Keio Communication Review No. 28, 2006 Journalism in Power Relations and Pierre Bourdieu’s Concept of “Field”: A Case Study of the Coverage of the 1999 Group Bullying Murder Case in Tochigi Prefecture By Takashi ITO* Introdouction Japan’s media are under severe attack from the authorities and the public. Journalists in Japan say that such trends are symbolized by bills containing the potential to regulate journalistic activities under the guise of protecting human rights. Courts are adapting tougher attitudes toward media coverage when they judge that such coverage impugns people’s reputations and infringes on their privacy. Such trends have come to the fore with the upsurge of the public’s distrust of the media. I suggested earlier that theorizing about journalistic activities is needed, because the fact that the public is losing sight of the raison d’être for journalism will seriously damage freedom of expression, which I believe to be the base of democracy and freedom (Ito 2005:56-58). One of the most well-known criticisms of Japanese journalism is that of Karel van Wolferen in The Enigma of Japanese Power. He severely criticized Japanese newspapers for contributing to the “system” of maintaining the existing power structure (van Wolferen 1989:93-100). Criticism comes from journalists working in the Japanese media, too. One major criticism is against the Kisha club (press club) system, which is said to be unique to Japan. As the club membership of some authorities including police agencies is still limited, for all practical purposes, to journalists of major newspapers and TV stations, the club functions as a barrier preventing the dissemination of information to journalists working for magazines and foreign presses. Those criticisms are worth listening to. It seems, however, that such criticism sometimes does not go far beyond criticism for the sake of criticism. Van Wolferen’s remarks are relevant in many ways, but the presses still have a history of uncovering things the authorities want to hide and pushing the powers that be to work for the good of the public or individuals in need of help. Van Wolferen’s analysis does not explain why such cases happen from time to time. * Takashi ITO is Associate Professor of the Institute For Media & Communications Research, Keio University, and will serve as Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology, Soka University, from April 2006. 71 It seems that the criticism of Japanese journalism that we often hear today starts with an idealistic image of journalism and then criticizes actual practices for failing to meet that ideal. However, except for rare cases, the press organizations are basically business corporations working for profits. Journalists working for the major media are normally hired as employees with stable positions in the life-time employment system. With these assumptions, it goes without saying that we are always discouraged by the actual activities of journalists, viewing them as being insufficient at doing their jobs in a way to match their public mission. What should not be overlooked, however, is that society is still moved by journalistic activities that uncover hidden scandals of persons in power. I do not argue that Japanese journalism is better or worse than that of other developed nations. Journalists are always targets of criticism, even in foreign countries. The positive research of social science normally starts with the realistic observation that people are not always rational, but when it comes to journalism, we tend to start with the ideal, resulting in our being discouraged with the reality. Therefore, I would like to suggest the need to change that point of view. We should first discern the conditions restraining journalists and the media, and then focus more on exceptional cases, that is, cases of journalists and journalistic organi- zations (media) to be praised, or cases where journalistic activities had significant impact on the authorities and the public, to explore how those cases are possible under actual conditions. We should not, however, be satisfied with addressing case studies only. We must address challenges to theorizing about journalistic activities to understand how such exceptional journalistic activities are possible. A back-and-forth movement between theories and case studies is indispensable. To consider conditions restraining journalists and the media, we need to look at the role of journalists and the media in relation to the state and society, as journalists and the media are destined to work within the state and society. Susan J. Pharr once pointed out that the literature of political science and media studies suggested how extraordinarily complex and varied media roles are, and that the contradictory nature of their interpretations poses a formidable problem in attempting to ask and answer questions about the relationship of the media to society and the state. (Pharr 1996: 23-24) Then she continued as follows: The media, after all, include a wide range of actors in a variety of relationships to institutions, so it is not surprising that collectively they adopt no single consistent stance in relation to state and society. (Pharr 1996: 24) I completely agree with Pharr’s remark. Although she used the image of the “trickster” to explain the contradictory nature of media, I would say that what is more relevant in the situation where the public tends to lose sight of the raison d’être 72 Keio Communication Review No. 28, 2006 for journalism is not the need to introduce a general concept to explain such a contra- dictory nature of journalism, but the need to develop an analytical framework, based on case studies, to describe and understand the nature of journalism. Journalists and the media can be both diverse and uniform. While journalism is supposed to be independent from other organizations or individuals, it is always under the influence and pressure of outside powers. In relation to the outside world, the world of journalism is not static, but dynamic, and it is always filled with contra- dictions. We need to grasp this contradictory and dynamic nature of the relationship between journalism and the outside world in theory, based on positive research. That could be paraphrased in the following way. The world of journalism has the potential to be both for and against the Establishment, to be both uniform and diverse, and to be both independent of and subservient to the outside world. The challenge is not to establish a theory that ignores such contradictions, but to elucidate the mechanism of how and when some aspects with contradictory potential prevail over others. Based on such basic points of view, I will review previous case studies of journalistic activities in Japan and then analyze how journalism might have had an impact on society, especially on the police administration in a 1999 group bullying and murder case in Tochigi Prefecture. Then I will mention the concept of Pierre Bourdieu’s “field” (champ in French) as a tool for the theory and analysis of journalism. Review of Previous Case Studies Studying actual cases to analyze the process by which journalism has had an impact on the authorities and society in Japan is a rather minor field of study. Campbell stated as follows: The political science literature contains many studies of media and politics, and many detailed case studies of particular governmental decisions. However, the former rarely discuss actual decision-making processes, and the latter usually mention the media only in passing, or in any case do not see them as an important direct cause of policy change. (Campbell 1996: 188) Campbell mentions Hideo Otake’s analysis of automotive-safety recalls in 1969 as the best example. (Campbell 1996: 190) In that case, the Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan’s five national newspapers and the one with the second largest circulation, uncovered that Japan’s major car manufacturers did not recall defective cars even after they learned about the defects. Press coverage of the issue drew much public attention. Otake analyzed relations 72 73 between the actors including newspapers, describing the process by which the case became an important social issue. (Otake 1996: 29-72) Although his analysis is enlightening, I can see some shortcomings, which are also common to other studies. First, among the media, Otake analyzed only newspapers. Moreover, we can see additional case studies wherein researchers analyzed only newspapers to discuss the media as a whole. Such a focus on newspapers becomes more and more irrelevant for understanding the world of journalism as the number of the media available to the public increases. Second, Otake examined the general influence of newspapers on the political process and did not pay much attention to journalistic activities and differences at individual presses. He mentioned that the Asahi Shimbun led the coverage of the issue, but he did not examine how other newspapers followed the Asahi Shimbun. He also failed to mention much about the process of newspapers’ information gathering and reporting. He did not analyze how actors involved in the political process tried to manipulate the media and how journalists or newspapers overcome the risks of information manipulation. Instead, he paid more attention to general aspects of newspapers like their high research capability, their richness of human resources with reporting techniques, accumulation of information and so forth. In other words, he ignored the subjectivities or self-direction of journalists and individual media. Pharr pointed out that the fact that much of the general literature of political science ignores the media casts the media in the role as more or less passive transmitters among the various real players in politics. (Pharr 1996:20) I would say that this remark is also true for Otake’s work. The tendency for researchers to discuss the general nature of the media and not pay much attention to differences among the media including newspapers prevails in many articles analyzing journalism.