What exactly does ‘off the record’ mean in Japan?

One of the most closely followed news stories in Japan this month was the so-called off-the-record nuclear armament remarks made by a senior national security official at the　Prime Minister's Office. While China and North Korea harshly criticized Japan's “resurgence of militarism,” domestic media commentaries in Japan were sharply divided.

First, let's compare the recent editorials of major daily newspapers whose positions diverge significantly. For example, on Dec. 20, the editorial of the most left-leaning newspaper, the Tokyo Shimbun, started off as follows:

A senior government official responsible for national security policy at the Prime Minister's Office told reporters that Japan should possess nuclear weapons. While he claims it is his personal view, mentioning possession of nuclear weapons as the Takaichi administration considers revising the Three Non-Nuclear Principles invites misunderstanding both domestically and internationally that the Japanese government harbors ambitions for nuclear armament. The remarks cannot escape criticism for being reckless.

The liberal Asahi and Mainichi newspapers also editorialized on the matter. On Dec. 23, under the headline Nuclear Possession Arguments: The Prime Minister Must Clearly Deny Them, the Asahi Shimbun wrote:

"While he stated it was his personal view, he is in a position to advise Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on national security policy. This risks Japan being interpreted both domestically and internationally as harboring intentions for future nuclear armament. The Prime Minister herself should issue a clear statement denying nuclear possession."

On Dec. 20, under the headline, Nuclear Possession Remarks from Within the Prime Minister's Office: The Prime Minister's Responsibility for Appointments is Questioned, the Mainichi Shimbun wrote:

"As the only nation to have suffered atomic bombings in war, this statement negates the national ideal of pursuing a 'nuclear-free world.' The Prime Minister should immediately order its retraction and dismiss the official."

In short, the liberal-leaning trio's argument seems to be this: Without mentioning the “off-the-record breach” aspect of the reporting at all, they claim the senior official's “remarks were reckless,” so Prime Minister Takaichi should “deny the remarks” and “fire the official.”

So, what about the conservative papers? Interestingly, not only Sankei, but even the Yomiuri and Nikkei — the three nonliberal papers — have thus far completely ignored this issue in their editorials. How should we interpret this?

My interpretation is this: In Japan, even if there is an agreement about off-the-record remarks, some reporters, considering the content to be serious, will suddenly and without hesitation break the ground rules. Conversely, other reporters will not cover it in articles or editorials unless it is an “on-the-record statement.” If so, which approach represents true journalism?

What exactly is off the record, in the first place? Commonly, it means a clear prior agreement with the press, stipulating that one’s remarks will not be published at all. Generally, there are four categories for how remarks may be reported: on the record (quotable by name), on background (title only), deep background (cannot be quoted, background explanation only) and off the record (prohibited from publication). Off the record imposes the strictest restriction on reporters.

With an off-the-record agreement, Western journalists would not report anything about the remarks. At least, in my more than 40 years of experience being interviewed and covered by many Western journalists, this promise has fortunately never been broken. This is what I understand to be the professional approach to reporting by journalists.
But this is not always the case in Japan. The Japanese term ofureko is ambiguous and rarely constitutes a strict agreement. There is often a vague distinction between the four categories mentioned earlier, and a significant portion relies on tacit understanding.

On this point, I personally learned a bitter lesson. While I cannot go into details, during my diplomatic career, I once made an off-the-record statement to reporters. Then one reporter from a certain newspaper suddenly declared that it could not be treated as off the record anymore. To make matters worse, many other reporters seemed ready to follow suit, putting me in a situation where I literally faced a dire predicament. The reason given then, just like in this recent incident, was because the content was problematic.

Of course, off-the-record breaches aren't entirely unheard of in the West either. However, justifying such breaches by the reporting side seems to be limited to cases like discriminatory remarks that significantly harm the public interest, instances where the interviewee lied or when the interviewee unilaterally declared something off-the-record without mutual agreement.

So, do the remarks by the senior official at the Prime Minister's Office in the Takaichi Cabinet actually justify breaking the off-the-record agreement?

I don't think so, although I disagree with the senior official. While the remarks are criticized as a major violation of the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, even the Tokyo Shimbun noted that the official stated “nuclear weapons are not readily obtainable” and that “maintaining the U.S. nuclear deterrence regime is more realistic.” Therefore, it cannot be said that Japan's national interests were significantly harmed.

Some Japanese commentators voiced criticism that persons incapable of imagining how their remarks might be taken advantage of should not be placed in the Prime Minister's inner circle. But wait. Going so far as to say that this official “should be dismissed” is tantamount to demanding no policy discussions within the Japanese government whatsoever. I believe such criticism is actually unhealthy for Japan’s democracy. Of course, at the end of the day, it is only natural that a political appointee should bear the necessary political responsibility.

Given this perspective, my conclusion is clear: Off the record should be a tool for protecting sources, not a tool for maintaining cozy relations with those in power. I sincerely hope more Japanese journalists will become mature professionals who adhere to proper ground rules.

Viewed in this light, the discernment shown by the three nonliberal newspapers that did not address this issue in their editorials deserves high praise.