“The aim of undermining the Nagasaki Shimbun’s social credibility.”  “A malicious book that intentionally twists and interprets only the facts that are convenient for him.” “Ishikawa’s personal grudge.”

The document that the Nagasaki Shimbun confidentially sent to Kyodo News expressed the company’s anger. The document was titled “Opinion on ‘The Sanctuary of Bullying’ by Kyodo News reporter” (hereinafter referred to as the “opinion paper”). It was sent in December 2022.

One month earlier, Yoichi Ishikawa’s book “The Sanctuary of Bullying: A Complete Record of Parents Who Challenged the Darkness of Catholic School” was released by Bungeishunju. The book follows the case of Hayato Fukuura, a second-year student at Kaisei Gakuen High School in Nagasaki, who committed suicide after being bullied. Ishikawa criticized the local newspaper Nagasaki Shimbun for not pursuing the case in which the Nagasaki Prefecture protected the school.

What would Hayato’s family think if they read the Nagasaki Shimbun’s opinion paper?

That was the first thing I thought of. I’ve interviewed his mother, Saori, and his father, Daisuke, numerous times. Their only wish is that no one has to go through what Hayato did. That is why they were delighted when Ishikawa’s book was published.

On November 10, 2024, I visited Nagasaki to interview Saori and Daisuke.

“I thought it was inconvenient for the Nagasaki Shimbun because the truth was written”

The interview took place at a hotel in Nagasaki City. Both Saori and Daisuke are working full-time. They usually give interviews on weekday evenings or on weekends. This time it was a Sunday.

First, I told them the following statement from the Nagasaki Shimbun in its “opinion paper.”

The contents of Chapter 11 of this book intentionally misinterpret the facts and attack the Nagasaki Shimbun. The main motive seems to be a personal grudge against the local media, including our company, for not picking up the article that reporter Ishikawa himself distributed as a “scoop.”

 

From our perspective, this is nothing more than a malicious book that ignores facts that are inconvenient for reporter Ishikawa and intentionally twists and interprets only the facts that are convenient for him, with the aim of undermining the Nagasaki Shimbun’s social credibility.

Chapter 11 describes how an article only published the prefecture’s side of the story and did not interview the bereaved family, and how a Nagasaki Shimbun reporter warned Ishikawa for questioning the governor at a press conference, saying, “It will become a problem for the press club.” The Nagasaki Shimbun is angry that he brought up these facts and criticized them.

Saori says firmly,

“That book is entirely true, based on our experiences.”

“I remember being shocked that someone could be criticized like this for writing the truth.”

“I thought it was inconvenient for the Nagasaki Shimbun because the truth was written. I wondered if it was inconvenient for them (the Nagasaki Shimbun) because Ishikawa had written the truth.”

Daisuke says, “The book delves deeply into the issue, not just of Kaisei and us (the bereaved family), but also of the social structure (including the administration and the media) and other such issues.”

“It’s a good educational material that allows people to understand why things are the way they are. I was grateful because the book explains the mechanisms of the world.”

The Nagasaki Shimbun, neglects interviewing and misinterprets facts

I also wanted to confirm the facts directly with Saori and Daisuke. The following is from the opinion paper:

In a 2019 press conference, the bereaved family only pointed out that the school had proposed the sudden death, and made no mention of the prefecture’s approval, so it seems likely that, at least initially, the family did not see the prefecture’s response as problematic.

“The prefecture’s approval” refers to the incident where the school suggested to the family that they announce it as a “sudden death” rather than a “suicide,” and the Prefectural Academic Affairs Division’s counselor, Osamu Matsuo approved the school’s proposal, saying, “‘sudden death’ is barely permissible.” The prefecture later held an emergency press conference and apologized to the family.

As the Nagasaki Shimbun claims, did the bereaved family not initially have any concerns about the prefecture’s response? Saori said the following.

“We couldn’t trust the prefecture from the beginning.”

“When I first met them, I thought that the prefecture would be on our side. We are the victims, so to speak. Hayato is the biggest victim, and I thought that the prefecture would take the victims’ feelings into consideration and provide guidance to the school.”

“But when I first met them, I realized that they all believed in Kaisei. They would only say things like, ‘Kaisei is doing its best for the bereaved family,’ and things like that. Because they believe that everything the school does is right.”

“I felt something was wrong and wondered why they weren’t listening to what we were saying from the first day we met. After our first meeting with the prefecture, Daisuke and I said, ‘This isn’t going anywhere. These people are on Kaisei’s side.'”

The same goes for Daisuke.

“We were at a halt (in our interactions with Kaisei High School), so we were counting on the prefecture. We couldn’t get anywhere with the school, so we had no choice but to turn to the prefecture, and we asked for a meeting between the school, the prefecture, and the bereaved family, as a sort of refuge.”

“However, before the meeting, I had spoken to the prefectural counselor, Mr. Matsuo, on the phone, and honestly, I could sense that he was annoyed.”

“Mr. Matsuo continued to use terms like “sudden death” and “transfer” throughout the meeting, showing little regard for the wishes of the family. He seemed unsurprised and handled it as though it were a routine thing when we gave him the paperwork my wife had prepared that showed the correspondence between the school and us. I assumed he would sympathize with us but it was disappointing.”

“Although I had communicated our concerns, my wife and I were disappointed. I thought they didn’t care that the school had treated the bereaved family mistakenly, and that he was sure that everything the school said was true.”

The Nagasaki Shimbun assumed that “at least initially, the family did not see the prefecture’s response as problematic.” This is clearly a misunderstanding of the facts. Why would they make such a mistake? The reason is written in the opinion paper.

This time, the prefecture apologized for the matter that Kyodo News raised, so there is no need for us to contact the family and have them go to the trouble of responding to an interview.

The Nagasaki Shimbun neglected to interview the bereaved family, which led to a misinterpretation of the facts.

“Kyodo News at the time was serious”

The bereaved family has confidence in Ishikawa’s reporting style.

Daisuke talked about his impression of Ishikawa.

“(Following the first press conference) all the media requested to see the third-party committee’s investigation report. However, our lawyer at the time advised that while it was acceptable to show it, copying or photographing it was not permitted. Even after that, some reporters insisted, but we declined.”

“Nonetheless, Ishikawa and his fellow reporters, who worked for Kyodo News at the time, were determined to transcribe and did not make any copies. A 64-page report required three people, hours of transcription. Apparently, their superior was angry that Ishikawa assigned three branch staff to the task. From that moment on, I had the impression that Kyodo News, led by Ishikawa at the time, was serious about addressing this issue.”

“After that, Ishikawa continued to contact us whenever he had the chance and was concerned about us, so I felt he was a trustworthy person.”

The same goes for Saori.

“I’ve spoken with a number of media reporters, and they were all extremely eager in covering the issue, but, as time passed, they always called me if anything significant happened, such as a lawsuit being filed. But Ishikawa was the only one who actually cared, even when nothing was happening.

“That book is proof Hayato was alive”

In June 2021, Ishikawa transferred from the Nagasaki Bureau to the Chiba Bureau. After that, he continued to interview the bereaved family online on weekday evenings and weekends. He published the book in November 2021.

Saori looks back on the time of publication as follows:

“Ishikawa created a proof that Hayato was alive.”

“Now that he’s passed away, there’s really nothing we can do for Hayato. It was deeply moving that Ishikawa left behind proof of Hayato’s life.”

“Hayato has suffered, and we have too. We conducted extensive research, as well as interacted with many people. It was not in vain. The fact that this book was published helped me understand that my efforts were not in vain, and that people who read it will benefit. For example, I was delighted that it could help people who are being bullied.”

However, shortly after the book was published, Kyodo News began pursuing Ishikawa’s reponsibility. When Saori heard about this, she had the following reaction:

“We were a little worried at first, too. We wondered if his position at the company would be okay after he published the book. But we never imagined that he would be pushed to that extent.”

“So how did it really get to this point? If we told the truth and had him write the truth, how could it get to this point? That’s what I honestly thought.”

Daisuke says:

“We were just stating the facts and have no recollection of exaggerating anything, and Ishikawa included that in his book as is.”

“This book uses Hayato’s suicide as a catalyst to examine society’s different structures and contradictions, stating facts. Reading it will introduce some people to social structures and contradictions for the first time, and I hope it will serve as an opportunity for people to recognize that bullying-related child suicides cannot be improved unless we address these issues.”

“The fight is moving outside the ring, and we feel very sad about it.”

From child bullying to adult bullying

Saori is also troubled by the words and actions of the Nagasaki Shimbun and Kyodo News.

“We talked to Ishikawa about the truth and circumstances surrounding Hayato’s death from bullying in the hope that our story would prevent recurrence, which led to the publication of the book.”

“The fact that we had been suffering and advocating was completely overlooked. Ishikawa had considered things from our perspective as victims and was empathetic, but before we realized it, he had become the target of bullying.”

“It all started with a child being bullied, but it turned into adults bullying other adults. It seems like the problem has shifted to adults bullying people who write the truth. I wonder why it has come to this.”

“When Ishikawa mentioned that he was going to publish a book, I agreed because I wanted to do something about bullying among children, to prevent it from happening again, to protect children’s lives, and to inform the public that schools do not have the right to do whatever they want. But before I knew it, the point had shifted.”

“The person who reported it was bullied by the people around them. That was the company and the Nagasaki Shimbun.”

The Nagasaki Shimbun is a “customer” of Kyodo News

The Nagasaki Shimbun concluded its opinion paper sent to Kyodo News as follows:

This problem affects all of Kyodo News’s member companies, not just ours. We, a local newspaper, wish to sue for defamation when a weekly magazine or other media publishes an article without facts, but we are forced to accept it due to the high cost of legal defense. If the other person was unconnected, we may give up, but this time it’s a Kyodo News reporter, with whom we are practically related. Compared to other businesses in the sector, Kyodo News and local newspapers have closer ties and share a wide range of information. This is a result of their mutual trust. This time, if Kyodo News said, “We won’t respond because it’s outside our business,” the relationship would be broken.

 

This book, which damages our company’s social credibility, has already been published nationwide, is on store shelves in Nagasaki Prefecture, and is being purchased and loaned out at libraries across the country. This book will continue to injure our reputation indefinitely, causing further damage. We are neither requesting an apology from Kyodo News for this incident, nor are we requesting that they take disciplinary action against the reporter in question. Given that we have arrived at this point, we would like to know how Kyodo News would respond to our company.

The bereaved family is also skeptical of this stance.

“In the case of the Nagasaki Shimbun’s complaint against Kyodo News, I think the target of the complaint is misleading. If they don’t want it to be published, they can just tell Bungeishunju, the publisher, and file a lawsuit.”

“I couldn’t understand why they would complain about it to Kyodo News, the company Ishikawa worked for. I never imagined it would become such a big problem.”

Daisuke says,

“If the Nagasaki Shimbun wanted to raise an objection to the contents of the book, it should have addressed the publisher, Bungeishunju, or filed a lawsuit against Ishikawa personally, but I wonder that they would make a complaint about such a matter to Ishikawa’s employer, Kyodo News as a member company.”

Furthermore, he mentioned the relationship between Kyodo News and its member companies, including Nagasaki Shimbun as follows:

“Kyodo News is a company that exists through membership fees from each local newspaper. I heard that from reporter Doshita of the Nagasaki Shimbun. He said, ‘Kyodo News exists through our membership fees.'”

“Kyodo News’ customers include the Nagasaki Shimbun and a variety of local newspapers as well as major companies. It gets membership fees from these sources to distribute its news, thus it, like sponsors, is unable to write or say anything that would be inconvenient for their clients. That’s the structure.”

Mother who wrote a letter to Kyodo News, “we had been completely ignored”

While the Nagasaki Shimbun claims defamation, it has not interviewed or contacted the family members involved.

Saori says, “(About the book,) the Nagasaki Shimbun has not contacted us at all. There have been quite a few comments from other media outlets, like, ‘I read Ishikawa’s book,’ but nothing from the Nagasaki Shimbun.”

In January 2023, the family submitted a statement to Kyodo News, which was pursuing responsibility for Ishikawa, stating that the contents of the book were true.

However, there has been no response up to now.

“We collected all kinds of evidence, such as past newspaper articles (reporting on Hayato’s case), and sent a letter of opinion based on that, but we don’t know whether they even read it.”

In addition, Saori also sent a letter to Ichiro Masamura, the bureau chief of the Chiba branch to which Ishikawa belonged, stating the facts. This was reported in Tansa’s article “A Letter to Kyodo News Chiba Bureau Chief from a Mother of a High School Junior Who Committed Suicide After Bullying (1).”

“At the time, Ishikawa was at the Chiba Bureau, so we wrote letters to the Chiba Bureau chief, but we received no response, and it felt like we had been completely ignored.

“If necessary, we will be in court at Ishikawa’s trial”

Neither Saori nor Daisuke are convinced by the claims made by the Nagasaki Shimbun and Kyodo News.

After the interview, Saori spoke up.

“If things continue like this, I think we’ll see another child suicide like this.”

“If necessary, we will be in court at Ishikawa’s trial.”

(Left) Daisuke Fukuura and Saori Fukuura on November 10, 2024 (Photo by Nanami Nakagawa)

(Originally published in Japanese on November 21, 2024. Translation by Mana Shibata.)

Adults in the Student Suicide Case: All articles