Special Roundtable Discussion: Thinking about "COVID-19 Reporting"—The Role of Media in a Risk Society

Regarding the "COVID crisis," there are many things that make me think about media reporting. Reports from so-called traditional mass media, such as television and newspapers, and posts from social media, such as SNS, are influencing people in an intertwined manner. In particular, since the news this time has been entirely focused on "COVID reporting," I have the impression that television is making a comeback, for better or for worse. Therefore, today I would like to discuss COVID reporting with all of you.

Mr. Karasudani, you were in the United States until mid-March and returned to Japan just in the nick of time, didn't you?

Yes. In early March, almost no one was wearing a mask even in Manhattan. From the perspective of the United States, COVID was still a distant event in Asia at that time, and I think there was almost no awareness of it as their own problem.

Was that the case with media reporting as well?

It was being reported in the news, but the reaction of general society still felt very much like someone else's business, and there was a huge gap. The atmosphere of society clearly began to change around mid-March. When I said I was returning to Japan in early March, I was looked at as if I were going to a battlefield, with people saying I shouldn't go back because the U.S. was safer.

After I returned to Japan, in early April, a famous news anchor named Chris Cuomo from CNN became infected with the new coronavirus. He is the brother of Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York State. Chris Cuomo, who has the image of a typical American tough guy, desperately reported on his own condition from home while infected with the virus. He spoke in frank words about how high the fever gets and how painful it is when you actually catch COVID.

I think a journalist's job is basically to report on world problems from a non-involved party's perspective, but after catching COVID, he appealed to the American people from his home about the pain, saying that everyone should know through the words of someone directly involved. That scene left a very strong impression on me.

In a way, he became a role model rather than just a reporter, conveying in his own words that this problem must be taken seriously.

So that report became a turning point.

I don't think I can go so far as to say that, but it was symbolic.

In Japan, everyone was very shocked by the death of Ken Shimura (March 29). In other words, I think many people changed their perception because a famous person they felt close to suddenly passed away. In the United States, it was impressive that a news anchor created one such turning point.

Next, Mr. Lee, please tell us about the situation in South Korea.

In South Korea, there was an explosive increase in infections in mid-February, earlier than in Japan. Initially, the government was strongly criticized by conservative newspapers such as the Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo, and Dong-A Ilbo for why they weren't restricting entry from China.

At first, the infection spread explosively among followers of a new religious movement called the "Shincheonji Church of Jesus" in Daegu. For a while, I was worried about what would happen, but several measures taken by the government proved effective, and they managed to calm the situation down.

What I felt strongly looking at the South Korean media reporting on the series of events was that they were developing ethnocentric and nationalistic reporting. First, what was impressive was that, like Japan, they sent charter flights to bring their citizens back from Wuhan, China, where the infection was rampant.

Mr. Karasudani said he was seen as if he were going to a battlefield, but conversely, images were broadcast showing planes landing late at night as if rescuing hostages from a battlefield and returning, creating an image to demonstrate the country's power, which was very striking.

In addition, it was frequently reported that, for example, masks could still be bought in Korea, and that compared to other countries, there were fewer deaths and the measures were being handled very well. Eventually, they even went as far as creating the term "K-Quarantine" to brand it, and I think the reporting was done within a very nationalistic frame.

Countries that had been seen as advanced Western nations all failed in their quarantine efforts, and the respect for advanced nations that had been held until then collapsed all at once. Then, reporting was done in a way that suggested we are superior to advanced nations and have overtaken them, which is something I am very concerned about.

Mr. Yamakoshi, could you speak by comparing the stories of these two with Japan?

In Japan, at first, situations of mass infections, medical collapse, and lockdowns overseas—starting with China, then South Korea, Europe, and the United States—were reported in a very impactful way. On the other hand, criticism was frequently voiced, mainly on TV and the internet, about why Japan wasn't doing mass PCR testing when Taiwan and South Korea were. Then, in late March, narratives that seemed to incite fear were frequently seen on the internet, such as saying that Tokyo in two weeks would be in the same infection situation as New York is now.

Also in Japan, when the Diamond Princess arrived in February, the "frontline" was visualized in a way. Everyone was following those "frontlines," such as the charter flights (from Jan 29) and the cruise ship (Feb 3), but when it came to the government's request for simultaneous nationwide school closures (Feb 27), I think people lost track of where the frontline was.

No matter where you reported, everything ended up being news related to COVID, and I have the impression that the reporting methods and ways of presenting COVID news were also in a state of trial and error.

That's true. For example, during the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995, highways collapsed, and during 9/11 in 2001, the World Trade Center buildings collapsed. Then, during the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011, there were tsunamis and the nuclear power plant accident. In other words, the frontline was directly conveyed through television images.

However, since the new coronavirus is an infectious disease, the opponent is completely invisible despite calling it an enemy or a war. Therefore, in the end, the same images related to people's movements are used repeatedly, and reporters rush to the same reporting sites. When it comes to how to report on something invisible like a virus, I have the impression that a method was taken to find and report on similar places or people affected by it anyway. What are your thoughts on that point?

Even in TV news, colorized electron microscope photos of the coronavirus are always used. Ultimately, since there are no impressive "pictures" to be found through reporting, they probably have no choice but to use those images.

Also, what I find very characteristic of the reporting this time is the counting of the number of infected people and deaths. Every day, they count how many people were infected and how many died in which country today, and how many tests were conducted, and show that along with graphs. I thought that the means of visualization might be limited to such things.

Until now, journalism must have had a dilemma on one hand about whether it is okay to convey victims and casualties only in numbers.

Even though it's a matter of individual lives, they harbored a fear, at least in their minds, that processing it only with numbers would make individual lives and faces invisible. However, this time, it is being done as if it were a matter of course.

Isn't one reason the numbers are being highlighted because there are too many things we don't know about this COVID problem?

In particular, why is there such a huge difference in the number of deaths per population between Japan/South Korea and the West, even though they are both advanced nations? Prime Minister Abe said the Japan model was wonderful, but the mystery of this difference in death tolls has not been solved at all.

Researchers are putting out various hypotheses now. Hypotheses such as the virus type mutating and increasing in toxicity as it went from Asia to Europe and America, or differences in genetic types, are coming out, but the truth is unknown. In the face of the mystery shown by these numbers, I think journalists need to be more humble. Especially television and such.

It was the same during the reporting of the Minamata disease incident and the 3/11 nuclear accident, but the question is how journalism can appropriately convey such scientific issues. People with highly specialized information and knowledge form a kind of intellectual community. Reporters work hard to interview those people, but it is always difficult to bridge the gap.

When it comes to how to process and understand numerical values, they can only present them in a way that simply lists several options as they are, or aligns expert opinions in parallel. I think science journalism has that kind of frustration.

A major difference between the Minamata disease reporting mentioned by Professor Oishi and this case is that in the case of Minamata disease, it was highly criminal in the sense that some experts knew the cause but were hiding it.

However, this time, even if scientists around the world gather their wisdom, the mystery cannot be solved. So everyone has to work together to solve the puzzle anyway. So-called science journalism basically thinks with the awareness of how to teach expert opinions to laypeople in an easy-to-understand way, but this time, even the experts don't know yet.

When that happens, the behavior general citizens take is to choose their preferred "god," that is, a person who provides expert discourse that fits their feelings, build a community around that discourse, and engage in very intense battles with people who have opposing ideas.

I think that in a situation where hypotheses are lined up and none are decisive, if one doesn't speak with a firm awareness that their own convictions, anger, and sense of justice are also resting on very precarious hypotheses, the way of speaking and conveying things will become very dogmatic and self-righteous.

Does the difficulty of dealing with an opponent that is actually invisible, like a virus, manifest in these aspects as well?

An expression that remains in my memory from Japanese reporting is "fearing correctly." At first, I thought this might have been intended to prevent too much fuss because there was a possibility that the Tokyo Olympics would be postponed, but I also thought it was a very good slogan.

But to "fear correctly," you must have correct information and correct knowledge. Regarding the new coronavirus, at first, there was information that the possibility of human-to-human transmission was low, and there was also talk that masks were actually ineffective. Before we knew it, it became that masks are effective, and we don't know what the correct information is. So in such times, exercising maximum caution is rational as a survival strategy.

From that point of view, I also think that conveying a nuance that slightly relaxes caution, like "let's fear correctly" in a situation where things aren't very clear, might not have been a good thing.

Certainly, as a method of infection prevention, nothing comes out except repeatedly encouraging the lowest common denominators like "avoiding the 3Cs," "washing hands," and "wearing masks." It can be said that we have been going on without seeing what constitutes proper, accurate information beyond that.

I think this becomes a matter of science communication rather than science journalism, but expert meetings and such are actively sending out information like "reduce contact by 80%." However, it is true that it was difficult to understand because the messages seemed to differ depending on the period, including discussions on whether the number of PCR tests was appropriate or too low.

However, watching a program on "NHK Special" aired in April that closely followed the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's cluster task force, I was able to understand that measures change for each phase. I understood well that the expert meetings and task forces were thinking carefully, developing strategies, and acting with a certain kind of logic.

However, that is only conveyed through limited channels, such as "NHK Special" or interview articles with Professor Hiroshi Nishiura by "BuzzFeed," and the information is not shared with many people. On wide shows (daytime talk shows), the discussion about why PCR testing isn't being increased continues indefinitely. I thought there was a divergence there.

The experts in charge of measures are desperately communicating the logic of doing what can be done very pragmatically, but that is not sufficiently conveyed in the form of news. I think there is also a problem on the side of those doing the reporting. They only cut out easy-to-understand numbers. If they only cut out parts like "400,000 people will die if this continues" or "reduce by 80%," there are parts where the scientific message is not conveyed well.

On the other hand, the experts also seem to think that if they speak in front of the press, it will be 100% conveyed to the recipients, and I think there was an aspect where a strategy for what kind of communication is appropriate when news is being created was lacking.

I have the impression that there was that unfortunate gap in perception.

Regarding the declaration of a state of emergency, there was also a controversy that it should be lifted early because the losses and sacrifices due to the economic crisis would be greater, or no, the lifting should be postponed to prevent the spread of infection. The question of to what extent the knowledge and opinions of experts and policies that move while keeping an eye on reporting and public opinion are moving with relevance continues to persist.

Also, in this COVID reporting, there is agreement on the point of wanting this infection to move toward convergence quickly, but the paths toward that goal are too diverse. On top of that, on TV wide shows, overnight experts sometimes speak out aggressively, and there is currently a kind of chaotic situation.

I feel that the situation in Japan is quite chaotic, but Mr. Lee, how is it in South Korea?

In South Korea, the entity for risk communication is clear. The head of the Central Disaster and Safety Countermeasures Headquarters holds a press conference at a fixed time almost every day, and all official information is provided from there. Since the entity is clear like this, I think misinformation and miscommunication are considerably reduced.

In contrast, in the case of Japan, at first, Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare Katsunobu Kato was doing it, and then it changed to Yasutoshi Nishimura, the Minister of State for Economic and Fiscal Policy, taking the lead while also serving as the Minister in charge of COVID-19 measures. Furthermore, reporting continues in a way that highlights the heads of local governments. Governor Naomichi Suzuki of Hokkaido, Governor Yuriko Koike of Tokyo, and Governor Hirofumi Yoshimura of Osaka are becoming like stars. In contrast, they are being compared to what the government is doing.

So the sources of information and the entities for risk communication are quite dispersed, and it gave a somewhat confusing impression.

What I think in relation to that is Prime Minister Abe's message; I think the leader could come forward a bit more in a crisis situation. Even at press conferences, he leaves after only having pre-established interactions in a very short time.

As you know, in the first Abe administration, Mr. Abe tried hard to increase his approval rating by imitating Mr. Koizumi's media strategy and increasing media exposure, but he failed. So, when it became the second Abe administration, there was a history of creating a very thorough and cautious strategy toward the media, and in some cases, building a strategy in a way that divided the media. In other words, he is very cautious toward the media.

I understand that policy, but in a crisis like this, he must come to the forefront as a leader and send out messages more firmly, and I strongly thought that the media people, the so-called press club, could also actively engage in Q&A regarding the Prime Minister's conferences and put a bit more pressure on him.

That is exactly right, but to dare to defend Mr. Abe, for example, a full-scale lockdown is impossible under current laws. Then, as is often said, there is no choice but to encourage self-restraint through a kind of peer pressure.

On the other hand, when the state issues a strong and clear message, it is said that the way to deal with the new coronavirus should be different depending on the actual situation of each region. Then, the argument that there is no choice but to entrust the specific measures and decisions of policy to local governments makes some sense.

Therefore, it can be said that the "hands-off" stance of not hammering out clear policies by Mr. Abe and others overlapped well with the decentralized stance of entrusting decisions to local governments, leading to the weakness of the message as Mr. Karasudani mentioned.

As a result, the heads of local governments stand out excessively and appear reliable, receiving a kind of star treatment. On the other hand, those heads also seem to welcome the increased exposure. The presence of the heads and the strength of the messages they emit have become prominent. But I think a sense of caution against that has also begun to emerge among general citizens.

There was criticism about why the "state of emergency" wasn't declared sooner, wasn't there? And why strong measures like those in South Korea and Taiwan couldn't be taken. I think one characteristic this time is that we found out that in such a crisis, there are many people, regardless of their political stance, who seek a kind of authoritarian situation or a situation where people's behavior is monitored.

Also, compared to other countries, Japan as a nation was restrained, or rather, it was passing the buck, implicitly sending a message to "judge for yourselves while reading the room." Instead of taking responsibility, the state does not try to come to the front. So I feel there is an aspect where the media cannot well create a target for criticism or a standpoint.

Regarding self-restraint, everyone is talking about peer pressure, and a mechanism where everyone gets caught up in that vortex was working, which was very interesting.

Hearing the current discussion, I think the next keyword is "public opinion." While politicians are concerned about public opinion, they make policy decisions referring to the opinions of expert meetings. However, on the other hand, they say that everyone's cooperation is definitely necessary. Movements in public opinion, including approval ratings, have become very prominent.

What are your thoughts on public opinion on social media and public opinion created by mass media?

In the case of South Korea, there was a general election recently and the ruling party won by a landslide. That is completely linked to the COVID-19 measures.

Until a few months before that, the number of infected people increased explosively, and the approval rating was falling steadily because of why entry from China wasn't restricted. However, just before the general election, the number of infected people was suppressed, the results of the quarantine measures came out, and that completely led to the election results and a landslide victory.

In South Korea, too, the spread of COVID infection was initially used for government criticism. In the United States, too, CNN and others use COVID measures as a kind of most important material for Trump-bashing. In Japan, too, basically as criticism against the Abe administration, the delay in the initial response of measures, the "Abenomask," and the measures to decide on nationwide closures of elementary, middle, and high schools at a very early stage became the source of government criticism.

Currently, the approval ratings of leaders in Japan and the U.S. are falling steadily, and I think the influence of mass media reporting played a role in creating unfavorable public opinion. Especially when watching TV Asahi's morning information program "Morning Show," they are doing Abe-bashing every morning (laughs).

In recent media studies, a clear distinction is made between "seron" (popular sentiments) and "yoron" (public opinion). Professor Takumi Sato, a media history researcher, advocates that a clear distinction should be made between "yoron," meaning "public opinion (public discourse)," and "seron," meaning "popular sentiments (mass emotions)."

This time, regarding the amendment to the Public Prosecutors Office Act, a large movement of public opinion eventually emerged that changed the political flow. While this was praised as a wonderful achievement where democratic feedback worked, on the other hand, both sides were seen very clearly, such as extreme words and actions symbolized by the term "self-restraint police" appearing on the net, taking excessive actions in conjunction with the anger of wide shows.

Speaking of the dark side of the net, for example, people appeared on Twitter who even used the term "bioterrorism" for a person who took a bus from Yamanashi even though they knew they were positive for the new coronavirus. People seriously called the police saying this is terrorism and why don't they catch that person, and such interactions appeared on the net and gained social attention.

I think there were parts where the atmosphere of the world was dragged along by the voices on the net, which were quite extreme.

I would definitely like to ask Mr. Yamakoshi about this, but until now, terms like echo chambers and filter bubbles have been used, and a tendency was seen where public opinion on the net forms two poles, hardly listening to the other's claims, repeating circulation within their own claims, and creating very rigid public opinion. However, this time, there was an aspect where the net was moving while sharing information from television and such, wasn't there?

Did the way public opinion is created also show differences in a truly critical situation like the new coronavirus?

Personally, I perceive it as being basically on an extension of the past. Public opinion formed within social media is exactly post-truth, formed based on what one wants to believe and what is desirable for oneself. I think there is no big difference in this phenomenon this time either.

For example, regarding the amendment to the Public Prosecutors Office Act, public opinion was not monolithic but rather polarized between pros and cons, and there were movements on social media attacking celebrities, saying "don't speak up when you don't know politics." Even if topics were heating up on social media while quoting various information from TV such as wide shows, they are still cherry-picking based on the frames they believe in. In extreme cases, even if they haven't directly encountered the program or article themselves, they quote and refer to such information and the impressions and interpretations of others flowing on social media.

I think the way of forming public opinion rooted in "clusters" in a different sense from the virus—that is, groups sharing the same opinion—did not change.

However, regarding where to find targets for criticism, I think social media was influenced by wide shows. Going to pachinko parlors, or going to riverbeds where people are having barbecues. I don't know which came first, whether wide shows went to report because social media was spreading such information, or whether it became a topic on social media because wide shows broadcast it, but in the process of coming together while mobilizing those emotions of anger and anxiety, there was a kind of linkage between mass media and social media.

Recently, Twitter in particular has become an ideal place for news gathering. Mass media outlets look at Twitter posts as a clue to gauge trends in public opinion, and they also use it to grasp detailed local events to see where and what kind of problems are occurring.

For many reporters, Twitter is now an essential means of obtaining information. It is also referred to as crowdsourcing, and they use it to collect various types of footage during disasters.

While Twitter's influence has increased significantly, we are also in a situation where information with dubious foundations spreads in an instant. However, we are no longer in an era where reporters can simply dismiss Twitter. Whether it is television or newspapers, an increasing number of people are thinking from the perspective of how to successfully grow social media as an infrastructure to revitalize their own reporting activities.

In this context, there are organizations such as the FactCheck Initiative Japan (FIJ) that attempt to fact-check rumors spreading on Twitter as quickly as possible and return those results to the media world.

For example, as soon as the hosting of the Olympics and Paralympics was postponed, the number of infected people surged. This led to a story spreading widely on Twitter suggesting that testing had been suppressed until then because they wanted to hold the Olympics and Paralympics.

This point can be verified on the FactCheck Initiative page. The Mainichi Shimbun and "BuzzFeed" interviewed those in charge of PCR testing and properly reported and explained that this rumor was false, providing the actual reasons why the number of tests increased at that timing.

Rather than avoiding social media because rumors spread easily, now that it has become such a fundamental infrastructure, I believe the insight of the "old media" side is being questioned in terms of how they can master its use.

Another thing I am concerned about is the reporting from the hospital front lines. At Eiju General Hospital in Taito Ward, a massive cluster of about 180 positive cases occurred, yet nothing was visible from the inside.

Even though the danger of medical collapse was being emphasized so strongly, the specific support for medical care was initially insufficient. In short, the front lines were not visible at all, and I think the media bears some responsibility for this. In overseas reporting, for instance, the dire situation in New York hospitals was shown one after another.

If you have noticed anything regarding the invisible front lines of Japanese medical care, I would like to hear your thoughts.

In preparation for this roundtable, I searched the Asahi Shimbun database for articles using the keywords "hospital" and "front line," and it seems there was indeed not much reporting from the hospital floor. For example, there were articles about the growing sense of crisis as hospital-acquired infections spread at Eiju General Hospital, but it didn't feel like reporting from inside the facility.

Naturally, it is difficult to enter a site where hospital-acquired infections are occurring, but reporters should be more than capable of using methods like gathering supporting testimonies from the periphery. Why didn't they even push that far?

This is also true in war reporting, but is it overthinking to wonder if there is a certain problem in Japanese journalism of not pushing forward, or being unable to push forward?

I haven't been watching Japanese television news that closely, but certainly when watching CNN, for example, the scene of the medical collapse in New York hospitals is shown, and the people working there are speaking out passionately about the critical situation on the medical front. Watching that, there were parts that were hard to look at directly.

Exactly. I received the impression that while there was so much reporting on medical collapses abroad, there was so little in Japan that the gap was striking.

On the program "Hodo Tokushu," anchor Kanahira once reported from a hospital providing intensive care. Access was strictly restricted, and the staff inside were wearing full protective gear, but the story was that medical resources were gradually dwindling and they were reaching their limits.

However, of course, compared to the situations in New York, Italy, or Spain, the footage was not as shocking. In the case of television, the issue of news value—prioritizing the impact of visuals—might be a factor in why on-site reporting in Japan was not prioritized.

As a gesture of gratitude toward medical workers, in Europe and the US—I don't know who originated it—everyone would clap together at 7, 8, or 9 o'clock. In Japan, it ended with the Blue Impulse flight. I felt that it revealed a lack of public interest in the hardships of the medical front, not just in the reporting.

One could say it's just a difference in the awareness of getting inside the scene, but I couldn't help feeling that in the case of Japanese journalism, a certain kind of excessive caution was too strong.

I don't think an active stance toward entering the scene was visible since the time of the cruise ship incident.

That's true. Although it caused quite a stir when Professor Kentaro Iwata of Kobe University went in and posted on YouTube.

Apart from public opinion on SNS like Twitter, I get the impression that article distribution by some so-called online media such as "BuzzFeed" and "HuffPost" was also prominent this time.

Furthermore, the fact that online communication media like Zoom, which serve as the foundation for this, have become commonplace is a major change this time.

I don't think there has ever been a time before where online communication and the IT media that support it have become the core media in every area of life to this extent.

In university education, seminars and classes are currently being conducted remotely using Zoom and other tools, and they play such a decisive role that education could not function without them. Since they have become such core media, I felt that we must ensure a situation where everyone can access and use them, as the term "universal access" once suggested. At Keio, the university covered the cost of rental Wi-Fi for students who didn't have access, but we must guarantee access so that students can take classes regardless of income.

Also, to what extent can we expect security, such as data preservation, from IT companies like Zoom and Google? The truth is, we don't really know. Initially, there were concerns about security because Zoom's servers were in China.

Therefore, I think it may be necessary to demand a certain kind of social and legal responsibility from the various services that have become the online platforms we are forced to rely on in all areas of our lives. I believe their public nature is also being questioned.

To bring it back to the issue of journalism, looking at the world, the economic blow from COVID-19 has caused so-called local newspapers and print media with very fragile management foundations to go bankrupt or lay off reporters one after another.

In the case of the US, the management of community-based print media became difficult after the advent of the internet, and many companies collapsed, leading to what are called "news deserts" in some regions. When local papers disappear and the watchful eyes of journalists who uncover local issues and present social problems to the world are gone, cases have emerged where various problems are simply left unaddressed.

When people with a sense of crisis about needing to fill those news deserts start new news delivery businesses, they have no choice but to do it online where costs are low. In that sense, there has been a continuous trend of online journalism doing the work that print media can no longer do.

Daisuke Furuta, the founding editor-in-chief of "BuzzFeed Japan," was originally with the Asahi Shimbun and is a key figure in online journalism in Japan. From what I heard previously, he said he always checks what kind of news the major newspapers are bringing each morning to set the agenda for Japanese society. Then, he creates news with an awareness of the blind spots of those major papers.

In this way, "BuzzFeed" reporters create and distribute news that reaches the parts that itch for viewers who have doubts while watching mass media news. I think they are trying to demonstrate their uniqueness based on a clear policy.

So it's a role of filling the gaps in existing media, especially newspapers and television news. How does that differ from what weekly magazines like "Shukan Shincho" or "Shukan Bunshun," or in the past, "Asahi Journal," tried to do?

The speed is completely different compared to the era of weekly print magazines. Now that weekly magazine articles are also online, you could say the speed of all media has increased, but I often feel that "BuzzFeed" is quite nimble and agile in its movements.

私も、「ＢｕｚｚＦｅｅｄ」はお気に入りに入れて見るようにはしています。今回のコロナ報道のような専門性のあるものは、自分の取材記事というよりインタビューで引き出すという方法ですよね。他の記事を見ていると、実は発表報道的なものも結構多いように思います。

気になるのは、今は既存メディアでトレーニングを受けた人が、「ハフィントン・ポスト」でも「ＢｕｚｚＦｅｅｄ」でも活躍している。果たしてこれから世代交代が進んだ時に、記者・編集者としてのトレーニングの場があるのだろうか。まだ１人１人の個人の力量に依存しているところが結構あるのかなと。そういう不安がジャーナリズムの組織という面ではぬぐい切れないところがあります。

To be honest, I don't know for sure how media like "BuzzFeed" will develop in the future. However, in the sense that they are covering the niche areas of major newspapers with a sense of speed, I think they are succeeding quite well in delivering news, especially to young people.

I believe they are probably playing a unique role in rooting a culture of news among today's so-called digital native youth.

I see. Well then, Mr. Yamakoshi, please give us the concluding remarks.

Speaking of news culture, with the media environment changing so drastically now, the boundary of what news actually is has become very blurred.

That's why things like tabloid-style talk shows are understood as news by many people. Probably many in the audience perceive information programs and news programs as "news" without distinguishing between them. Furthermore, there is a perception that everything is news, including statements by experts on social media, news created by professional journalists, and public information including government bulletins. On top of that, we have the issue of fake news getting mixed in.

Regarding the issue of fake news, this time we learned that even in Japan, under risk situations like the new coronavirus, incorrect rumors tend to spread on social media. Meanwhile, there is a distrust of news media, and no matter how much they explain that this is information created by professionals, there is a situation where people don't easily take it seriously.

That is precisely why I think there is a role for us educators. Beyond the conventional level of media literacy—such as interpreting information critically or sending out information oneself—I believe it is increasingly required to establish an understanding of what news is.

I have learned a great deal from listening to everyone's stories today. Thank you very much.