| ★阿修羅♪ > マスコミ批評2 > 210.html ★阿修羅♪ |
|
| Tweet |
上は「ＥＩＮとは」 http://home.att.ne.jp/zeta/ein/ein.html のサイトのGIFイメージ。
──────────────────────────────────────
http://www.toonippo.co.jp/news_kyo/news/20051112010034451.asp
2005年11月12日（土）
教育への新聞活用を 東京でシンポジウム
新聞を学校教育に活用する「ＮＩＥ（教育に新聞を）」をテーマに、研究者や学校現場の関係者が現状や将来の課題を話し合うシンポジウムが１２日、東京都内で開かれた。
討論には文部科学省の担当者や大学院、公立中学の教師らが参加。学力低下が指摘される中、新聞が子どもの教育にどう寄与できるかが討議された。
文科省教育課程課の常盤豊課長は、子どもの学習意欲の低下が読解や表現の能力低下につながっている現状を説明。学習意欲を持たせるきっかけの一つとして新聞の重要性を強調し、新聞界には「常にＮＩＥを意識した紙面を作ってほしい」と注文をつけた。
（共同通信社）
──────────────────────────────────────
全くもってどうかしているとしかいいようがない。いい加減にタテマエだけの空疎な議論をおこなうのはやめたらどうなのだろうか。
以前、ＮＨＫが中学生に「新聞のヤラセ報道が発覚したがどう思うか」というアンケートをおこなった。
その結果は４０％が「なんとも思わない」と答えた。
この答えは新聞に対する慈悲なのではなかった。メディアなどそんなものだ、という意味だったのだ。
僕は「うーん」とうなってしまった。
次のサイトは「ＮＩＥ（教育に新聞を）」をもじって「ＥＩＮ（新聞に教育を）」と題したサイトです。サイトの管理人は新聞記者です。（＾＾；
──────────────────────────────────────ＥＩＮとは
http://home.att.ne.jp/zeta/ein/ein.html宣言または前言
ええ!? ＮＩＥ推進ってそんな大それた…。俺にはまだまだ早いですよ、自分の書いた記事が子供たちの学習教材になるなんて…。いつも取材でヘマばかりやらかしている俺。まずは日々の自戒と反省をしなければ。俺にとっては「教育に新聞を」の前に「新聞に教育を」、そうそうＥＩＮ推進が先決事項ッス。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------ＥＩＮとは
ＥＩＮ（アイン）は Ｅｄｕｃａｔｉｏｎ Ｉｎ Ｎｅｗｓｐａｐｅｒの略。日本語で「新聞に教育を」とムリヤリ訳します。ＮＩＥ推進の前に、まずは記者自身が我が身をかえりみ、「子どもたちに笑われないような新聞をつくろうじゃんか」というのがＥＩＮのコンセプトです（ホントかよ…）。前にＥＩＮをマジだと勘違いしてしまった人（しかも学校のセンセイ）がいたので申し上げておきますが、あくまでＮＩＥはＥＩＮのパロ、もとい、ＥＩＮはＮＩＥのパロディーです。
ＮＩＥとは
ＮＩＥ（エヌアイイー。「ニー」と言ってる人もいるけど、これを使うと叱られちゃうんだよ）とは Ｎｅｗｓｐａｐｅｒ Ｉｎ Ｅｄｕｃａｔｉｏｎの略で、日本語で「教育に新聞を」。「青少年の活字離れに歯止めをかけよう」とアメリカで始まったキャンペーンです。
日本では昔から新聞を教材にした授業が行われていましたが、日本新聞協会は1994年度から本格的な推進事業を展開、97年度は全国約260の小、中高校が実践校に指定されました。その後も実践校指定は続いており、各校は社会や国語の授業などで新聞を使った授業を行っています。また実践指定校には新聞購読料の助成や、新聞関係者によるレクチャー、新聞社見学などの機会も与えられています。
ＮＩＥの一方の担い手である新聞記者が、アホであっては話になりません。このホームページはそんなアホ記者が自戒と反省を込めて、少しでも質的向上を図ろうと開設したものです。ところがホームページを立ち上げて以来、ますますおのれのアホさ加減に拍車がかかっているような気がしてならない今日このごろ。ああ、俺は一体どうしたらいいのでしょうか…。
──────────────────────────────────────
こういう記者が増えてくれればいいとは思うのですが、実際は「取材でヘマばかり」という問題ではなく（それは「ＥＩＮとは」のサイトの管理人もよく知っていると思う）、たとえば新聞業界をよく知る藤原肇氏はこう述べています。
読売新聞がヤクザ的な体質を濃厚にする点は、既に第二章で総括して置いた通りであり、その主要な背景に販売路線が関係しているなら、大新聞として似た現象は朝日にも予想でき、販路拡張はスキャンダルの時限爆弾になる。現に、日本の新聞が手を出したサイドビジネスは、公益法人の一角に陣取って系列を作り、利権の巣窟になった公団が顔負けの状態で、公私混同の悪どい利権漁りに終始している。
読者には喧嘩相手としてのスタイルを強調して、朝日と文春はお互いに相手に対決しながら、権力に対しての批判をするポーズを取るが、本質において内部ではボス支配が続いており、幹部へのゴマ擦りが蔓延しているし、権力との裏取引も日常茶飯事である。（『朝日と読売の火ダルマ時代』藤原肇著）官僚が定年後の天下り先を確保するために、特殊法人を作って税金を無駄遣いしたり、その下に子会社を幾つも作って系列化して、付け回しをしていたことの露見が物語るように、日本は役人たちによって食い荒らされて来た。それと同じことを新聞社もやっており、系列化したメディアが天下り先になって、退職金の稼ぎ場所として利権化している。
そのために定年後の有利な役職を得ようとして、人事を巡って醜い派閥争いが罷り通り、新聞社でも酷い追従が横行しているために、記者たちの士気に影響を及ぼしている。特にこの傾向が著しく目立つようになったのは、報道界の幹部が巻きこまれ網紀弛緩が顕在化した１９８８年のリクルート事件の後からである。（『月刊・創』”朝日・講談社巻き込む大激論」の欠落した部分”藤原肇［稿］）
元共同通信記者だった辺見庸氏は次のように述べています。
マスメディアの規模と機能の全容に迫ることなく、単に記者や情報消費者個人の「良心」に期待をつなぐような半端なメディア論がいまなお横行しているけれども、現実のメディア状況に手もなく裏切られ、蹴散らされいるだけである。良心や善意は、巨大システムのなかに容易に溶けていくのである。エンツェンスベルガーのいう「子供だまし」の議論は依然、果てることなくつづいている。（『不安の世紀から』辺見庸著）
次の記事は、『電２についてお調べの方は（にぽ〜ん イニグマ！）投稿者 天空橋救国戦線 日時 2005 年 11 月 10 日 http://www.asyura2.com/0510/hihyo2/msg/187.html 』で紹介されている記事。
──────────────────────────────────────
http://www.newsombudsmen.org/maezawa2.html
A dangerous trend for freedom of the press in Japan
By Takeshi Maezawa
Journal of Communication Studies c 2001
Freedom of the press is threatened in Japan. Ruling parties, administrative authorities and some civil organizations have been eager to suggest legal restrictions for the mass media.
On Oct. 11, 2000, the government's Committee on the Protection of Personal Data submitted proposed legislation that would authorize the government to regulate newsgathering and reporting.
On Dec. 28, 2000, the Council for the Promotion of Civil Liberties at the Ministry of Justice released an interim report including a recommendation for the restriction of the press freedom on the pretext that an independent organization should be established to actively deal with human rights violations and that the administrative regulation of the press might be needed to stop such violations.
The council proposed that administrative authorities investigate and fine media companies and professionals, and also suppress a publication without a court order, if the press is unable to establish an effective system for preventing people from violating human rights.
Freedom of speech will hardly be able to survive in Japan if any of those media-regulating measures is adopted.
The Japanese Federation of Bar Associations, which has protected freedom of speech since the Constitution of Japan was enacted in 1947, in October of 2000 recommended that the government pass a law that would require a news council and news ombudsmen.
This came as the media were being severely criticized by citizens because media show too little concern for privacy and their newsgathering is often tainted by unethical conduct.
Allow me to present some background.
Dentsu Inc., Japan's largest media company, an advertising agency, admitted in June 2000, its liability in the suicide of a worker due to overwork. Dentsu and the parents of the employee agreed on an out-of-court settlement following a recommendation of the Tokyo High Court that some 168 million yen (US $1.61 million) be paid in compensation to the parents.
This was a typical case of karoshi, or death by overwork. Japanese employees will tell you that they prefer to work than to enjoy their lives. They pledge loyalty to their company as a samurai did to a daimyo, or feudal lord.
The media world is no exception. Most media professionals have a narrow outlook and are far more interested in their company or country’s interest than in justice and fairness to the readers, listeners and viewers.
In one of his books, Ivan P. Hall, an expert in Japanese studies and a journalist who has been living in the country for more than 30 years, named Japan an "intellectual closed shop." Japanese society seems protected by two barriers: isolation as an island and isolation thanks to the Japanese language.
Journalists in Japan are not seen as independent professionals working in the public interest; instead, they are seen as, first and foremost, employees of a company. This allegiance has the effect of keeping Japanese journalism from reporting on important issues and from being accountable to readers.
Japanese newspapers enjoy the most prosperous and profitable business circumstances in the world under protective laws and regulations, which include price controls.
Since business is good, newspaper companies are not seriously concerned about independence and accountability to readers ? contrary to journalists and newspapers in other democratic countries.
At the International Press Institute's conference held in Kyoto in April 1991, the organization's director praised Japan for its "free and democratic press," whereas Dutch journalist Karel van Wolferen, one of the guest speakers, was unreservedly critical of the Japanese press, saying: "I do not think I exaggerate when I say that nowhere else in the industrialized world is self-censorship so systematic." The fact that he was quoted only in the English-language newspapers published in Japan provided evidence of the truth of his comments.
Japan has many exclusionary systems and taboos on newsgathering that reflect Japanese culture.
The press club system excludes any reporter that is not a member from freely gathering news at that source and it generates an extraordinarily close relationship between reporters and decision makers.
For instance, the day before Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori's scheduled news conference on May 26, 2000, in which he was to defend his "divine nation" comment, a copy of an elaborate memo was found in the press club room at the prime minister's office that contained advice on how he should defend himself against questioning by reporters, as well as secret information about media companies and journalists. An unidentified public broadcasting reporter, assigned to the Cabinet, had reportedly written the memo. Some magazines and newspapers reported the incident a couple of weeks later, attaching a copy of the memo, but most dailies have never mentioned the incident. No one was accused of any violation of journalistic ethics and no media company never seriously tried to find and fire a suspect.
The Imperial family is the most difficult beat for reporters, since they must learn a mass of traditions and special customs, and must also obey strict regulations to the letter.
When Emperor Showa passed away on January 7, 1989, many readers wondered why the media had so many stories portraying only the good side of the Emperor and the imperial system, instead of also mentioning more negative aspects, such as the emperor’s responsibility in World War II, or the so-called "chrysanthemum curtain", the barrier put up by servants of the court which isolate the royal family from media and the public. Critics in magazines questioned such an editorial policy, but no newspapers.
Now, I would like to come to the main topic of this article, media accountability systems in Japan.
The most common system for enforcing ethical standards in the Japanese press is Kijishinsa-iinkai or Kijishinsa-shitsu, that is, an "internal committee for newspaper contents evaluation." This system plays a major part within newspapers by guaranteeing good quality contents and by ensuring the ethical education of employees. Scholars of media ethics would, of course, say that its main function has little directly to do with accountability to readers.
The main function of shinsa-shitsu in each newspaper has been "quality control" for a long time. This kind of commission has guaranteed the comparatively high quality of newspapers, in particular since the end of World War II, when the press was given its freedom. Most newspapers did not give their shinsa-shitsu any accountability function?- yet, inevitably, some of the shinsa-shitsus have been gradually increasing their accountability functions.
The history of content-checking in the Japanese media goes back to the 1920s. Most newspapers have operated such a program for more than 35 years, and a few newspapers started it before World War II.
The major reason why they don't, and shouldn't, name their checking accountability system an ombudsman system is their lack of openness towards readers and their lack of independence from their superiors. "The news media are the most exclusive society,” says Professor Seiya Ikari. “They refuse to disclose information, which they must if readers are to trust them… No bylines, no responses to readers: that all shows their lack of accountability."
Also, of course, it would be next-to-impossible for the members of this system independently to investigate their colleagues, critically to evaluate the contents of articles by them and to submit a candid opinion to their superiors. It is far from easy in any journalistic environment, but remember that these people are average employees in a Japanese company.
A committee composed of seven representatives of shinsa-shitsu did a research tour of the U.S. in 1987 to gather information that could help . One document which they found most interesting was the “Guidelines for Ombudsmen”, which states:
"The ombudsman must be independent, and that independence must be real. He should be answerable only to the person with the highest authority over the news department."
In contrast, the people operating "newspaper contents checking systems" are reluctant to disclose information about them and to invite readers to a discussion meant to raise ethical awareness. These systems are not made to be responsive and they have no tradition of dealing with readers who have complaints, suggestions or questions.
These accountability systems have been functioning as quality control bureaus for printed newspapers, but they have seldom disclosed the full information necessary to achieve credibility because of their lack of full independence from the newsroom. What information? For example, information on why so often newspapers don't identify public officials in news stories or attribute documents to anonymous sources. Journalists seldom answer questions about their jobs, because the media world is one of the most self-contained and uncommunicative communities.
One of the problems about respecting media ethics is that Japanese media companies and organizations are reluctant to draft a meaningful ethics code. Actually, judging from past cases, it would be impossible for media persons to keep within such practical guidelines.
On June 21, 2000, a new Canon of Journalism was drafted, not only for journalists, but also for everyone engaged in newspaper work. Many journalists found that the real aim of the revision was not to make the canon better but, as we say, to "oil the government's hand" and obtain that the "retail price maintenance" policy be maintained for newspapers. As a result, the new canon provided neither specific nor concrete guidelines. Nevertheless, it is of great interest to Japanese journalists that the notion and definition of “independence” was added to the new canon.
The most questionable point is the absence in the new canon of any provision regarding "conflict of interest". If the practical guidelines regarding "conflict of interest" and "the appearance of conflict of interest" were provided, the new canon would have been found excellent and meaningful. Newspapers in Japan too easily admit the fact that the government appoints many executives and employees of newspapers as members of political and administrative advisory committees; how can they avoid conflict of interest?
Sam Jameson, an American journalist who has been living and working in Japan for more than nearly 40 years, told me, “Some of Japanese media people are working as messengers for politicians or performing the same roles as politicians. I suppose they don’t know ‘Conflict of Interest’ in journalism.”
I responded, “I think they know well what it is. But actually they don’t care about it.”
I wish to conclude by saying that Japanese journalists should be independent and respect disclosure, and that media should promptly “improve their checking mechanisms and their system for responding to readers’ inquiries” ? thus echoing the official view of the NSK presented on December 14, 1999, in a hearing session conducted by the Council for the Promotion of Civil Liberties at the Ministry of Justice.
──────────────────────────────────────
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。