エルドリッヂ研究所代表・政治学博士　ロバート・Ｄ・エルドリッヂ

百田発言に一方向的批判

恰も「集団的自衛権」行使

　前回（７月２１日付）は、“百田発言”に触れつつ、沖縄メディア（琉球新報、沖縄タイムス）の構造的かつイデオロギー的問題、両紙が行うやり方でなぜ存在し続けるのかを書いた。これは作家の百田尚樹氏が「沖縄の二つの新聞を潰さないといけない」という発言の背景となるものだ。沖縄メディアは自制心を失い、社会における健全な第四権力の務めを果たさず、表現の自由や情報公開で実現する民主主義を危うくしている。

　今回は、日本のメディア、特に沖縄メディアが百田氏らによる批判を契機に、現在と過去の過ちを振り返り、将来、改善するチャンスを逃したことを追及したい。

　周知のように、著名な保守系コメンテーターの百田氏が６月２５日、改憲派で安倍晋三首相に近いとされる自民党若手議員の勉強会に講師として呼ばれ、沖縄メディアは「危険」で「潰さないといけない」と述べた。百田氏は後に、発言は質疑応答でふざけてしゃべったもので、議論は別のテーマに移ったと語ったが、沖縄メディア、国内メディア、そして、外国特派員までも一様に怒りを示した。結果的に、勉強会の主催者が党首脳から制裁を受けた。

　百田発言で筆者が驚いたのは、彼のコメントそのものではない。なぜなら、沖縄県内外や与党内外の多くの人々が沖縄のメディア・新聞は潰れた方がいいと考えているからだ。また、強く反発した２紙が紙面での抗議声明に終わらず、姉妹紙の朝日新聞に非難社説が掲載され、さらに東京の外国特派員協会で記者会見をしたことでもない。驚いたのは、何が起きなぜ怒ったかについてメディアの報道内容を一般国民がいとも簡単に受け入れたようだったからだ。

　メディアによる批判の要点は、百田氏らのコメントや所見が沖縄に対して挑発的であり、民主主義、報道及び言論の自由などを脅かしたということだ。メディアが百田発言を批判するにあたりコメントの背景には触れていない。即ち、実際に偏向があり、意図的にミスリードし、または、明らかな誤報がある。こうした報道こそがメディア自らが一般国民の不信を招く責任を負うだろう。

　残念なことだが、自己改革と社会的信頼を取り戻す代わりに、それ以来、沖縄メディアと同業者の同盟は、いわば“集団的自衛権”を行使して幌馬車隊の円陣を組み全方位射撃をしている。

　今日までの報道にある（犯罪〈commission〉と削除〈omission〉を通じた）メディアの反論できない無責任ぶり、染みついたイデオロギーの先入観ほか個人または集団の欠点、不透明な組織や仕事上の利害、ビジネスほか外部からの影響、外圧によって引き起こされる報道部分というものは、沖縄では極めつけの反基地・反政府政策、及び前回指摘した閉鎖的ともいえる県内市場などのため一層耐え難いものであり、著名なコメンテーターに沖縄メディアを批判させる状況をもたらしている。

　私は個人的にメディアの知人友人は他のどの業種よりも多くいる（学術分野は例外かもしれないが）。ジャーナリズムは多くの知人にとって天職だろう。メディアとは従来、美しく、思慮深く、思いやりのある人々で成り立っているものだ。こうした属性が今後も続いて、正しいこと―内省、批判の受容―をすることを望む。批判は時には建設的だが、必要に迫られ、歓迎されない時もある。報道はオープンで正直であるべきだ。

　メディアは事実を包み隠してはならないし、ワンサイドの記事のみを伝えてはいけない。政府寄りの立場のみならず、特に反政府であるかどうかにかかわらず、特定の集団の考えに屈してはならない（批判するのは簡単だが、最終的に政府のチェックに関与するのはメディア自身の役割）。

　同時に、メディアは自分自身を社会の誰よりも上にあり、批判を免れることができると思い込まないでいただきたい。これは百田発言に対するメディアの反応からも分かるように、沖縄にも本土にも言えることだ。社会におけるどの当事者や組織と同じように、否、むしろもっと批判にオープンであるべきだ。

　メディアの一部は百田氏及び自民党若手勉強会メンバーのコメントに「戦慄（せんりつ）を覚えた」と批判している。しかしながら私は、その発言後すぐにメディアが示威したパワーに恐れを感じた。

　一個人が激しい報復を受けることなくメディア批判することができないのであれば、私たちにはどのような権利があるというのだろうか。メディアはこうした発言を「民主主義に対する挑戦」と暴力的に批判を展開した。私からすれば、現在の癒着した有害なメディアこそがより大きな、否、最大の挑戦である。私たちはメディアから何を信じるべきかを指示されなければならないのだろうか。メディアが私たちの指標を設定するとでもいうのだろうか。

　数カ月前、私は真実を明らかにしたことにより、沖縄の地元メディアが結託して個人攻撃をしてきた。その経験から、物事はどのように展開するかよく分かるようになり、何が起こるか予見できるようになったのだが、その私でさえも百田氏と自民党若手勉強会メンバーの発言、ひいては安倍政権に対するメディアの激昂（げきこう）にはショックを受けた。結果として、私は以前より増してメディアの自己改革能力を懸念している。次回でその理由やどのように改革すべきか紹介したい。

What the Hyakuta Incident Taught Us

Robert D. Eldridge, Ph.D.

　In the previous essay, “The Media Situation in Okinawa,” published on July 21, I discussed the background to the “Hyakuta Incident” in regards to the structural and ideological problems of the Okinawan media and why they continue to exist in the way they do, which was the likely reason behind the comments by the novelist Hyakuta Naoki that the local media should be destroyed.
　I ended the essay with by pointing out that the Okinawa media is out of control and failing to serve as a healthy four estate in society, and is thus endangering democracy, which can only exist with the freedom of expression and an informed public.
　In this essay, I explore the failure of the media in Japan and in Okinawa in particular to seize the chance that the criticism by Hyakuta and others to reflect on its current and past mistakes and try to improve for the future.
　As many readers know, Hyakuta, a well-known conservative commentator, speaking on June 25 at a study group of younger members of the Liberal Democratic Party seen to be in favor of constitutional revision and close to Prime Minister Abe Shinzō, opined that the Okinawan media was “indeed dangerous,” adding “the two newspapers there should be destroyed.” He later stated his remarks, which were made during a question and answer session, were in jest, and that was the discussion moved on to other topics, the media—Okinawan, mainland Japanese, and foreign correspondents alike—expressed outrage. Even the hosts of the study group were sanctioned by the party leadership.
　What this writer found most surprising about the “Hyakuta Incident,” however, was not his comments—for there are many people, both in and outside of Okinawa and in and outside the ruling party who feel as he does that the media/newspapers in Okinawa should be destroyed—nor was the strongly negative reaction of the two newspapers—issuing a protest statement, partnering with their business allies such as the Asahi Shimbun to see condemnations made in their editorials, and speaking before gatherings of their allies in the Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan—but how easily general public seemed to accept the media narrative as to what took place and why they were outraged.
　The gist of the criticisms is that the above comments and other remarks made during the talk were offensive to Okinawa, that they were a threat to democracy, a free press, and the freedom of speech, etc.
　In none of the criticisms did the media acknowledge the background to the comments—that there is in fact biased and intentionally misleading or outright wrong—and that they themselves might be responsible for the distrust that the public has toward the media.
　Sadly, rather than seizing upon this opportunity (and many other chances it has had before) to correct itself and regain public trust, the Okinawan media and their professional allies in general circled the wagons, so to speak, in a sort of “collective self-defense” and have been firing out in all directions ever since.
　The media’s irrefutable irresponsibility (through both commission as well as omission) in reporting to date, in part caused by ingrained ideological biases and other individual or group flaws, opaque organizational and professional interests, and business or other outside influences and pressures, which is made more severe in Okinawa due to the hyper anti-base and anti-government agenda and existence of a nearly closed market in Okinawa described in the previous essay, led to the situation where a leading commentator has had to criticize the Okinawan media (as has this writer, several times, for the sake of disclosure).
　I personally have more friends in the media than I do in any other sector of society, with perhaps the exception of academia where I spent many years. Journalism is (or seems to be) a calling for many of these acquaintances and their colleagues. The media is made up of beautiful, thoughtful, and caring people. I hope these attributes can be further brought out by doing the right thing—reflect, accept criticism—constructive or otherwise when it is due and especially when it is unwelcome, and be open and honest in one’s reporting.
　Don’t hide facts, don’t tell only one side of the story, don’t cave in to group-think whether it be pro- or especially anti-government (which is all too easy—that is your role, after all, to be in part a check on the government).
　At the same time, don’t place yourselves so high on the pedestal that you are above anyone else in society and think you are immune to criticism (as is the case with the Okinawan—and mainland—media’s reaction to Mr. Hyakuta’s comments). You should be as open as any other actor or organization in society, perhaps even more so, to criticism.
　Some in the media claimed they were “chilled” by the comments of Mr. Hyakuta and the members of the LDP study group. However, I was even more frightened by the power the media demonstrated immediately after the incident.
　When a private citizen is unable to criticize a media outlet without harsh retribution, what rights do any of us have? The media violently criticized his remarks as a “challenge to democracy” but to me, the current state of the collusive and hurtful media represents the bigger, and indeed, greatest challenge. Do we have to be told by the media what to believe? Should they set our parameters for us?
　Having experienced combined and coordinated media attacks myself by the local media here in Okinawa in recent months for speaking the truth, I had a good sense of how things would play out, predicting in my own mind what would happen, but even I was shocked at the media wrath that befell Mr. Hyakuta and the members of the LDP study group, and indeed, the Abe Administration itself. As a result, I am increasingly worried about the ability of the media to reform itself, and will discuss why and how in the next commentary.

Eldridge was born in New Jersey, U.S.A., in 1968, and graduated from the Department of International Relations, Lynchburg College, Virginia. He earned his doctorate from Kobe University Graduate School of Law in 1999. From 2001-2009, he was a tenured associate professor at Osaka University’s Graduate School of International Public Policy, and from 2009-2015, served as the deputy assistant chief of staff, G-7 (Government and External Relations), Marine Corps Installations Pacific in Okinawa. During this time, he was one of the proposers of Operation Tomodachi at the time of the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. He is the author of numerous works including The Origins of U.S. Policy in the East China Sea Islands Dispute (2014) and is working on several books about the current situation in Okinawa.