Independence versus convenience :

should Japan abolish the 記者クラブ (kisha club) system ?

​

 

​

As in many western democracies, such as in France or in the United States, freedom of the press in Japan is protected by the Constitution (1). Thus, the 21st article clearly indicates that “Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed” and that “No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated” (2). However, claiming that the press has to be independent from political, economic and lobbies’ influence does not necessarily mean that their collaboration is prohibited. In Japan, journalists cooperate with political institutions through the 記者クラブ (kisha club, or kisha kurabu) system.

​

​

What is a 記者クラブ ? According to the Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan (3), it designates a “group of newspaper and broadcast journalists assigned to gather news from government departments and the police (4)”, and “also refers to the rooms provided for these groups” on the premises for this purpose. It is thought that there are more than 1,000 記者クラブ throughout the country. The first one, named 議会出入り記者団 (Gikai Deiri Kishadan) (5), was created by newspaper journalists in 1880, through the Meiji Era, in order to exert joint pressure for access to the Imperial Diet which was very close at this time. The Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan eventually underlines the fact that nowadays “important announcements and press interviews routinely take place in the clubs” and that “as a consequence, Japanese newspapers tend to carry similar articles because news gathering has been customarily done solely through the press clubs”.

​

How does this system really work ? What are its undeniable advantages and irritating drawbacks ? What propositions have been formulated so far to improve its functioning ? Since it is generally the only way to gather information from political sources, knowing about 記者クラブ remains substantial to better understand the kind of relationships that most media – belonging or not to these clubs – have with politics in the archipelago.

​

​

A media cartel ?

​

​

The first question that we may ask about 記者クラブ is : who can effectively enter them ? Before elaborating on, we should remind that the status of journalist, in Japan, is automatically given to someone hired by an established media company : therefore, it differs from countries such as France, where it is still important to apply for obtaining the press card – helping you reach some places more easily and get the social welfare related to the profession (6). Then, as in most countries, the company gives you accreditations which allow you to investigate and gather news in particular fields. Certainly, being a freelance journalist makes everything more complex, as I am going to explain in a few lines.

​

Only a certain number of media companies can provide you 記者クラブ credentials, these being generally Japanese daily newspapers, key TV and radio stations and news agencies. To get the membership, a news company has to be recommended by at least two club members. And concerning online journalism, magazine reporters, non-mainstream media and freelancers ? The access to these clubs is denied, as well as for foreign journalists (7). This leads us to assert that the 記者クラブ system is highly exclusive, less than 20 media being able to attend most press conferences until recently… So exclusive that in fact, it is the target of a strong criticism coming from both Japan and abroad. In 1998, David Butts, former Tokyo bureau chief of Bloomberg Business News, sparked a controversy by attending a press conference held by Japan’s prime minister Hashimoto (橋本) without being endorsed by any member, and was almost thrown out the room by the security guards. We could argue that attending significant conferences is never really easy for foreign journalists, whatever the country : to get a pass for the White House, you must go through security check, submit your finger prints, wait for a long time and once you are in the room, you only have a little chance to ask questions if you are not a regular as it is the briefer who directly points at reporters (8)… But the 記者クラブ system really has no equivalent overseas.

​

The most influential opponent that the system has faced is certainly the European Commission : in its 2002 report “Priority Proposals for Regulatory Reform in Japan”, it stated that “By denying foreign correspondents first-hand access to briefings”, the system “unfairly makes them slower to bring information to their audience than domestic organizations, and, unable to put questions on the spot, forces them to rely on second-hand information.”. Eventually concluding that “the system works as a restraint on free trade in information”, it enumerated its negative points : the fact that both officials and the club “have the means to prevent the spread of information they may consider disadvantageous”, the “over-reliance on a single source of information and a lack of cross-checking” and the “widespread and undesirable practice of split briefings (…) increasing the potential for information to be tailored to one or the other audience by the briefing party” (9)…

According to the Commission, which even threatened to bring up this matter to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs press card that foreign media’s correspondents get should be enough to provide them access to all official press conferences and the 記者クラブ system should be definitely abolished. In 2002, similarly, the international non-governmental organization “Reporters Sans Frontières” (RSF) asked prime minister Koizumi (小泉) for a reform which would have allowed international media to cover the FIFA World Cup… In vain.

​

​

Efficiency and convenience…

​

​

Yet, the 記者クラブ system still have many proponents, defending two strong ideas. The first one is that these clubs enable the media to constitute collective forces against authorities. One should not forget that the clubs work as independent groups as they are organized and run by the members of the media companies themselves, and not by anyone else (10)… Each club is governed by a 総会 (sokai, or general committee) voting on new members (11) and issues. Generally every one or two months, a new 幹事 (kanji, or secretary) is appointed, this one being chosen alternately among newspapers and broadcasting companies. 日本新聞協会 (Nihon Shimbun Kyôkai–NSK) (12), on its website, clearly underlines that « Japan’s media industry has a history of applying pressure to public institutions reluctant to disclose information by banding together in the form of the kisha club ». Press conferences, in fact, can be either initiatives from the clubs or from the institutions. But when, for instance, an official suggest a meeting, it is the club which decides whether it will be held or not as it is its role to host it… In comparison to the White House’s conferences, always decided and organized by the US government, the Japanese system would almost seem flexible… According to a 1993 survey conducted by NSK, however, 65% of journalists already recognized at this time that the 記者クラブ system was more useful for manipulating the news flow than for acting as a watchdog (15%) (13).

​

The second argument, which is the convenience brought by the clubs, appears irrefutable. Having a constant access to the news source by being physically based at the bodies’ offices certainly facilitate and speed up the process of gathering news : can we imagine more comfortable than having a workspace and a briefing room on the premises ? Furthermore, the meetings are always settled in great details : reporters waiting, on-camera conference, off-the-record briefing, one-on-one interviews, etc. But the other side of the coin is that the 記者クラブ system has often been pointed out for inducing a lazy journalism and too cozy relationships between media and the related organisms, pitfalls usually circled by freelancers. The fact that public bodies’ clubs are funded with taxes which can only be used by the members is highly criticized and this has sometimes led to corruption. Journalists working in these clubs may be considered as scribes as well, conveying what has been announced in conferences without investigating in the field and crossing sources : this notorious event which occurred in 1995, when, simply reporting what was told by the metropolitan police, journalists portrayed the first witness of the sarin gas attack as being a criminal, remains a relevant example… Being regularly invited for dinner by your sources does not really encourage you to report embarrassing matters, especially if you want the club to keep being privileged.

​

​

Reforming the system, an impossible challenge ?

​

​

One should not infer that no efforts have been made to improve the system. In 2002, NSK, in charge of it (14), published the “Kisha Club Guidelines” (partially revised in 2006) (15). In this document, giving a broad definition to a club as it is considered as “a voluntary institution for news gathering and reporting”, one could read that the 記者クラブ “should be « open entities” (…) composed of journalists sent by the NSK-member firms or nonmember media organizations with a similar standing” and that they were “also open to foreign media organizations” (16). Beyond these guidelines in favor of an opening up of these clubs, the text was even going further as it recommended to allow any journalist to attend the press conferences : “It is not inappropriate to limit participation in these press conference only to the respective club members. More open conferences should be pursued in line with circumstances of individual kisha clubs. Naturally, press conferences organized by public institutions should be open to all those who are engaged in reporting.”... Thus, ignoring the recommendation of the European Commission to abolish the 記者クラブ system, NSK would rather tend to underline their advantages and to propose a few relaxings… Nevertheless, even though these “Kisha Club Guidelines” were also taking some other significant issues into account, such as the « inclination to act in unison » or « elitism », NSK conceded that it did not control what the clubs were doing individually : the recruit of the members, for instance, is still decided by each of them.

​

Before 2009, a few otherheadways occurred, such as the opening up of the 兜倶楽部 (Kabuto Kurabu, Tokyo Stock Exchange’s club) to foreign media in 1993, the abolition of the 鎌倉記者会 (Kamakura Kisha Kai, Kamakura’s club) in 1996, the closure of the 葵クラブ (Aoi Club, NTT’s club) in 1999, the suppression of the Nagano’s prefectural offices clubs in 2001, etc (17). In 2004, the Ministry of foreign affairs even made the effort to ask the official bodies to allow foreign media in their conferences… In most of these cases, the clubs became more flexible or disappeared as it was established that they turned out to be counter-productive – or useless. A few organizations, in the same manner, started to ask the clubs to pay for the charges that the provided facilities induced. However, it would be quite inaccurate to argue that these improvements had been numerous…

​

Changing the rules in Japanese journalism was one of Hatoyama (鳩山) ‘s promises when he came to power last year (18). The 27th of July, before the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) won the general election after almost 54 uninterrupted years of Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) governance, Hatoyama asserted in a press conference that he would definitely end the 記者クラブ system (19). Yet, he broke his pledge from the first day of his term by not allowing non-mainstream media to attend the inauguration press conference on the 16th of September… Not originating from the prime minister’s official residence, where only an observer status with prior registration was possible for security reasons, freelance journalists even being barred, the change rather came from the Minister of foreign affairs Okada (岡田) who, from 29thof September, unilaterally took the decision that he would open his press conferences to non-members of the club (he even asked foreign media to accompany him through his trips) (20). At first, this initiative had to face a strong resistance from the surprised mainstream media and the bureaucrats, who both like the controlled channels of information that the clubs represent. They were also fighting at the same time against DPJ’s will to abolish all routine press conference hold by top ministry bureaucrats, a reform evidently lowering the number of official sources.

​

But beyond this opposition, there was a real scepticism. Thus, one could read on The Japan Times Online (21) :“the hoopla will wane and small media outlets will probably not continue to attend. The news conferences were open to most journalists as observers to begin with, many Foreign Ministry officials said, but reporters outside the press club system seldom attended in the past. Senior officials also say ending the routine news conferences held by top bureaucrats will have no major impact on the parties involved because reporters will have enough access to bureaucrats. For example, Okada compromised on allowing routine off-the-record briefings held between bureaucrats and kisha club members to continue.”… Nevertheless, nobody would deny that the overall situation had improved when Hatoyama resigned at the beginning of the month. On the 26thof March, the prime minister allowed for the first time freelance journalists and online media to attend his press conference. Similarly, a Ministry of internal affairs and communications study, ranking the openness of ministries to media from A to D, showed that 12 out of 18 cabinet ministers had, “in principle, opened their conferences to freelance journalists, online reporters registered with the Internet News Association of Japan, and other types of media” (22).

​

As some media highlight, yet, the fact that news conferences opened up does not necessarily mean that DPJ’s government is more transparent than LDP’s… Shall we consequently infer that all these measures are just an easy way for the party to make a good impression and to advertise itself ?…

​

​

​

NOTES

​

1) The United Kingdom does not have a written Constitution. However, a set of various laws provides a strong legal basis to the freedom of press and expression (the country having also assimilated European Convention on Human Rights’ clauses by enforcing the Human Rights Act in 1998).

​

2) Democratic States generally give much more freedom to the press – and to books publishers – than they give to radio and television broadcasters, their activity being often regulated. The legislation on the Internet is still slight in most countries as it brings new issues.

​

3) First published in 1983, it is one of the most significant general source on Japan written in English.

​

4) A broad definition would also include local authorities (and even organism with legal personality such as companies).

​

5) It changed its name to 共同新聞記者倶楽部 (Kyôdô Shimbun Kisha Kurabu) the same year.

​

6) Basically, to obtain this card the first time, you must have been a journalist for a media company or an agency for at least three successive months and more than 50% of your revenues must come from this activity (you get it automatically if it is more than 75%).

​

7) Even nowadays, only a few foreign news agencies such as Reuters, Bloomberg or Dow Jones can attend official press conferences ; however, even in these cases, they often have the right to listen but not to ask questions. About Japanese magazines, they are often considered as mostly looking for sensationalism.

​

8) You do not have many chances to ask questions in the Department of State’s conferences neither (there are no name plates in these ones but front rows are virtually reserved). Moreover, you sometimes have to attend conferences regularly in order to prove your interest.

​

9) The document is available on the Internet.

​

10) Except through the second World War, period when the “Japan Newspaper Union » (日本新聞連盟, Nihon Shimbun Renmei) was founded in order to control newspapers, the clubs have always been ruling themselves.

​

11) The total number of members in a club vary from 15 to 150, except for the Diet’s club, having thousands of members, and the prime minister’s club, where more than 500 are counted (“Kisha Clubs”, by Shmel Gvido, Japan Media Review (website), Aug. 18, 2006).

​

12) Also named “The Japanese Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association” in English, NSK is an independent body defending the interests of some 150 daily newspapers, news agencies and TV and radio broadcasters.

​

13) “Kisha Clubs”, by Shmel Gvido, Japan Media Review (website), Aug. 18, 2006.

​

14) Japanese officials actually do not control the 記者クラブ system : it is under the authority of NSK.

​

15) Available on NSK’s website (www.pressnet.or.jp for the English version)

​

16) The document also stressed that “in fact the number of clubs with foreign journalists as members is increasing”.

​

17) These examples are taken from Wikipedia’s page on Kisha Clubs, translated from the Japanese version cautiously giving its sources.

​

18) In 1994, Ozawa (小沢), secretary-general of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) from September 2009 to June 2010 – and secretary-general of the brand new Japan Renewal Party (JRP, or 新生党 Shinseitô in Japanese) at this time – already tried in vain to allow magazine journalists to take part in his press conferences…

​

19) The DJP and the LDP are respectively named 民主党 (Minshutô) and 自由民主党 (Jiyûminshutô) in Japanese.

​

20) As secretary-general of the DPJ, he already decided in 2002 to open the press conferences to everyone holding a relevant business card.

​

21) “Press club faithful fight change : mainstream media close ranks as DPJ tries to open up briefings”, by Jun Hongo, The Japan Times Online, Oct. 7, 2009.

​

22) “DPJ government opens access to new media”, The Asahi Shimbun (website), Apr. 10, 2010. The article was even emphasizing that “Some government ministers have gone a step further and are holding separate open events from the restricted ones organized by kisha clubs”.