News Media and News Sources in Japan

Oi, Shinji（Nihon University）

１．Introduction

This article examines the relationships between journalists and their news sources（especially Kisha［reporters］ clubs） in Japan, the impact of the latter on journalists’ products and professional practices, and considers other problems affecting the Japanese news media. Most social scientists who study the news speak of how journalists“con - struct the news,”“make news” or“socially construct reality.” In a very basic sense, journalists write the words that turn up in the newspapers or on the screen as stories. The stories we call news are not created by government officials or cultural forces, and are not“reality” magically transforming itself into textual signs, but rather are literally composed by flesh-and-blood journalists （Schudson, 2005）. This view is not shared by professional journalists.

２．Review of Literature

Over the decades scholars have studied and analyzed the relationship between journalists and their sources to gauge the balance of power existing between them. The relationship between the media and the exercise of political and ideological power, specifically by governments who attempt to define and

75 manage the flow of information, are critically important to the study of news sources. By analyzing the relationship between journalists and sources, an understanding of how journalism relates to society at large can be gained （Berkowitz, 1997）. In addition, at the heart of journalism studies sits a study of the relationship between journalism and society（Franklin et al., 2010）. The making of news, unlike other forms of production, relies on input from individuals and organizations outside the formal news organizations in which journalists work. Such individuals and organizations are not paid in the usual sense of that word for their contributions and they are do not have managerial authority（Franklin et al., 2010）. In general, they are called“sources” or“news sources.” News stories are unimaginable without news sources in liberal capi- talistic democracies, and most of them arrive linked to the individuals and institutions that provided them. Unattributed news draws suspicion, making both journalists and readers uneasy （Carlson and Franklin, 2011）. News sources are the deep, dark secret of the power of the news media and much of this power is exercised not by news institutions themselves but by the sources that feed them information（Schudson, 2003）. While the sociology of news production has long focused on interactions between journalists and sources, the study of journalists and their news sources has drawn its roots from questions about bias, power, and influence（Berkowitz, 2009）. Early work dealt with routines in which journalists acted as gatekeepers controlling entry into news discourse（White, 1950） or the functional roles of sources and journalists（Gieber and Johnson, 1972）. To understand news, we have to understand who the“someones” are who act as sources, and how journalists deal with them. Ericson et al.（1989） notes,“News is a product of transactions between journalists and their sources…and News represents who are the authorized knowers and what are their authorized versions of reality.” Thus, a key question in the early literature concerned whether journalists or sources exert greater influence in shaping the news（Berkowitz, 2009）. When considering news and sources, two interrelated dimensions emerge around journalistic practices and products. Firstly, the study of sources focuses on the relationships between journalists and sources. A number of works have

76 マス・コミュニケーション研究 No.80 2012 employed a variety of sophisticated methods, including content analysis and ethnography, to explore the interactions of journalists and sources in the 1970s and early 1980s. Sigal（1973） finds that journalists rely on routine channels to gather the news efficiently, argues that“news is not what happens, but what someone says has happened or will happen…and news is, after all, not what journalists think, but〔what〕 their sources say, and is mediated by news organizations, journalistic routine and conventions, which screen out many of the personal predilections of individual journalists.”（1986, pp. 25-29）. Gans（1979） explores the relationships between journalists and sources and suggests“It takes two to tango” but“sources usually lead.” Journalists typically object to this characterization, arguing that it implies an overly dominant role for sources. Getting too close to sources offends a key professional principle, and risks blunt- ing journalists’ critical edge transforming the journalistic watchdog into a public-relations lapdog（Franklin et al., 2010）. Like Sigal, Gans explores the complexity of the relationship between journalists and sources, noting that:“sources, journalists, and audiences coexist in a system, although it is closer to a tug of war than a functionally interrelated or- ganism”（p. 81）. Still, both journalists and sources stand to gain from participation. Journalists seek out sources that are both available and suitable, which serves to reinforce patterned sourcing practices. As a result of repetition, the authority of certain sources is bolstered—making them likely to be called on as sources again—while other voices are continually excluded. This occurs even as journalists“harbor a pervasive distrust of their sources, since so many come to them with self-serving motives that they are not always inclined to be com- pletely honest”（p. 130）. On the other hand, Gandy（1982） provides an“information subsidy” concept understood as“efforts by policy actors to increase the consumption of per- suasive messages by reducing their costs.” He argues that information sources offer a form of subsidy to news organizations via press releases, press confer- ences, VNRs（Video News Releases）, press briefings, and lobbying. This enables them to reduce the costs of news-gathering and hence to maintain profitability in the context of declines in circulations and advertising revenues for newspa-

News Media and News Sources in Japan 77 pers. News subsidies offer the prospect of not merely“cheap news” but“free news”（Franklin et al., 2010）. Essentially, the relationship between journalists and their sources has long been described as a battle for power over public opinion and public consent （Anderson, Peterson and David, 2005）. To focus only on public opinion and public consent when considering the relationship between them is to neglect some of the more long-term, lasting impact on culture and the meanings it contains. The concept of framing is one way to consider the impact of journalists and their sources on meaning（Pan and Kosciki, 2001）. Thinking of news meanings like this suggests that issues can be discussed in specific ways, with specific boundaries applied which divide those which meanings are included in the discussion from those are beyond its scope（Berkowitz, 2009）. Another perspective on meanings connected to the relationship between journalists and their sources comes from sources’ responsiveness to their“in - terpretive communities”（Berkowitz and TerKeust, 1999; Zelizer, 1993）. An interpretive community represents a cultural location where meaning are construct- ed, shared, and reconstructed during the course of everyday life（Berkowitz, 2009）. In total, from a sociological perspective in the relationship between journalists and their sources, the interaction-centered journalist-source“tug of war” depicted by Gans（1979） has been supplanted by the text-centered perspective of elite sources as“primary definers”（Hall et al., 1978; Carlson and Franklin, 2011）. For example, Schlesinger（1990） criticizes studies of media that see the process of news production as beginning in the newsroom rather than in the halls of power as being“too media-centric.” Ericson et al.（1989） move away from a media-centered approach to studying journalist-source relations, and instead seek to understand the perspective of the sources（Carlson and Franklin, 2011）.

３．Previous studies in Japan

Most Japanese journalism research is difficult to compare cross-nationally because of the objectives and methods of the studies. Because most Japanese

78 マス・コミュニケーション研究 No.80 2012 media generally have national audiences, most research has focused on specific aspects of and practices within the country. Research that uses surveys similar to other countries, or work that places Japanese news media in an international context, is less common. The first study on Japanese journalists was conducted in the early 1980s by Kim（1981） . In The Japanese Journalist, Kim studied a limited number of reporters and government officials, largely through interviews and field research. Kim made it clear how reporters depend on official news sources in news production. He discussed not only the highly competitive entrance examination and the on-the-job training but also role conceptions and other orientations of Japa- nese reporters. Feldman（1993） used surveys and interviews to analyze interrelationships between members of the Diet and political journalists. He found that the nature of political reporting was affected by these interrelationships, and concluded that Kisha clubs were the ultimate factor to be considered in any attempt to understand how Japanese journalists covered political events. Cooper-Chen（1997） explored various characteristics of Japanese mass media, with particular importance placed on the insularity, homogeneity, and har- mony that characterize Japanese media. She also found that homogeneous journalism as an institution in Japan exerted a great influence on journalistic practices and pointed out how the Kisha club system limited independent activities. While many scholars abroad have studied and analyzed the role of news media in Japanese politics since the 1980s, Freeman（2000） , above all, focuses on important institutions called the“three K’s”: Kisha clubs, the Nihon Shim- bun Kyokai（NSK, or the Japan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association） and the media Keiretsu（media grouping）. He argues that these“three K’s” form an information cartel that excludes those such as journalists from foreign news media and non-mainstream media in Japan. Freeman seems to be critical of all aspects of Japanese news media. Yada（2007） analyzed Japanese media between the mid-1980s and 2005, and found that the most conspicuous change was the simplification and trivialization of hard news. He concluded that journalists did not sufficiently provide people

News Media and News Sources in Japan 79 with a range of news that enabled them to effectively think about and understand their society and history. More recently, Takeshita and Ida（2009） researched the Japanese system of political communication. They pointed out that understanding the relationship between politics and the media hinges on three unique characteristics: the Kisha clubs, the editorial policy of neutrality, and differences between public and commercial news broadcasts. While these studies have contributed greatly to a better understanding of Japanese news media, none of them were based on representative survey data. However, two large surveys of newspaper and broadcasting journalists were conducted in the mid-1990s. The first true survey of Japanese journalists was carried out in 1994 by NSK and was based on a national sample of 1,735 newspaper journalists. The second was conducted in 1996 by Nihon Minkan Hoso Remmei（NAB, or National Association of Commercial Broadcasters in Japan）, and focused on a national sample of 865 commercial broadcast journalists. Both surveys were based in part on the research carried out by Weaver and Wilhoit （1986） with regard to American journalists. The most recent survey by the In- stitute of Journalism & Media Studies（IJMS） at Nihon University in 2007（１） not only shares a number of interests and topics with the NSK and NAB surveys, but also with the recent survey of U.S. journalists by Weaver and colleagues（2007） . This article is largely based upon the findings of the IJMS survey.

４．Journalistic ideas and practices in Japan

Roles of Journalism The goals and responsibilities of Japanese journalists have been affected by dramatic changes in the media environment. This includes technological, political, economic, and cultural forces, as well as the cultural and historical context of the profession itself. In the IJMS survey, to analyze perceptions of journalistic roles, respondents were asked which three roles Japanese journalists should adopt. As Table 1 indicates, two roles were considered most important:“pro -

80 マス・コミュニケーション研究 No.80 2012 TABLE 1 Role Perceptions of Japanese Journalists（ in %, N = 1,011）* What are the three most important roles of journalism? First Second Third Provision of accurate information 42.0 18.5 18.6 Watchdog on government 40.3 26.5 15.6 Quest for social justice 11.7 21.7 17.0 Arousing public opinion 1.5 11.3 9.4 Agenda setting for social issues 1.4 7.5 8.7 Speaking for and relieving the distressed 0.6 6.6 13.8 Proposal of policy 0.5 1.8 1.8 Education and enlightenment 0.3 1.9 4.3 Creation of social consensus 0.3 0.7 2.2 Providing entertainment 0.2 0.5 2.0 Providing forum for discussion 0.2 2.3 5.5 Other 0.7 0.3 0.4 N/A 0.4 0.5 0.7 Total 100 100 100 * IJMS Survey（2007）

viding accurate information”（42.0%） and“serving as a watchdog on the government”（40.3%）. The role of“seeking social justice”（11.7%） was a distant third. However, such findings suggest that the journalistic practices and duties considered important by most journalists are not necessarily being put into practice（see Table 2）. Responses indicate, for example, that while most journalists believe that“getting information to the public quickly” is something Japa- nese media is good at（90.8% strongly or somewhat agree）, they also believe they are not very successful at“investigating the activities of the government” （29.8% strongly or somewhat agree）. Although the watchdog role is considered an important media function, only about one-third of Japanese journalists believe they actually fulfill this role.

News Media and News Sources in Japan 81 TABLE 2 Perceived Actual Role Performance of Japanese Journalists（ in %, N = 1,011）* Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don’t agree agree disagree disagree know Concentration on 33.8 57.0 8.2 0.3 0.7 interesting news Getting information to 33.5 57.3 7.7 1.0 0.5 the public quickly Avoiding unconfirmed 31.9 45.0 17.2 4.5 1.4 information Advocacy on social 13.9 51.5 30.8 3.0 0.8 issues Proposal of national 13.6 59.6 23.1 3.3 0.4 policy Provision of stories 12.3 56.9 26.7 3.1 1.1 arousing intellectual and cultural interest Watchdog on public 8.4 69.0 19.5 2.9 0.2 officials & business entrepreneurs Provision of entertain- 9.6 58.7 27.8 3.5 0.5 ment and relaxation Analysis of complicated 6.2 52.2 36.3 4.6 0.6 issues Relief for the socially 2.9 41.4 46.2 9.1 0.4 distressed Investigation of govern- 2.5 27.3 54.9 14.7 0.6 ment claims and an- nouncements * IJMS Survey（2007）

The Changing Media Environment Japanese journalism has been affected strongly by recent economic and technological changes. So how do Japanese journalists feel about them? Table 3 provides an overview of the factors Japanese journalists consider to be most important in influencing their profession. Laws about protecting personal information（66.2% considered this item extremely influential）; the internet’s impact（56.4%）; and decreasing readership and audiences（43.2%） were cited as the three most influential factors. While the internet’s impact on traditional journalism and declining media audiences have been observed in other in-

82 マス・コミュニケーション研究 No.80 2012 dustrialized nations, nearly half the respondents（48%） think the Internet and news media in Japan coexist and fulfill separate functions. About one in five （18.8%） perceive that the Internet has a complementary role. Above all, the focus on privacy laws is uniquely Japanese because few other countries have laws with similar provisions. For example, the Act on Protection of Personal In- formation of 2003 originally stipulated media organizations as private businesses that must protect private information. This aspect of the law met with strong opposition from the press until finally the law was approved with some excep- tions added. Because this law could violate the freedom of the press and expression

TABLE 3 Perceived Factors Affecting Journalism（ in %, N = 1,011）* Extremely Somewhat Not very Not Don’t Influential influential influential influential know at all Protection of personal 66.2 28.2 4.2 0.4 1.1 information law Penetration of the 56.4 32.0 9.2 0.9 1.5 internet into daily life Falling readership and 43.2 36.8 16.5 1.9 1.6 audiences News production using 35.3 38.1 21.1 4.3 1.3 digital technologies Increasing damage due 35.0 55.4 7.9 0.3 1.4 to media coverage Development of Web 33.6 39.3 23.4 2.4 1.3 journalism Other industries’ entry 22.8 40.1 30.9 4.8 1.4 into media Conservative swing of 22.7 44.7 26.9 4.1 1.7 media Move towards entertain- 18.2 41.1 34.8 4.2 1.7 ment in media Self-regulation of media 15.8 48.7 32.4 1.6 1.5 Tighter controls of jobs 13.9 44.7 35.5 4.2 1.7 and costs Societal pressure against 4.8 36.4 49.6 7.2 2.0 Kisha clubs * IJMS Survey（2007）

News Media and News Sources in Japan 83 guaranteed under Japan’s constitution, the NSK continues to seek to revise it. As might be expected, the revised law—once in effect—not only has been stretched, but has been applied more arbitrarily and excessively than in West- ern nations. As a result, various journalistic practices, such as of the identifica- tion of victims, have been impeded. Interestingly, Japanese journalists seemed less concerned about more entertainment in the media（18.2%）, the growing trend toward self-regulation（15.8%） and tighter cost controls（13.9%）—all of which were considered to be the least important factors.

５．News and News Sources

Kisha Club In some countries, relations between reporters and officials are even more routinized. The most famous case is that of the Japanese Kisha clubs. These reporters’ clubs, which date from the early twentieth century, are maintained by the news organizations that provide their membership. They are formal associ- ations of reporters from different media outlets assigned to a particular ministry and are granted privileged, yet highly controlled access to the minister, and other high-level officials. Since most clubs are connected to government agen- cies, news takes on an official cast. The daily association of reporters at the clubs contributes to uniformity in the news pages; reporters are driven by what is described as a“phobia” about not writing what all the other reporters are writing（Feldman, 1993; Freeman, 2000）. In the United States, conditions that tend toward Kisha-like group journalism are derisively labeled“pack journalism,” where reporters covering the same beat or same story tend to emphasize the same angle and adopt the same viewpoint. Pack journalism happens most when journalists literally travel in packs, as they do when covering the White House or a presidential campaign. In these cases, a single significant source brings the press together and com- mands their constant attention. This very fact creates a new relationship not of journalist to source, but of journalist to the rest of the corps of reporters

84 マス・コミュニケーション研究 No.80 2012 （Schudson, 2003）. With regard to sources, one of the essential attributes for doing their kind of work effectively is a good understanding of how journalists do their job and the pressure or constraints associated with making news. In order to place a story in the news media, or influence an emerging news agenda, sources need an understanding of the news values which guide journalists in their selection of a particular news items and an awareness of the rhythm or routines that characterize the workings of news media（Manning, 2001）. Thus, Ericson and his colleagues（1989） even argue that sources function as journalists, doing all the work necessary within their organizations to provide a news account that the media organization will accept. Sources work to make what they reveal to journalists as news-like as they can. Indeed, sources have to think like journalists, and therefore they are parajournalists（Schudson, 2003）. Although the Kisha club system has a significant and controversial influence on news-gathering in Japan, the 2007 IMJS survey did not include questions about it. Instead, the survey focused on the broader context of journalists’ relationships with government news sources. Those findings show that about six out of ten Japanese news professionals believe that the relationship between journalists and government sources is“very” （7%） or at least“somewhat” co- operative（58.4%）. Only a small minority rates this relationship as“very” （1%） or“somewhat” hostile（13.5%）. This suggests that most Japanese journalists believe their relationship with government sources is symbiotic rather than an- tagonistic. Japanese journalists tend to move in step with their colleagues and, as a result, rarely achieve distinction by breaking news. A trend toward overly conformist and uniform reporting is a major concern. This may be due to an over- reliance on government and organizational press releases, but it also could be a symptom of the Kisha club system of reporting. Most Japanese journalists spend the entire day with fellow Kisha members, and generally have little con- tact outside this environment. Their club makes collective decisions on what members may or may not report, and occasionally determine even the tone of their report（van Wolferen 1989）. The Kisha club system makes for cozy rela-

News Media and News Sources in Japan 85 tionships between journalists and their sources, whose activities and aims they are expected to investigate and report. There is little incentive for journalists to investigate anything independently, and there is no reward for presenting a case in a manner that offends their colleagues.

Bland, Homogeneous Journalism One of the IJMS survey’s goals was to compare the attitudes of Japanese and American journalists regarding ethical dilemmas. Based on questions devel- oped for U.S. studies conducted by Weaver and his colleagues（2007） , the survey asked journalists to indicate whether they believed certain reporting methods might be justified under special circumstances. As Table 4 shows, the only reporting method accepted by most Japanese journalists was“using documents without permission”—55.8% said it might be justified. Badgering unwilling informants to get a news story was justified by 14.6%, and using hidden cameras by only 7.1%. Paying for information was considered justifiable under special circumstances by only 6%, with other question- able methods receiving even less support. Such findings exemplify the bland,

TABLE 4 Journalists’ Willingness to Use Reporting Methods（ in %, N = 1,011）* May be Not sure Cannot be Don’t justified justified know Using documents without permission 55.8 34.3 9.1 0.8 of government, business or organizations Badgering unwilling informants to 14.6 55.7 28.8 0.9 get stories Using hidden cameras and micro- 7.1 40.6 51.7 0.6 phones Paying for information 6.0 29.4 64.0 0.6 Using personal documents such as 2.2 21.8 75.3 0.8 letters and photographs without permission Claiming to be somebody else 1.7 12.1 85.7 0.6 Agreeing to protect confidential 1.5 16.3 81.5 0.7 sources but not doing so * IJMS Survey（2007）

86 マス・コミュニケーション研究 No.80 2012 uncontroversial journalism in Japan that offends neither readers nor advertis- ers. Moreover, because Japanese journalists believe it is their task to help de- fuse conflict rather than reflect it, much remains unreported（van Wolferen 1993: 439）.

Problems in Japanese Journalism Problems cited by Japanese journalists as urgent matters of concern are listed in Table 5. The biggest concern was the growing conformity and uniformity in news reporting（75.4%）, which references a common criticism that Jap- anese journalists work in step with their colleagues and decline distinction by not trying to break news first. The next biggest concern was an over-reliance on government and organizational press releases（64%）, followed by a prefer- ence for“temporary” news reporting（63.9%）. The fourth-most-selected problem was a lack of in-depth reporting and superficial event coverage（53.5%）. Respondents also were asked how to improve Japanese journalism, and what was necessary to enrich and refine journalistic practice. Most journalists （82.9%） noted that there is a clear need to improve journalism education and training in Japan. A majority（52.2%） also thought journalism could be im-

Table 5 Perceptions of Main Problems in Japanese Journalism（ % citing each problem, multiple answers permitted, N = 1,011）* Too much uniform, conformist news reporting 75.4 Too many press releases 64.0 Tendency to make ephemeral news reporting 63.9 Less in-depth, superficial media coverage 53.5 Sensationalism 44.7 Lack of critical spirit 38.2 Important facts may not be covered 32.3 Pandering to popular demand 30.5 Mixture of fact and opinion 27.6 There is no constructive proposal 20.6 Collusive relationship with news sources 14.8 Too much news that disregards human rights 9.2 Too many anonymous sources 9.0 Other 1.5 * IJMS Survey（2007）

News Media and News Sources in Japan 87 proved by encouraging free expression without organizational restraints （52.2%） and giving broader power to editors and sub-editors（50.5%）. Journal- ism training in Japan remains unstructured, largely based upon on-the-job training or apprenticeships （Gaunt 1992）. Accordingly, almost all of journalists re- ceive on-the-job training in the organizations that employ them. The virtual ab- sence of schools of journalism in Japan might be recognized as a serious problem（Oi 2009a; Oi 2009b）. Although web-related media have shaken up the existing order of traditional mass media in other industrialized countries, they are considered less of a menace in Japan. This is largely because an established and concentrated commercial media industry controls the country’s five largest newspapers（Yo - miuri, Asahi, Mainichi, Sankei and Nihon Keizai） and TV networks（Nippon, TBS, Fuji, TV Asahi, and TV Tokyo）. Yet according to the Nippon Hoso Kyo- kai（NHK, or Japan Broadcasting Corporation） data from 2005, as well as NSK data from 2010, TV viewing time has leveled off since 2000. Audience ratings are gradually declining and total newspaper circulation has decreased after peaking in 2001.

６．Conclusion

Many commentators on the nature and state of journalism have claimed that it is undergoing a fundamental transformation. One of the key reasons for this transformation is the changing nature of technology that is claimed to impact directly on the practice of journalism and access to the profession. The particular characteristics of the Internet marked out as creating the most impact can be summarized as speed and space; multiplicity and polycentrality; and interaction and participation（Fenton 2010）. The impact of the Internet on journalism is certainly more mixed, in ways that are not only negative but also posi- tive. When once publication or broadcast deadlines set the rhythm of the day, new distribution opportunities encourage the constant drive to publish early and often（Carlson and Franklin 2011）. Without an infusion of concomitant re- sources, journalists must make do, which often requires falling back on regular,

88 マス・コミュニケーション研究 No.80 2012 common news sources（Phillips 2010）. Thus, while new technologies allow non-journalists greater ability to circu- late messages, journalists find themselves even more entrenched in tried-and- true sourcing practices in order to meet the unceasing demand for content（Ko - vach & Rosenstiel 1999）. However, the growth in digital news is in some respects deceptive because websites that obtain their content from their own news organizations are still rare. Most digital news is still supplied by the journalists who also gather and report news for the print and electronic news media, although the websites now usually are the ones to report it first（Gans 2010）. New technologies give rise to altered working conditions while not erasing old patterns. Media consolidation remains as strong as ever and most major news outlets remain under the auspices of for-profit companies. Thus, there seems to be great need for scholars to continue rethinking how news sourcing and access functions going forward（Carlson & Franklin 2010）. Convergence is not only another buzzword, but it is a key identifier of many different trends in today’s digital culture（Dueze 2010）.“Convergence,” Jenkins（2004） argues,“is both a top-down corporate-driven process and bottom-up consumer-driven process.” From the bottom-up, we see convergence culture occurring due to editors of news publications actively considering add- ing so-called“citizen journalism” to their websites; in other words, allowing members of audience to respond, comment, and submit their own news in text, audio and video（Deuze 2010）. In total, the on-going merger of media organizations as well as between media production and consumption, signals the emer- gence of a global convergence culture, based on an increasingly participatory and interactive engagement between people and their media, within media as business, as well as between professional and amateur media makers（Jenkins 2006）. The ideal goal of traditional journalism has been to make power account- able: to keep ordinary citizens appraised of what government is doing, and of how it affects them both individually and with respect to the groups and values that they care about. Journalism thereby fosters in the public informed rational opinions about politics and candidates（Entman 2005）. However, there seems to

News Media and News Sources in Japan 89 be dilemmas of power and accountability that results from press dependence on official sources that offer spin instead of transparent information about their activities and motives（Bennett 2010）. According to Josephi（2005） , the basic relationship between journalists and their source can be seen as“portable,” that is, the relationship exists in all press systems, from the most authoritarian to the most libertarian, if in different forms. For example, the relationship between them is highly controlled at Kisha clubs in Japan, while foreign affairs journalists in the Netherlands enjoy a high degree of freedom from official sources because they face little imperative to produce news（Schudson 2003; Zelizer 2004）. In other systems, sources pay journalists for coverage, considered to be part of the“envelope journalism system” by Mexican journalists（and those in several other countries）, allowing them to subsidize their low wages（Schudson 2003; Zelizer 2004）. Although other comparisons highlight differences that emerge from a com- bination of professional and societal cultures, these examples suggest some commonalities for the journalists-source relationship across countries, with both subtle and significant variations（Berkowitz 2009）. In the United States, conditions that tend toward Kisha club-like group journalism are derisively labeled “pack journalism,” where journalists covering the same beat or same story tend to emphasize the same angle and adopt the same viewpoint. Much of the research about journalists and their sources has been based on Western press systems and even more specifically, on how the relationship surfaces in the United States（Josephi 2005）. A question needs to be addressed, however: how far can we take this knowledge in order to understand other press systems? Two extensions of the basic question go to opposite poles（Reese 2001）. One ex- tended question asks how differences between press systems should be weighed into our understandings; a second question asks how much attention should be paid to differences within a single press system（Hanitzsch 2006）.

Note （１） The IJMS survey was conducted by mail from February 13 to March 9, 2007. A total of 1,011 valid questionnaires were returned, for an overall response rate of 18.4%. Respondents were asked questions that focused on:（1） the demographic

90 マス・コミュニケーション研究 No.80 2012 backgrounds of journalists;（2） the perceived roles of journalists;（3） journalistic practice;（4） the perceived self-image of journalists;（5） the perception of journalistic professionalism;（6） the recognition of environmental changes in journalism;（7） the perceived impact of online journalism;（8） problems in journalistic practice;（9） objectivity;（10） journalists’ opinions of their audiences;（11） journalists’ political inclinations; and（12） journalists’ relationships with news sources.

References Akao, M.（1994） Gendai Shimbun Kishazo（The Profile of the Newspaper Journalists in Japan）. Nihon Shimbun Kyokai Kenkyujo Nempo（Annals of Institute of the Ja- pan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association） 12: 1-91. Anderson, A., Peterson, A. & M. David（2005） Communication or Spin? Source-Me- dia Relations in Science Journalism. In S. Allan（ed.）, Journalism: Critical Issues （pp. 188-198）. Berkshire & New York: Open University. Bagdikian, B.（2002） The Media Monopoly. Beacon Press. Bennett, L.（2010） The Press, Power and Public Accountability. In S. Allan（ed.）, News and Journalism. New York: Routledge. Berkowitz, D.（ed.）（1997） Social Meanings of News: A Text-Reader. Sage Publica- tions. Berkowitz, D. & J. TerKeurst（1999） Community as Interpretive Community: Re- thinking the Journalist-Source Relationship. Journal of Communication, 49（3）, 125-136. Berkowitz, D.（2009） Reporters and Their Sources. in K. Wahl-Jorgensen and T. Ha- nitzsch（eds.）, The Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 102-115. Berkowitz, D.（ed.）. （2011） Cultural Meanings of News: A Text-Reader. Sage Publica- tions. Breed, W.（1955） Social Control in the Newsroom: A Functional Analysis. Social Forces, 33, pp.326-335. Carlson, M. & B. Franklin（2011） Introduction. In B. Franklin and M. Carlson（eds.）, Journalists, Sources, and Credibility. New York: Routlege. Cooper-Chen, Ann with M. Kodama.（1997） Mass Communication in Japan. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Cottle, S.（2000） Rethinking News Access. Journalism Studies 1: pp. 427-448. Deuze, M.（2010） Journalism and Convergence Culture. In S. Allan（ed.）, News and Journalism. New York: Routledge. Entman, R. M.（2005） The Nature and Sources of News. In G. Overholser and K. H. Jamieson（eds.）, The Press. Oxford University Press. Ericson, R., Baranek, P. & J. Chan（1989） Negotiating Control: A Study of News Sources, Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

News Media and News Sources in Japan 91 Feldman, O.（1993） Politics and the News Media in Japan. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Fenton, N.（2010） News in the Digital Age. In S. Allan（ed.）, News and Journalism. New York: Routledge. Fishman, M.（1980） Manufacturing News. University of Texas Press. Franklin, B., Lewis, J. & A. Williams（2010）. Journalism, News Sources and Public Relations. In S. Allan（ed.） News and Journalism. New York: Routledge. Freeman, L. A.（2000） Closing the Shop: Information Cartels and Japan’s Mass Media. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gamble, A. & T. Watanabe（2004） A Public Betrayed. Washington D.C.: Regnery. Gaunt, P.（1992） Making the Newsmakers: International Handbook on Journalism Training. Greenwood Press. Gandy, O.（1982） Beyond Agenda Setting, Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Gans, H.（1979） Deciding What’s News, New York: Pantheon Books. Gans. H.（2010） News and Democracy in the United States: Current Problems, Fu- ture Possibilities. In S. Allan（ed.）, News and Journalism. New York: Routledge. Gieber, W. & W. Johnson（1961）. “The City Hall‘beat’: A study of reporter and source roles,” Journalism Quarterly 38（3）: pp. 289-297. Gudykunst, W. B.（ed.）（1993） Communication in Japan and the United States. Alba- ny, NY: State University of New York Press. Hall, I. P.（1998） Cartels of the Mind: Japan’s Intellectual Closed Shop. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. & B. Roberts（1978）. Policing the Crisis. London: Macmillan. Hanitzsch, T.（2006） Mapping Journalism Culture: A Theoretical Taxonomy and Case Studies from Indonesia. Asian Journal of Communication, 16（2）, 169-186. Institute of Journalism & Media Studies（IJMS）（2008） Nippon no Journalist 1000 Nin Chousa（A Survey of Japanese Journalism: the Profile of 1000 Journalists）. Journal of Journalism & Media Studies 1: 85-122. Jenkins, H.（2004） The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7（1）: 33-43. Jenkins, H.（2006） Convergence Culture, New York: New York University Press. Josephi, B.（2005） Journalism in the Global Age: Between Normative and Empirical. Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies, 67（6）, 575-590. Kasza, G. J.（1988） The State and the Mass Media in Japan, 1918-1945. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kim, C. Y.（1981） The Japanese Journalists and Their World. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia. Kovach, B. & T. Rosenstiel（2001） The Elements of Journalism: What News Should Know and the Public Should Expect. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

92 マス・コミュニケーション研究 No.80 2012 Manning, P.（2001） News and News Sources: A Critical Introduction. Sage Publica- tions. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication of Japan.（2010）. http://www.soumu. go.jp/johotsusintokei/whitepaper/eng/WP2010/201-index.html Nihon Minkan Hoso Renmei Kenkyujo（1996） Minpo Terebi Hodo Tanto-Sha Chousa （Survey on News People of the Commercial TV Broadcasting Companies）. In Shu- zai no Jiyu to Kouteki Kisei wo Kangaeru,（Considering Freedom of News-Gather- ing and Regulation）, edited by Nihon Minkan Hoso Renmei Kenkyujo, Tokyo: Ni- hon Minkan Hoso Renmei Kenkyujo. pp.101-170. Oi, S.（2008） Nippon no Journalist Zo（The Profile of the Japanese Journalist）. Asahi Soken Report. 212: 27-58. Oi, S.（2009a） Journalism Kyoiku（Journalism Education）. In Shintei Shimbun-Gaku ［Journalism Studies: A New Edition］, edited by J. Hamada, Y. Tajima, & K. Katsu- ra, Tokyo: Nippon Hyoron-Sha, pp. 162-172. Oi, S.（2009b） Media, Journalism Kyoiku（Media and Journalism Education）. In Me- dia Kenkyu to Journalism 21 Seiki no Kadai（Media Studies and Journalism: Chal-

lenges in the 21st Century）, edited by T. Tsuganezawa, T. Watanabe, and H. Takeichi, pp. 300-323. Kyoto: Minerva Shobo. Oi, S., Fukuda, M. & S. Sako（forthcoming）. The Japanese Journalist: Continuity and Change. In D. Weaver and L. Willnat（eds.）, Global Journalist in the 21st Century. Routlege. Pan. Z. & G. Kosicki（2001）. Framing as a Strategic Action in Public Deliberation. In S. Reese, S. J., Pharr, & E. S. Krauss（eds.）, （1996） Media and Politics in Japan. University of Hawaii Press. Phillips, A.（2010） Old Sources: New Bottles. In N. Fenton（ed.）, New Media, Old News. Sage Publications. Reese, S.（2001） Understanding the Global Journalist: A Hierarchy-of-Influences approach. Journalism Studies, 2（2）, 173-187. Schlesinger, P.（1990） Rethinking the Sociology of Journalism: Source Strategies and the Limits of Media Centrism, in M. Ferguson（ed.）, Public Communication: The New Imperatives, London: Sage, pp. 61-83. Schudson, M.（2003） The Sociology of News. New York: W. W. Norton. Schudson, M.（2005） Four Approaches to the Sociology of News. In J. Curran and M. Gurevitch（eds.）, Mass Media and Society（4th ed.）. London: Hodder Arnold. Shoemaker, P. J.（1991） Gatekeeping. Sage Publications. Sigal, L.（1973） Reporters and Officials, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Sigal, L.（1986） Sources make the News. In R. Manoff ans M. Shudson（eds.） Read- ing the News. New York: Pantheon, pp.9-37. Takeshita, T. & M. Ida.（2009） Political Communication in Japan. In L. Willnat & A. Aw（eds.） Political Communication in Asia, Routledge, pp. 154-175.

News Media and News Sources in Japan 93 Tuchman, G.（1978） Making News. New York: Free Press. Van Wolferen, K.（1989） The Enigma of Japanese Power: People and Politics in a Stateless Nation. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Weaver, D. H. & G. C. Wilhoit（1986） The American Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. News People and Their Work. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Weaver, D. H.（1998） The Global Journalist: News People around the World. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Weaver, D. H., Beam, R. A., Brownlee, B. J., Voakes, P. S. & G. C. Wilhoit（2007） The American Journalist in the 21st Century: U.S. News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. White, D. M.（1950） “The ‘gatekeeper’: A case study in the selection of news,” Journalism Quarterly 27（3）: pp. 383-390. Yada, Y.（2007） Journalism in Japan. In P. J. Anderson & G. Ward（eds.） The Future of Journalism in the Advanced Democracies, Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 175-189. Zelizer, B.（1993） Journalists as Interpretive Communities. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10, 219-237.

94 マス・コミュニケーション研究 No.80 2012