Published on February 23, 2020.
This article cites a Sankei Shimbun editorial criticizing the Chinese government’s decision to revoke the press credentials of three Beijing-based reporters from The Wall Street Journal, effectively expelling them from China.
It discusses the Chinese authorities’ information concealment concerning the new pneumonia outbreak, suppression of foreign media, and the U.S. designation of five Chinese media outlets as “Chinese Communist Party propaganda organs,” arguing that Japan should not welcome the head of a regime attacking freedom of the press during such an emergency as a state guest.

February 23, 2020
However, there is no way Japan should welcome the head of a regime that attacks “freedom of the press” during an emergency such as the new pneumonia outbreak.
Today’s editorial also proved that, at present, the most decent newspaper is the Sankei Shimbun.
Is This the Time to Suppress Speech?
Revocation of U.S. Newspaper Reporters’ Press Credentials
The Chinese government has effectively expelled three Beijing-based reporters of the U.S. newspaper The Wall Street Journal by revoking their press credentials.
It is said that this was because China took issue with a column concerning the new pneumonia outbreak that the newspaper had published.
However, the principle of the international community is that speech should be answered with speech.
Revoking press credentials is a direct denial of the universal value of “freedom of the press.”
The target of the Xi Jinping regime’s intensifying suppression of speech has now been directed at foreign media reporting to the world the actual situation in China concerning the new pneumonia outbreak, and this cannot be overlooked.
The Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China in Beijing expressed “deep concern and strong condemnation.”
We protest in the same way.
The title of the column was “China Is the ‘Sick Man of Asia,’” and it was written by an outside expert.
The Chinese government says that the expression “sick man” has “racially discriminatory nuances,” but is that really so?
The column points out that the local authorities in Wuhan, China, where the new pneumonia first broke out, concealed information, and discusses the effects that poor initial responses would have on the economy and politics through turmoil in the financial markets.
A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry criticized it as “slandering the efforts of the Chinese government and people in their fight against the disease,” but surely that is not the case.
Moreover, the reporters targeted by this punishment are said to have had nothing to do with the column.
In an editorial, The Wall Street Journal expressed concern that articles and editorials concerning the internment camps in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and Hong Kong would eventually be targeted as well.
Before the Chinese government announced the revocation of the press credentials, the U.S. government designated five Chinese media outlets, including Xinhua, as “political propaganda organs of the Chinese Communist Party.”
Does this revocation mean retaliation?
However, the U.S. government’s designation does not directly restrict reporting activities inside the United States.
Regarding the revocation of the press credentials, U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo criticized the Chinese government, saying, “The correct response is to present counterarguments, not to restrict speech.”
In China, faced with the excessive spread of the new pneumonia, movements have begun to emerge criticizing the government’s response and demanding accurate information.
This is no time to be expelling foreign reporters.
The Japanese government has repeatedly stated that President Xi’s state visit to Japan in April will proceed as scheduled.
However, there is no way Japan should welcome the head of a regime that attacks “freedom of the press” during an emergency such as the new pneumonia outbreak.