Published on January 10, 2020.
This article, based on “Media Insider Report Card” in the monthly magazine Sound Argument, discusses the handling of Jiro Shinbo’s remarks by a television station, Soichiro Tahara’s baseless statement on “Asa Made Nama Terebi,” and the media coverage surrounding the death of Dr. Tetsu Nakamura in Afghanistan.
It questions whether Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution protected Nakamura, who had opposed constitutional revision and criticized the Self-Defense Forces and the military, and warns against turning him into a sacred figure of the pro-constitution camp, while also touching on Pope Francis’s remarks about China and nuclear weapons.

January 10, 2020
Of course.
He was a leading advocate of the postwar constitution who opposed constitutional revision, had long opposed the dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces for PKO missions, and had continued to use extremely contemptuous words toward the Self-Defense Forces and the military.
The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
“Asa Nama” Has Already Outlived Its Role
Teacher:
Returning to the subject, amid all this, I think Jiro Shinbo is doing fairly well.
Previously, in an episode dealing with the “Cherry Blossom Viewing Party,” he once said, “The opposition parties and the mass media are stupid!”
That is absolutely true, but he came under fierce criticism, and the station apparently told him to “withdraw the remark.”
However, Shinbo did not seem to want to accept that, and at the end of the program he said, “The station says I should withdraw it, so I apologize.”
I would not go so far as to call it a divine response, but it was not bad, was it?
Editor:
Yes.
Previously, we discussed whether it is acceptable for a station to decide on its own to apologize for a performer’s remarks, but in this case it was exactly political correctness itself.
It is a case of the station forcing that on the performer.
It was appropriate, first of all, to have Mr. Shinbo himself, who made the remark, deal with it.
Furthermore, Mr. Shinbo was able to express that he personally did not want to apologize.
It was also good that he made it clear that he was apologizing under the “pressure” of the station, and gave them a little jab by showing that he was not siding with the station.
Lady:
On the other hand, on TV Asahi’s November 19 broadcast of “Asa Made Nama Terebi,” Soichiro Tahara said, “Benesse has donated 20 million yen to former Minister of Education Hirofumi Shimomura,” and this caused a stir.
Benesse and Hirofumi Shimomura were furious at this groundless remark, and TV Asahi apologized on the program’s Twitter account, saying, “There was no such donation from Benesse to Representative Shimomura.
We correct the statement and apologize to Benesse, Representative Shimomura, and all viewers.”
But Mr. Tahara himself is ignoring it, isn’t he?
Teacher:
The problem is that Mr. Tahara’s practice of “saying things whose truth or falsehood is unclear and leaving them there” did not begin now.
If we speak of the most sinful remark he made in the past, it was “Megumi Yokota is dead.”
Recently, the flaws in “Asa Nama” have become conspicuous, and has it not already ended?
Editor:
If the station apologized on its own, that means it slighted Mr. Tahara.
And if this response was decided after discussion, isn’t Mr. Tahara pushing the responsibility for handling it onto the station?
Did Article 9 Protect Mr. Nakamura’s Life?
Teacher:
By the way, the reporting on the doctor Tetsu Nakamura, who died in Afghanistan, is also terrible.
Editor:
Wasn’t Mr. Nakamura appreciated by the local people?
There also seemed to be many reactions saying that people were proud of him as a Japanese.
Teacher:
I have no intention of saying “serves him right” to the deceased or to his bereaved family.
Nor do I completely deny his efforts.
But, you see, people must not be allowed to forget what kind of statements he had made up to now.
Lady:
You mean he was the kind of person who thought in an “Article 9 of the Constitution” manner, saying that aid protected by armed force is not welcomed?
Teacher:
Exactly.
In the dangerous region of Afghanistan, he openly spoke of the “divine protection” of Article 9, saying things such as, “I have truly felt in my own body that my life has actually been protected by Article 9 of the Constitution.”
Lady:
In the end, that was not the case, was it?
Teacher:
Of course.
He was a leading advocate of the postwar constitution who opposed constitutional revision, had long opposed the dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces for PKO missions, and had continued to use extremely contemptuous words toward the Self-Defense Forces and the military.
There is a booklet from Iwanami Shoten titled “Eighteen Statements to Prevent a Society That Says, ‘Let Us Change the Constitution and Go to War,’” and he appeared at the beginning of it.
I feel like asking him, “Article 9 of the Constitution did not protect you, did it?”
Editor:
An Afghan airline has even designed Mr. Nakamura’s face on the tail of one of its aircraft to honor his achievements.
I think there is no doubt that the local people were grateful for his work in bringing water to the area.
Teacher:
I do not completely deny that part.
But, you see, he calmly said things like “Article 9 of the Constitution protects me,” while in reality the subordinates who were with him were killed, were they not?
Afghanistan is a place for which an evacuation advisory, telling people to “refrain from all travel,” has long been issued, and Nakamura ignored that, entered the country, and lost his life.
Is that not his own responsibility?
Why is there not a single voice saying that this time?
Furthermore, why is he being treated as a hero?
I cannot understand it at all.
Lady:
From now on, he will probably be sanctified like a martyr of the pro-constitution camp!
Teacher:
There may be people who say that he was a splendid individual, or that his activities should be evaluated.
That is fine in itself.
But, at the very least, he absolutely must not be deified, including his political statements.
I will not yield on that point.
Professor:
For example, take the Pope, who visited Japan.
He too left behind a number of astonishing “flower-garden” remarks.
Editor:
Such as “I like Beijing and want to go to China.”
Apparently, everyone’s eyes went blank and they looked down.
Teacher:
I wonder what Uyghurs and Hong Kongers felt when they heard that.
When he came to Japan, he also said, “Nuclear weapons are unacceptable!”
That is none of your business.
I wanted to say, “Go to your beloved China and say that line there!”
Professor:
There are Catholic intellectuals even in the conservative world, with Ayako Sono and the late Shoichi Watanabe being representative examples, and among politicians there are actually quite a few, such as Taro Aso and Eriko Yamatani.
I would like to know how such conservative Catholics heard the Pope’s remarks this time.
This article continues.