The master's intention is more important than the authenticity of a story.

The following is from Masayuki Takayama's serial column, which brings the weekly Shincho released today to a successful conclusion.
This article also proves that he is the one and only journalist in the postwar world.
A long time ago, an elderly female professor of the Royal Ballet School of Monaco, highly respected by prima ballerinas worldwide, visited Japan.
At that time, she spoke about the significance of an artist's existence.
She said, "Artists are important because they are the only ones who can shed light on hidden, concealed truths and express them."
No one would dispute her words.
It is no exaggeration to say that Masayuki Takayama is not only the one and only journalist in the postwar world but also the one and only artist in the postwar world.
On the other hand, Ōe, I don't want to speak ill of the deceased, but (to follow Masayuki Takayama's example below), Murakami and many others who call themselves writers or think of themselves as artists are not even worthy of the name of artists.
They have only expressed the lies the Asahi Shimbun and others created rather than shedding light on hidden truths and telling them.
Their existence is not limited to Japan but is the same in other countries worldwide.
In other words, there are only a few true artists.
This paper is another excellent proof that I am right when I say that no one in the world today deserves the Nobel Prize in Literature more than Masayuki Takayama.
It is a must-read not only for the people of Japan but for people all over the world.
It is a must-read not only for the Japanese people but for people worldwide.

Follow Yuko's example.
Loyal dog Hachiko waited for his master, who never returned.
In contrast, the Asahi Shimbun is the type that quickly gives up on its master and runs to another master.　
After the war, they gave up on the Emperor and ran to GHQ.　
Kyoto was a candidate site for the atomic bombing, and to accurately measure the power of the bomb, they had Kyoto refrain from air raids.　
As a result, it remained unharmed.
GHQ found out that the Japanese people were happy about the lucky situation.　
So, they had the tail-wagging Asahi newspaper write a plausible lie that the air raids were stopped because of Professor Langdon Warner's opinion.　
Hosokawa Morihiro's father, Morisada, thought the article was true and erected a monument to thank the US.　
After GHQ left, Asahi looked for another master, and Seiki Watanabe chose the Soviet Union, while Tomoo Hirooka chose Mao Zedong as his new master.　
The editorial bureau after that served two masters.　
One day, Beijing told me, "Liang Sicheng protected Kyoto from air raids."　
He was the son of Liang Qichao, whom Japan had taken care of in the past, but he had no such influence.　
It is an outright lie, but it is the word of the master.
The Asahi wrote, "Liang Sicheng saved Kyoto."
How could they have written that?　
The master's intention is more important than the authenticity of a story.
Therefore, they wrote any lie as long as it pleased China and Russia.　
Hirooka then had Honda Katsuichi write "Travels in China," which had no shred of truth.
Not to be outdone, Seiki Watanabe did the same, saying, "The textbook examination rewrote the invasion as an advance."
It was a lie, but China was pleased.　
He also wrote, "The Nanking Massacre was carried out by the Miyakonojo Regiment," and added, "This is the poison gas operation in China and China," accompanied by a picture of smoke billowing in the air.　
However, a person related to the Miyakonojo Regiment pointed out the error in the Nanjing article.
The Sankei Shimbun also identified the source of the poison gas photo and proved that the smoke cloud was a smoke screen.
Watanabe resigned, and the public demanded that Asahi report the truth rather than the wishes of Beijing and Moscow.　
But there was no reflection on the reporter who was not in the habit of writing the truth.　
During the next era of Toichiro Ichiyanagi, a cameraman wrote graffiti on coral in Iriomote, which was used as the basis for a self-deprecating story, "Japanese are not ashamed of writing graffiti" (Kenichi Furuhata).
Ichiyanagi was fired.　
Two generations later, during the Shinichi Hakoshima era, the reporters did not stop lying.
Sogabe, the Political Department desk, fabricated a fictitious meeting between Yasuo Tanaka and Shizuka Kamei.
When Hakoshima took responsibility and was replaced by Kotaro Akiyama, around the same time, Masakazu Honda's story that "Shinzo Abe had NHK alter its programs" was published.　
NHK Asahi and Kyodo are self-identified as one of the Red Three Crows.
If they share the same taste for self-flagellation, they also share the same dislike of Abe.　
They would be able to work together.　
But Honda's article was too lousy.
NHK even sent Akiyama an open letter of inquiry, saying, "Asahi's report is false."　
If the story about cutting off the political life of a political prince were a lie, Akiyama's head would not be enough.
It could even cause Asahi to cease publication.　
Akiyama considered it and decided to "let a third-party committee summarize the situation.　
Asahi would immediately discontinue publication if it were a proper third party because of its repeated malicious lies.　
Akiyama, therefore, included Uichiro Niwa of Itochu Corporation, Yasuo Hasebe, a constitutional law scholar, and Kyodo News, all of whom were close relatives of Akiyama.
They waited until the public had forgotten about it and concluded that there had been a lack of coverage.
It could be read as saying that the article was correct, but the coverage was insufficient.　
That is why they did not demand an apology or correction from Asahi.　
If you leave it to a third-party committee, they will acquit you of anything.　
Having found a clever method, Asahi did the same with the comfort women issue, which they had been taunting the Japanese people with for 30 years.　
The conclusion was a blur. No apology or correction was made.　
Asahi arrogantly brought up the electric drill incident of nine years ago to Yuko Obuchi, the new chairperson of the Liberal Democratic Party's election campaign committee, and blamed her for not explaining the situation well enough.　
Unlike Asahi, however, she set up an impartial third-party committee and referred the matter to it.　
When the committee reached its conclusion, she held a press conference to answer its questions.　
In contrast, Asahi's selection of the committee members was as lopsided as its conclusions.
They did not even hold a press conference to discuss their conclusions.　
How dare they call Yuko Obuchi "insufficient explanation"?　
The best thing for Asahi would be to discontinue publication.