation coincides with public opinion.　
Even in the case of contributors, the reality is that they submit pieces that generally fit the editorial line of that newspaper.
Even if submissions criticizing the mass media are sometimes carried, that is done in order to disguise the fact that the mass media is engaging public opinion from a fair and neutral position.
In actual quantity as well, would not criticism of the mass media of that kind amount to no more than about one percent?　
The same is true of so-called experts.
For example, the sort of so-called progressive cultural figures who have long since lost their power of speech and persuasiveness on any serious stage of debate are nevertheless given many opportunities to present “expert opinion.”
That is because they make statements that flatter the mass media.　

What further strengthens the method of creating media opinion on the basis of guided or fabricated public opinion is the system of “anonymity” in the Japanese mass media.
That is to say, newspaper articles carry no byline for the reporter.　
Anonymity has a double effect.
First, the reporter writing it does not have to bear responsibility individually.
In other words, even if a mistaken opinion is published, the mass media is defending itself so that the personality of the one who wrote it will never be criticized.　
But even more important is another effect.
By making it anonymous, the writing can be made to appear as though it were something like a heavenly utterance.
In other words, it takes the form that a newspaper reporter has merely ghostwritten, in place of the people, the voice of heaven without a signature, that is, the general voice of the nation.　
The reader does not take it as the particular personal opinion of an individual reporter.
Because it is not a personal opinion, rebuttal is not permitted, and furthermore, because it is spoken as though it were the voice of heaven, one is made to feel as if rebutting it were itself a sin.
That is the vague impression that is given.
In other words, anonymity is at once an expression of the mass media’s irresponsibility and also a condition for its arrogance.
To be continued.