24
26
28
48
80
91
Also, what of the rumoured 'collectivistic' instincts of Japanese society? Why no collective action from journalists to respond to this common threat?
Despite the stereotypical image of Japan as a nation which stresses the importance of the 'group', whatever this means in any particular context, there is very little evidence to suggest that there is any significant difference between measurements for individualism/collectivism --- as promoted by Hofstede --- for, for example Japanese and Americans. As @Matsumoto:2002 [: 40] points out;
since Hofstede's original study, seventeen other studies have been conducted directly examining Japanese collectivism and American individualism, and not one has supported this claim (original emphasis)
ANSWER: collectivism seems to revolve primarily around the most concrete of structures, thus the firm trumps any abstract idea such as a 'profession' or 'society' - you don't get a membership card for those they are a matter of self-identification rather than formal membership.
129
242
This paper leaves undiscussed the vexed question of whether journalism is a profession or not; on the other hand, merely because there is uncertainty over the match between a certain theoretical category and the features of a particular type of work, this does not mean that individuals engaged in that particular 'paid occupation' have any less an attachment to the elements of what they consider their 'professional' ideology.
Deal with whether journalism is a profession? Greenwood, Tumber etc.
May exhibit different levels of professionalisation in different systems, so perhaps a matter of degree rather than anything else.
the distinguishing attributes of a profession. Succinctly put, all professions seem to possess: (1) systematic theory, (2) authority, (3) community sanction, (4) ethical codes, and (5) a culture. [@Greenwood:1957]
This section surveys how the five aspects of the journalistic ideology outlined by Deuze(see above) are materialised in Japan; it concentrates on 'ethics' and 'autonomy' as core areas which can be seen to have a particularly significant impact on journalistic practise.
I will deal with the less controversial aspects - public service, objectivity, and immediacy - before moving on.
Some aspects of the journalistic ideology contribute less to the problems of the Japanese press than others; the following brief paragraphs deal with these three aspects and outline the arguments for paying particular attention to the notions of 'autonomy' and 'ethics' as this paper chooses to do.
Public service: Journalists relations with the 'public' - public journalism? Surveys of Japanese journalists understandings of the audience?
Central term for Japanese discussion of the role of journalists is 'the right to know' (shiru kenri); this would seem to indicate a pervasive consciousness of journalism as a service to the general public. Of course, this leaves open the question of how this idea is operationalised; in any particular instance, which public is to be served and how?
Willnat survey?
Objectivity: The prime concern of reporters in Japan (see Weaver info) is the accurate reporting of fact. Is the corollary a reduction in the amount of comment and context provided?
When the broadcasting of television news started on NHK in the 1960s, the newspaper model was adopted as an organisational template and standard.
However, the political implications of 'objectivity' and 'balance' are continually debated and have been much criticised(CITATIONS) as a way to avoid the responsibility of making moral judgements and providing useful, informed evaluation of so-called 'facts', which, in many cases, may not be as 'self-explanatory' as they might at first seem.
If it is, as @Tuchman:1972 suggests, primarily a 'ritual' through the enactment of which reporters and editors avoid potential censure, it is reasonable to expect - in a media system such as Japan's where there has developed the constant threat of pressure from powerful sources, that achieving 'objectivity' - and therefore insulating oneself from pressure as much as possible - would become a prime concern.
There are also commercial benefits; these were recognised early on by the press in Japan.[@Huffman:1997: p?]
[More on birth of objectivity as a commercial strategy, in other countries as well]{.adm}
Immediacy: No doubt about this. Companies like immediacy as a measure of journalistic performance; results are generally quantifiable and unambiguous - it's usually fairly obvious 'who was first'.
Japanese newspapers still issue gōgai sheets, single sheet 'extras' handed out free, often at major railway stations (and thus coincidentally also useful for television news cameras), covering major and breaking stories such as the death of Fidel Castro or the resignation of President Park of South Korea.
The importance of immediacy for the printed press - the discourse of newspapering in Japan is still largely ambivalent about the existence and importance of the web - might also be detected in the ongoing commitment of all newspapers to deliver to subscribers homes[^deliv] very early in the morning thus ensuring the presence of a daily paper and access to the news it provides 'at the breakfast table'.
Having said this, the foremost tool for achieving 'immediacy' for journalists in the 20th century must be the newspaper website, and these are still underdeveloped in Japan. Perhaps it is felt, as it certainly is in the television industry, that to undermine the business model (whether it be broadcast to home television receivers, or deliveries of physical paper to subscribers homes) should not be undermined by other delivery systems such as the internet.[@Villi:2015]
LINE 289
419
432