Photo by Yo Haga

The “Freedom of the Press Trial” is nearing its last phases.

Two years have passed since the lawsuit was filed in July 2023. In the 12 hearings held so far, the defendant, Kyodo News, has been cornered from start to finish.

Kyodo News began pursuing Yoichi Ishikawa shortly after his book, “The Sanctuary of Bullying: A Complete Record of Parents Who Challenged the Darkness of a Catholic School,” was released by Bungeishunju in November 2022. Regarding the suicide of a high school junior student due to bullying, the prefecture covered up the school, and the local newspaper, the Nagasaki Shimbun, covered up the prefecture. Kyodo News accused Ishikawa of “defaming the Nagasaki Shimbun” for criticizing the cover ups in his book.

The Nagasaki Shimbun is a member company of Kyodo News, and any criticism from Kyodo News reporters would be harmful to the company’s interests. Kyodo News chose to defend its organization over journalism. It terminated Ishikawa from his reporting job and canceled its approval of the book’s publication. Ishikawa was offered as a “sacrifice” in order to win the Nagasaki Shimbun’s pardon.

Even after being sued by Ishikawa, Kyodo News first claimed that the book caused them harm.

Nonetheless, they cannot provide any evidence for this.

The examination of witnesses held on July 2, 2025, was symbolic. When asked by the plaintiff about the basis for their series of investigations into Ishikawa, Kyodo News Executive Director Takehiko Egashira repeatedly stated:

“I don’t remember.”

This is ridiculous. Presiding Judge Takako Osawa, Judge Yoshimi Yamane, and Judge Ryo Nomoto reached a consensus and decided to have Makoto Taniguchi, then head of the Fukuoka branch of Kyodo News, appear in court for the examination of a witness on September 26.

The focus on the “apology to the Nagasaki Shimbun on November 10, 2022”

On July 2, 2025, the witness examination began in Courtroom 611 of the Tokyo District Court.

The gallery was full. The spotlight was on Kyodo News’ Executive Director, Egashira, who appeared as a witness. Egashira was the one who canceled Ishikawa’s permission to write outside the company and removed him from his reporter position. He was promoted within the company since he was the director general of the General Affairs Bureau at the time.

The witness examination of Egashira proceeded in the following order: Kyodo News’　attorney, Ishikawa’s attorney, and the judge.

The focus was on the events that occurred on November 10, 2022.

On this day, Makoto Taniguchi, head of the Fukuoka branch of Kyodo News, visited the Nagasaki Shimbun and apologized. This was the day after the publication of “The Sanctuary of Bullying.”

This incident demonstrates the importance of Kyodo News’s trusting relationship with the Nagasaki Shimbun. Kyodo News regarded Ishikawa as a negative presence because he damaged the relationship between the two companies.

However, for Ishikawa, the fact that Kyodo News apologized to the Nagasaki Shimbun the day after the book’s release has a completely different significance. It appears that measures such as the revocation of the publication consent were a “predetermined conclusion” from the beginning. As proof, Kyodo News did not question Ishikawa at all prior to apologizing to the Nagasaki Shimbun.

Egashira: “I apologize because we damaged its reputation”

Attorney Katsunori Fujita represents Kyodo News. When asked to explain the circumstances surrounding the apology to the Nagasaki Shimbun on November 10, 2022, Egashira responded as follows:

・Ichiro Masamura, the branch chief of the Chiba branch to which Ishikawa belonged, became “concerned” and purchased the book on November 9.

 

・The branch chief, Masumura, reported to the Tokyo office, which oversees the Chiba branch and to the legal department at the headquarters that “this may have a problem.” The details were also reported to Egashira.

 

・Egashira then received a copy of Chapter 11 of the book, which contains criticism of the Nagasaki Shimbun, and “read through” it.

 

・Kyodo News then reported the “fact of publication” to the Nagasaki Shimbun through the Nagasaki branch office.

 

・After discussions within the headquarters, it was decided that Makoto Taniguchi, head of the Fukuoka branch, which has jurisdiction over Nagasaki Prefecture, would visit the Nagasaki Shimbun on the following day, the 10th, and apologize to the Nagasaki Shimbun on behalf of Kyodo News.

When attorney Fujita asked about the content of the apology, Egashira replied:

“We apologized for the fact that a Kyodo News reporter used language that damaged the reputation of the Nagasaki Shimbun, and for causing damage to the relationship of trust between Kyodo News and the Nagasaki Shimbun.”

Changing his claim in less than 10 minutes when pressed by the plaintiff’s attorney

Next came the turn of Ishikawa’s attorney, Yoichi Kitamura. Pressed by Kitamura, Egashira begins to lose his way.

Attorney Kitamura kicks off with a first question.

“Please tell me again what Kyodo News apologized for to the Nagasaki Shimbun.”

Egashira answers.

“We apologized for damaging the relationship of trust between Kyodo News and the Nagasaki Shimbun.”

In contrast to his response to Kyodo News attorney Fujita, this explanation omits an essential aspect. In response to attorney Fujita, he stated that Kyodo News instructed Taniguchi to apologize not only for “damaging the relationship of trust between Kyodo News and the Nagasaki Shimbun,” but also for “the Kyodo News reporter’s use of language that damaged the reputation of the Nagasaki Shimbun.”

Attorney Kitamura presses him on.

“Does that mean no other apologies have been made?”

Egashira said, “Other than the instructions from headquarters, I don’t know the details of what the head of the Fukuoka branch decided to communicate at that time.”

However, this is a cover up. He has stated to Kyodo News’ attorney Fujita that Kyodo News has also apologized for the defamation.

Attorney Kitamura rephrases the question.

“Did you tell the Nagasaki Shimbun that you were sorry that Mr. Ishikawa’s book is defamatory towards the Nagasaki Shimbun or its reporters?”

Egashira: “I don’t know”

Attorney Kitamura: “Is there any fact that an apology was made for the defamation?”

Egashira: “I don’t know”

Attorney Kitamura: “Didn’t you say that during the direct examination?”

Just under 10 minutes after the direct examination by Kyodo News’ attorney Fujita, Egashira changed his testimony, saying, “I don’t know about defamation.”

Attorney Kitamura continues to press him.

“When you say ‘I don’t know,’ do you mean that the Fukuoka branch chief or Nagasaki branch chief may have spoken on their own accord?”

Egashira: “No, I don’t know about that either.”

Did the Nagasaki Shimbun bring up the issue of defamation then? Attorney Kitamura asks.

“Have any reporters from the Nagasaki Shimbun made any requests to Kyodo News to restore the reputation of the Nagasaki Shimbun?”

Egashira: “I don’t know if there was a request for the restoration of reputation on November 10.”

However, on November 14, four days after the apology to the Nagasaki Shimbun, Kyodo News’ legal department chief, Shuhei Masunaga, interviewed Ishikawa. During the interview, Masunaga stated that Ishikawa’s book had defamed the Nagasaki Shimbun. Tansa also obtained and reported on the audio recording of the interview. When Kitamura pressed him on this point, Egashira responded as follows:

“I don’t remember at this moment.”

Speechless

In response to questions from attorney Kitamura, Egashira continues to say, “I don’t remember” and “I don’t know.”

“Did the Nagasaki Shimbun ask Kyodo News why they allowed the book to be published?”

After 10 seconds of silence, Egashira answered.

“I don’t remember at this moment if they asked us such a thing.”

Attorney Kitamura: “Did the Nagasaki Shimbun have any questions or requests to Kyodo News that they asked Bungeishunju to halt publication?”

Egashira: “Bungeishunju is the publisher, so there may have been some discussion about Bungeishunju, but I don’t know if there was any mention of whether or not we should seek an injunction to halt publication.”

Egashira is the executive director of Kyodo News, and as director general of the General Affairs Bureau, he made the decision to take measures against Ishikawa. Didn’t he prepare for the witness examination by verifying the facts? Kitamura raised the question on everyone’s mind.

“Kyodo News has submitted evidence in this trial detailing the nature of the exchanges that took place. Have you not read it?”

Egashira: “I’ve read it before, but I don’t remember what it said now.”

There was laughter from the audience.

Egashira tried to get through the situation by saying, “I don’t remember,” and “I don’t know.” There were also moments when he was left speechless.

Regarding the passage in Chapter 11 of “The Sanctuary of Bullying,” which criticizes the Nagasaki Shimbun, attorney Kitamura asked, “Are there any parts that you feel contain factual errors?”

Egashira glanced at the defendant’s attorneys, but both looked down. After more than 30 seconds, Egashira finally spoke.

“We haven’t checked everything to see if the facts were incorrect, but if that’s what Mr. Ishikawa wrote, then I think that’s the truth, and I don’t know at this point whether it’s a factual error or not.”

It doesn’t make any sense. Attorney Kitamura asked again, “Have you acknowledged a factual error?”

The response he received was, “I don’t know at this point whether there was a factual error or not.” This suggests Kyodo News apologized to the Nagasaki Shimbun and revoked its consent to Ishikawa’s publication without even knowing whether there was a factual error.

The Judge’s question

At the end, Presiding Judge Osawa asked Egashira questions. Her interest was also in the “apology on November 10.”

“Regarding the visit of the Fukuoka branch chief to the Nagasaki Shimbun on November 10, 2022, I understand that the headquarters instructed the Fukuoka branch chief to apologize, but specifically how was that order given?”

Egashira answers.

“I discussed this with the headquarters beforehand and contacted the branch manager to tell him what to say when he meets with the Nagasaki Shimbun. I also told him that I wanted him to apologize, as I mentioned earlier during the direct examination.”

The direct examination referred to questions posed by Kyodo News’ attorney, Fujita. During this time, Egashira said he apologized for two things: “The Kyodo News reporter’s use of language that damaged the reputation of the Nagasaki Shimbun,” and “causing damage to the relationship of trust between Kyodo News and the Nagasaki Shimbun.”

However, when questioned by attorney Kitamura, representing Ishikawa, he changed his testimony, saying he didn’t know whether he had apologized for damaging its reputation. He changed his testimony again when questioned by presiding Judge Osawa.

Presiding Judge Osawa continues.

“During that time, did you have a policy for dealing with the situation, such as what to do if the Nagasaki Shimbun made certain requests?”

Egashira: “No, we hadn’t really discussed it at the headquarters at that point.”

Presiding Judge Osawa: “Was there any mention of Mr. Ishikawa as an individual?”

Egashira: “I’m sorry, but I can’t recall at this time whether or not anything was said about Mr. Ishikawa as an individual during the meeting on November 10. But Mr. Ishikawa had previously worked at the Nagasaki branch office, so I’m sure the Nagasaki Shimbun was aware of Ishikawa.”

Presiding Judge Osawa asked again, “Having said that, are you aware of any mention of him?” Yet, Egashira was unable to recall the details.

“I’m sorry, but I can’t recall at this time what was said during the meeting on November 10.”

Quickly leaving the courtroom

After Egashira’s witness examination was over, the court took a break, after which it resumed with Ishikawa’s witness examination.

Nonetheless, Egashira did not stay until the end and tried to leave the court. Tansa editor-in-chief Makoto Watanabe followed Egashira.

When Watanabe handed over his business card and introduced himself, Egashira stopped and said, “Ah.” The following is the exchange:

Watanabe: “I’d like to interview you.”

Egashira: “I’m in a different position now.”

Watanabe: “You’re here as a witness, though. You were involved in the incident at the time. We haven’t heard Kyodo News’ side of the story, despite our requests for interviews with both the president and Mr. Egashira. We want to hear Kyodo News’ perspective properly, so we’d like to interview you in person.”

Egashira: “I would take your request, but the trial is still in progress.”

Watanabe: “So what about after the trial is over?”

Egashira: “It’s just a hypothetical question, so I can’t answer right now, but if you let me know at that point, I’ll consider it.”

Watanabe: “So when the trial is over…”

Egashira: “I can’t make any promises though.”

Watanabe: “Has this been explained to the board of directors, which is made up of Kyodo News member companies?”

Egashira: “I can’t answer that question.”

Watanabe: “You haven’t contacted them at all?”

Egashira: “No, I can’t answer that question in the first place.”

Watanabe: “How was it today? There were quite a few questions you were asked during the witness examination that you were unable to answer.”

Egashira: “Again, the trial is still in progress.”

Watanabe: “Please let me interview you again then. “

Why is this exchange important? Kyodo News is concerned that Ishikawa criticized the Nagasaki Shimbun without actually interviewing the newspaper. They claim that he “does not meet the standards of a Kyodo News reporter.”

Ishikawa’s criticism of the Nagasaki Shimbun was based on facts and was within the bounds of commentary. There is no reason to take issue with it.

Nonetheless, if Kyodo News requires interviews with those it criticizes, it should also be interviewed by Tansa, which criticizes Kyodo News. This is a complete double standard.

Next hearing: September 26, 2025, 10:30 a.m., Tokyo District Court

Ishikawa’s testimony during witness examination was consistent with what Tansa has reported in this series. Kyodo News’ attorney, Fujita, was unable to refute Ishikawa’s testimony and was at a loss. When Ishikawa asked him a question in return, “What do you want to ask me?”, the audience erupted in laughter, just as they had during Egashira’s testimony.

After the examinations of Egashira and Ishikawa were finished, Presiding Judge Osawa moved to another room to deliberate with the other two judges.

This is to consider having Makoto Taniguchi, then head of the Fukuoka branch of Kyodo News, appear in court as a witness, as requested by Ishikawa’s side.

After about six minutes of deliberation, Presiding Judge Osawa returned to the courtroom and said the following.

“Regarding the request for witness examination of Mr. Taniguchi, I had intended to make a decision after listening to Mr. Egashira’s examination. Since it seems that Mr. Egashira does not know the details of the situation when he met with the Nagasaki Shimbun, I will accept his request.”

The court did not overlook the negligence of Egashira’s testimony, as he tried to get away with it by saying “I don’t remember” and “I don’t know.”

The next hearing is scheduled for Friday, September 26, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 611 of the Tokyo District Court. Taniguchi, the then head of the Fukuoka branch of Kyodo News, will appear as a witness.

[Reporter’s postscript] It is Kyodo News that is defaming the Nagasaki Shimbun / Reporter Nanami Nakagawa

The Nagasaki Shimbun was outraged by Yoichi Ishikawa’s book “The Sanctuary of Bullying.” Kyodo News is only attempting to quell that rage.

Even as the trial began, the Nagasaki Shimbun maintained silence. They appear to be overconfident in Kyodo News’ ability to defend them.

However, Kyodo News has ironically ended up denigrating the Nagasaki Shimbun in its efforts to protect them.

What does this mean?

Kyodo News’s most important strategy is to draw attention to flaws inIshikawa’s reporting. It criticizes Ishikawa for failing to solicit comment from the Nagasaki Shimbun before publishing the book. This is a totally irrelevant claim. Fact-based commentary is acceptable, and something Kyodo News does regularly.

Attorney Yoichi Kitamura, representing Ishikawa, listed examples of Kyodo News criticizing politicians, celebrities, and Russian state-run television, and questioned why Kyodo News did not interview those targeted for criticism to learn their perspectives.

Kyodo News’ Takehiko Egashira’s answer was, “Because as a public figure, they are always subject to criticism.” This is a reasonable claim.

However, if that were the case, the Nagasaki Shimbun, whose opinion needed to be sought, would not be considered a public figure.

This is strange.

The press is an entity with privileges that are granted by society. It can participate in press conferences that are closed to the public, and criticize its targets and share its findings to society at large. Even in court, journalists have the right to refuse to testify in order to protect the confidentiality of their sources. The press is the most public of public figures, and it must continuously be subjected to public scrutiny to ensure that it exercises these rights.

To consider Nagasaki Shimbun not a public figure is tantamount to Egashira saying that the Nagasaki Shimbun is not a news organization. It is Kyodo News that is defaming the Nagasaki Shimbun.

However, I also think that “the Nagasaki Shimbun may not be a news organization.”

A legitimate news organization would fulfil its duty by addressing the regret of the high school junior who committed suicide due to bullying, and the feelings of his bereaved family, who are still in pain. It would not take advantage of its membership status to exert pressure on Kyodo News behind closed doors.

(Originally published in Japanese on September 5, 2025. Translation by Mana Shibata.)

Adults in the Student Suicide Case ~Media Edition~: All articles