How did a question historic great false report answer the Asahi Shimbun of the charity dame instigator?

It is issue of re-criticism "a certain good faith measures" demand charity dame 〉 in President Boku, Japan

I reported a posture of President Boku facing the Japan, the United States and South Korea summit meeting in such an entry by the article dated Asahi Shimbun March 26. The one which I set fire to of this problem seemed to forget to be own.
The Asahi Shimbun was the article dated August 11, 1991, and the issue of charity dame spouted fire by the notice that a heavy mouth touched 〉 and the spreadhead which opened for 〈 former Korean charity dame postwar half a century at a stretch. I work on hearing, and it is written down "an issue of Korean volunteer corps measures meeting" by a cause "Korean charity dame" what was shown to Asahi Shimbun reporter a tape at that time.

I am taken to the battlefield in the name of 〈" girl volunteer corps to mention it later and report contents unlike 〉 and a fact, and it leaves a ruination for international relations up to now. I think, and how does the Asahi Shimbun explain the past wrong news how? This magazine asked making, the company about the question of 11 items this time.
The question faxed in the Asahi Shimbun public relations department on March 11 and found the coverage by the meeting with the person in charge. (* note) placing two opening in the one which it is slightly long, but is important.
Question 1 In the case of 〈 Japan-China War and World War II, I am taken to the battlefield in the name of "girl volunteer corps" by the article dated August 11, 1991, and story 〉 of the 〈 woman who lived as 〉 where one lives among "Korean charity dames" forced to a prostitution act in Seoul City is placed in the Japanese officer partner. Did you inspect whether story 〉 of the ,〈 woman was a fact in a publication as the Asahi Shimbun?
Question ２ It "is sold to the geisha agency of the kisang in Pyongyang at the age of 14 years old by mother, and, in the contents which the study order of former charity dame who testified (by the article of the foregoing paragraph) announced by an interview on August 14, the same year, there is a descent called ...". She is a victim of the human traffic and is not forcible escort. The description "to leave the forcible escort in the battlefield" is against a fact. About this part, do you admit that it was a false report?

The first Question does not accept "testimony", and inspection is a question whether you reported on originally. Make the scandal of the celebrity the corruption imitation of the politician, and it is impossible "to report it as the truth because person A testified in this way". It is common sense of the media to report after checking it whether testimony of A is a fact.
Because there was it, the problem of the quantity could not place all questions, but "I grasped that mother of the wife of the Takashi Uemura reporter who wrote the article was an executive of "Pacific War victim bereaved society" (as for the gold study order one of the members) who woke up compensation suit for Japan" elsewhere or asked whether "you did not think about having been reported that the article of the morning sun worked in favor of suit of the bereaved society with a problem".
Besides, I heard that I placed a remark of Seiji Yoshida who I insisted on "forcible escort" or "a rape" with a book, and testified repeatedly. Yoshida admits that the recollection of own was a thing with creation after 1996, and even the inspection by the researcher knows that "forcible escort" is against a fact. It is a question whether made inspection teams for fact checking whether you recognize the article that placed Yoshida testimony as a false report because it became clear

I sent a question, and, on March 13 two days later, the Asahi Shimbun public relations department had an answer in a document not the coverage by the interview. I place the whole sentence.
〈 does not answer about the coverage of individual articles and the process of the publication not only a matter of asking. It is our basic posture to report the matter that I judged to have to tell a reader through our space or electronic edition. 〉 which I show our thought about various claims of Weekly Post 7 one by one and cannot do
I did not answer an individual question and was the answer of one piece of fax to words such as the government office. Why is each question such an answer to ask news itself unlike a historic fact not a claim of this magazine?
I repeated, "the answer that I sent was all" for dozens of times when I asked the public relations department person in charge it about each question on a telephone. I remained silent for our question for approximately 18 minutes and, in a telephone, might be lost in thought and the exchanges extended more than one hour, but persisted in の "not to answer about coverage and the process of the publication" after all.

I repeated, "the answer that I sent was all" for dozens of times when I asked the public relations department person in charge it about each question on a telephone. I remained silent for our question for approximately 18 minutes and, in a telephone, might be lost in thought and the exchanges extended more than one hour, but persisted in の "not to answer about coverage and the process of the publication" after all.
Because the current spokesman was not engaged in a then article, I cannot but reply it for a government official according to the instructions of the upper echelon, but am not the manner that is going to carry out responsibility as the news media at least.
[* note] I wrote down article content using an honorific with the letter of question in detail again, but it was plain and checked it as far as I did not change the purpose here

[0回]

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30

時代を見通す日本の基礎情報

[PR]

How did a question historic great false report answer the Asahi Shimbun of the charity dame instigator?