Based on Rui Abiru’s essay in Seiron, this article examines the incident in which Jun Azumi of the Constitutional Democratic Party publicly graded newspaper coverage inside the Diet. It criticizes the media’s double standard: had the ruling Liberal Democratic Party done the same, the press would likely have denounced it as pressure on journalism, yet it treated the opposition’s conduct leniently.

March 3, 2020
The Media Are Far Too Lenient toward the Opposition: Jun Azumi’s Newspaper Grading Incident Reveals a Double Standard
The following continues from the previous chapter.
Is it acceptable for the media to be so extraordinarily lenient toward the opposition?
At the same time, the mass media do not treat these malicious questions from the opposition as a particular problem.
They spend their days doing nothing but criticizing the administration.
And the opposition uses this distorted posture, while at the same time looking down on the media.
In the current Diet session, there was also an incident on February 4 in which Jun Azumi, Diet affairs chief of the Constitutional Democratic Party, added his own evaluations to the newspapers of that day, which reported on Diet questioning, and posted them on the door of the House of Representatives parliamentary group room inside the Diet.
According to those evaluations, the Asahi and Mainichi newspapers received flower-circle marks.
The Yomiuri was judged “barely safe.”
The Nikkei was labeled “entry prohibited” and “garbage, zero points.”
The Sankei was deliberately posted lower than the other newspapers and was judged “out of the question.”
What he thinks privately is his freedom.
But how childish it is for a senior official of the largest opposition party to post such a thing inside the Diet.
It is up to the Constitutional Democratic Party if it wants to treat the Sankei as an enemy.
But are such evaluations truly legitimate?
For example, regarding the Nikkei, which was called garbage, Azumi apparently disliked the fact that it had focused on a question by Fumio Kishida, policy research chairman of the Liberal Democratic Party and a leading candidate to succeed Abe, and had therefore treated the opposition’s questions only briefly.
But there were proper reasons to focus on Kishida at that time.
It is also a matter of the Nikkei’s editorial rights.
Azumi is arrogant.
Azumi removed the postings not long afterward and, in a manner of speaking, explained to reporters that he had “gotten a little carried away,” that it was “only meant as a joke,” and that he had written it “as his feelings moved him.”
But if the Liberal Democratic Party had done the same thing, how would the mass media have reacted?
It is easy to imagine that they would have made a great fuss about pressure on the press and suppression of speech.
Television wide shows would surely have taken it up day after day.
Conversely, it is pathetic that the newspapers permitted such behavior by the Constitutional Democratic Party and reported it only in small articles the next day.
The side toward which they should show proper anger and confront is not only the government and the ruling parties.
Under the single-seat constituency system, depending on the result of a House of Representatives election, today’s opposition may become tomorrow’s ruling party.
If the media speak of monitoring power, then it is only natural that they should properly watch the words and actions of the opposition as well, and make efforts to inform the people.
This point by Rui Abiru is entirely accurate.
The Japanese mass media open their mouths and speak of “monitoring power.”
But does that power mean only the government and the ruling parties?
A senior official of the largest opposition party grades newspapers inside the Diet and posts labels such as “entry prohibited,” “garbage, zero points,” and “out of the question” against media outlets he dislikes.
Is this not pressure on the press?
If the Diet affairs chief of the Liberal Democratic Party had done the same thing, the Asahi Shimbun would have made a great commotion on its front page.
Television wide shows would have lined up commentators day after day and cried out that it was suppression of the press by the administration.
NHK, too, would undoubtedly have reported with grave expressions that freedom of the press was being questioned.
Yet when the Constitutional Democratic Party does it, the matter is treated as minor.
It was a joke.
He got carried away.
He wrote it as his emotions moved him.
And with that, it is over.
This is their double standard.
The media are being mocked by the opposition.
If they write articles convenient to the opposition, they receive a flower-circle mark.
If they write articles the opposition dislikes, they are called garbage.
Even when such things are posted inside the Diet, they do not become genuinely angry.
No, they cannot become angry.
That is because they themselves face the same direction as the opposition and conduct their reporting for the sake of criticizing the administration.
With this, newspapers are not monitors of power.
They are cheering squads for a particular political force.
The Japanese people must see through this structure.
When the mass media speak of “monitoring power,” those words are often nothing more than a convenient pretext for attacking only the government and ruling parties.
But in a democracy, it is not only the government that must be monitored.
Opposition parties seeking power are also future power.
Reporting that indulges the opposition, fails to treat its conduct as a problem, and does not inform the people is not reporting that protects democracy.
Rather, it is reporting that distorts democracy.
Who is making the Diet desolate?
Who is turning reporting into political manipulation?
Who is silently accepting the opposition’s recklessness and presenting only criticism of the administration as justice?
The answer is clear.
It is the mainstream opposition parties such as the Constitutional Democratic Party, and the media beginning with the Asahi Shimbun.
This essay will continue.