I believe that a large part of the causes of the various misfortunes and anxieties that people of today’s world feel consciously, or rather unconsciously, are directly related to the existence of newspapers. Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that modern culture itself, which necessitates the existence of newspapers and supplies them with their content, is responsible for these problems. But in any case, while this is hyperbolic, I think the world would be a little more comfortable to live in if all daily newspapers were to be abolished.
Of course, it is conceivable that it would be extremely inconvenient if we were to abolish newspapers altogether. The type and degree of inconvenience may vary depending on the position and occupation of the people, but there seems to be no dispute that it would be inconvenient. However, it is difficult to understand how fundamental and how unbearable such inconveniences are unless we think about them carefully. There are many kinds of appliances and furnishings that are usually regarded as indispensable in our daily lives, but which in fact could be completely eliminated without any difficulty. If we assume that newspapers themselves may be what led our lives to the point where we need newspapers, the mere fact that they are needed is by no means proof of the essential need for newspapers.
The main purpose of newspaper articles is to report the events of the day as quickly as possible. As we all know, the natural consequence of this is that accuracy, which is the most important aspect of a newspaper, tends to be sacrificed. However, the impact of newspapers on the modern human mind is not insignificant. It is hard to ignore the fact that, all other things aside, there is a tendency to gradually erase from all people the most necessary attitude for any truth seeker: “Be sure, even if it takes a long time.” However, most people have a fastidiousness for the truth, so it is impossible to say whether such inaccurate articles might have the effect of stimulating that fastidiousness and in fact making it grow stronger. Also, since the majority of people have an initial idea of the “degree” of accuracy of newspaper articles and therefore always apply a factor of safety to the knowledge provided by newspapers, it may be thought that there is not much harm done. This may be true if the newspaper is a good one. However, the first and foremost question is why and to what extent it is necessary to know as much as possible as early as possible, even if it is not accurate.
Wires on diplomatic, political, and economic events abroad are among the most important newspaper articles. The fact that such news is of interest to all classes of people is desirable, and even if this is true, we must consider how many of our citizens really feel the acute need to know about these reports as soon as possible. Next, we must consider the percentage of articles on domestic politics, economy, and industry that the majority of the public needs to know on a daily basis.
When I think about it dispassionately with a completely open mind, I think that the vast majority of these articles would be of little inconvenience to the majority of the populace, even if they knew about them a month or so later.
However, a small percentage of the public, perhaps a very small percentage of demagogic politicians or speculative businessmen, will want to know these articles a day or an hour earlier than others. Even if it is good for such people, they would probably not be bothered in the slightest by the total abolition of newspapers. They would have to set up their own appropriate notification organizations and know what they need to know or they would not be aware of it. On the contrary, for the majority of political party members, the general public interested in politics, and those engaged in serious business and industry, it is not necessary to know, for example, that the president of France has been replaced, that the stock market in New York has fallen, or that the prime minister of Japan has made a speech in Hokkaido, or what quarrel the X party has had with the Y party in parliament, I doubt very much how much damage could be done by finding out two weeks or a month late.
Even assuming that all of these articles are accurate, which is dubiously necessary, what if the articles are inaccurate? If we consider the types of people who most need newspapers, they are speculators in a broad sense, and bourgeois in a special sense. The good citizens in the positive sense, the proletarians in the moderate sense, as long as they are in fact seriously engaged in their own serious work, have no need to be disturbed and agitated morning and evening by jumping on the dubious knowledge of hasty principles. If you put aside all preconceptions and consider this issue in its most essential form, without any interest in the details, I think you will understand that what I am saying here is not necessarily ridiculous.
The next thing to consider is the so-called society column. The articles in this section cover a wide range of topics. Among them, there is nothing wrong with daily newspaper coverage of seasonal and annual events and various announcements about the near future. However, these kinds of things do not make up the largest part of the social sections of the newspapers in existence today. Instead, these articles appear in small print somewhere in the margins. Contrary to this, of the articles that do appear in surprisingly large headlines — let alone detailed articles on the death of a celebrity or the movements of a foreign dignitary — what stands out more than these as a feature of today’s newspapers are the detailed articles on all the ugliness in the world. The fact is that we are not able to read these kinds of facts every single day. I do not see where it is necessary that we should be informed of these kinds of facts as soon as possible, and, moreover, in a form which has been grossly distorted by fallacies.
It is clear that these reports satisfy the curiosity of many people and supply the empty stories of women and the so-called gossiping classes, but when one weighs the convenience and pleasure of such reports against the negative impact they have on the minds of ordinary readers, one can only wonder which is the heavier and which the lighter. It is not difficult to understand.
This is something of a digression, but there are few things that ignore the human psyche as much as newspaper articles on society. The so-called “stories” also distort and exaggerate the psychology to a great extent, but if the distortion is thorough enough, it is no longer harmful. In the midst of such absurd verbiage that is thus made up of lies, there is no doubt that something real is naturally touched upon. However, when expressions of murder and fights, for example, which appear as ordinary social articles, come into contact with the psychology of the people involved, they are no longer the psychology of us human beings, but that of a completely different being of existence. And they are presented in a way that seems plausible and authentic.
However, this is not because journalists themselves do not understand human psychology, but because the so-called “formula” of social articles has automatically become fixed due to various expedient needs, and there is no choice but to rely on it.
If the psychology of crime were truly described with scientific precision, it would be of considerable benefit to the reader, and thus might have the effect of preventing and reducing such crimes. If, on the contrary, the distorted outer contours of crime unnecessarily arouse the reader’s morbid curiosity, and suggest, perhaps, a “guilty pleasure,” what will be the effect?
Articles on the good deeds of human beings, which are the opposite of crime reports, are rare, but once they appear in the newspapers, the “substance” of the good things is mysteriously lost, leaving only a strange and unpleasant “outline” in many cases. When you read such articles, don’t you sometimes feel red in the face even though you are the only one in charge of the situation? However, this kind of dissatisfaction is a different issue from the one we are discussing here.
Assuming that all articles have been made idealized and free from these defects, the question now is how much we need to know about it in the morning and evening through daily newspapers. If that is no longer necessary, what is the value of hastily reading incomplete and untrue articles every day?
Some may say that I am saying this because I place too much importance on the value of newspaper articles after all. Indeed, there may be a large number of people who read newspaper articles very lightly. However, one of the major causes of the defects of modern thought is the fact that we cultivate the habit of taking a light-hearted look at many things in the morning and evening that should never have been taken lightly in the first place, but are in every sense important. Such a habit may unwittingly lead us to the edge of irreversible depravity.
The things that are worthy of deep contemplation are innumerable and only leave a fleeting impression, like a shadow image behind a kaleidoscope. In this way, our retinas become so tired and paralyzed that we become unable to recognize even the most fleeting images clearly and precisely. Such habits can lead to a steady erosion of our ability to focus on things and to pursue them thoroughly. For example, it may cause us to lose the enthusiasm and energy to peruse even a truly worthwhile book.
This idea led me to consider whether it would be a good idea to abolish daily newspapers altogether. At present, this is something that is unlikely to be easily implemented. However, there is no harm in considering such a thing as a thought experiment, and it may not be entirely pointless. I wonder if it would not be a good thing for all the busy people of our time, those who never miss a day’s worth of newspapers, to try this kind of thought experiment in their spare time, and if a large number of people would try it, it might diminish the negative influence of newspapers as I mentioned above, even if only to a small extent.
Suppose the printing presses went on strike and all the newspapers were shut down. I tried to recall how I felt at that time. After the initial panic, perhaps there would be many who would feel so badly inconvenienced after sufficient time had passed. Of course, they may experience a kind of lethargy in not seeing the things they typically see every morning, but at the same time, I don’t think they would feel as if the world had suddenly become more leisurely. However, since I am probably an exception to this rule, I think it is fair to say that the majority of people would feel quite annoyed.
First and foremost, it would probably be the newspapers themselves who would feel the most annoyed, but that is not an issue that should be included here. I also wonder who else, excluding the aforementioned speculative class, would be annoyed. There are no doubt those who would be unhappy because their writing would be aborted at a crucial point, and there are probably also quiet people who would feel as if they had failed to wash their faces because they could not read the entertainment and gossip that they had become used to reading every morning, as if it were their morning work.
It is difficult not to sympathize with such earnest and innocent complaints. However, there are many possible substitutes that could compensate for this lack of satisfaction when carrying out the current experiment. There could be more interesting, superior, and more informative novels than the so-called newspaper novels, or there could be more coherent reading material that could take the place of the rumors and hearsay. Why not read a chapter of such a book every day during your newspaper reading time? The cumulative effect would be considerable.
It is not necessarily difficult to read a large volume of material in small sections so as not to lose track of the previous and subsequent parts. In fact, depending on the situation, it can be more effective for comprehension and memory to read a book in small pieces than to read it all at once. There are people I know who are learning languages and practice every day, incrementally, and who have achieved considerable success. But even if such people are the exception, I don’t think it can be argued from the outset that reading the newspaper every morning is more beneficial to the brain than reading a decent book.
Even so, there may be many people who are willing to read a newspaper every day, but would find it a nuisance to read anything that can rightly be called a book. This is probably something that can be managed by cultivating a habit, but if there are some people who are not fond of reading books, there are many alternatives to newspapers that are suitable for them.
Those who are busy at all hours of the day and night can read the newspaper in a hurry, as if they are devouring the time before going to work, or they can have a chat with their friends with whom they seldom speak. Or, for those who are not so inclined, they might take advantage of this time to spend a few minutes in the garden, looking up at the sky above, gazing up at the white clouds, and feeling a sense of unremitting contemplation that would have a surprisingly great physical and mental effect. I would rather recommend this first and foremost for the majority of people. Such a small thing would make them less agitated, their peace of mind would increase, and their deadlocked minds and wisdom would find some sort of new turning point.
What is said about so-called “idle” works such as novels and memoirs can actually be said about most other so-called important articles for the majority of readers. On reflection, it becomes easier to see how fundamentally different many readers’ attitudes to reading social and political columns are from their attitudes to reading novels and other quiet letters. Even if we consider that the main point of discrimination lies in the reality of the content of the article, I think that the difference in value between a social article, which has no real negotiation with the readers themselves, and a novel or an assortment of rumors, which touches on some aspects of the human condition, regardless of the facts, cannot be easily dismissed. However, it is not the time to pursue the matter to that extent. Here, I also assume that the content of all political and social columns is absolutely necessary for all kinds of readers. If the experiment of abolishing newspapers were to be carried out on such an assumption, the inevitable result would be the need for a suitable institution to supply this knowledge on behalf of the daily newspapers. The most appropriate publication to meet this need would be a weekly, seasonal, or monthly publication, which could also be called a newspaper, but which would eliminate as much as possible the shortcomings and evils of the current daily newspapers, while still providing the necessary knowledge assumed here to the necessary extent.
Three years ago, at the height of what can best be described as global mass hysteria, I ceased reading the news for several months. However, I have yet to feel that I have suffered a significant loss because I belatedly learned about important events. Not only that, but I have often read things that I had no idea what they were when I read them in a poorly written article in the telegram column of a newspaper, only to realize what they were when I read a different article. If this is the case, then it would not be so inconvenient for us to know about so-called important local events ten days or a month in advance, but instead we would be able to know about them in a more organized and reliable manner. If there are those who feel inconvenienced by this, they are, of course, only a few of the exceptions that I have repeatedly pointed out. Those people will not be inconvenienced by the disappearance of the daily newspaper. And if they do, there is no need to sacrifice the well-being of the majority for the convenience of such people. When we look for articles that are truly important to know on a particular day, we find surprisingly few of them.
The weather forecast is one of them. It is difficult to forecast even a week in advance, and yesterday’s forecast is meaningless for today. However, the true meaning and value of weather forecasts are often misunderstood, and many people do not rely on them at all. Such people may not feel the need to know about weather forecasts, but for those who are at least somewhat familiar with the principles of weather forecasting and understand the scope of its application, it can be a very useful and appreciated resource at times. However, there are many other ways of reporting this information, not necessarily through newspapers.
Advertisements of misfortune might also be considered the kind of thing that cannot wait a week. In my opinion, however, news of misfortune should originally be sent only to those who are truly acquainted with the person’s life and affected by their death, and it would be no harm if the rest of the people heard about it after the funeral or other occasions. If a person whom the majority of the people respected or hated were to die, the rumor would spread like wildfire, regardless.
Even when a celebrity departs on a tour, the number of people seeing him off increases due to the presence of newspapers, causing congestion at the train stations and airports. The same can be said in this case as before.
Exhibitions, lectures, performances, and other spectacles may also be conveniently announced through newspaper advertisements. However, the majority of these cannot be organized sufficiently far in advance, and even if they are not, they can be effectively announced by appropriate notices and leaflets. They are not things that the general public has to know every morning when they wake up. The lack of exposure to such stimuli is rather advantageous for many people who are absorbed in their daily affairs. And it can be guaranteed that the disappearance of these newspaper advertisements will not reduce the audience for theatre and cinema. There will always be a variety of suitable and clever communication channels between the promoters and the habitual audiences.
Even social and political articles can also be useful if they are written in a purely objective and correct manner. For example, so long as it is faithful, even a transcript of a parliamentary or court hearing can often be of use to everyone, or at least if nothing else serves as a source of research material for psychologists. So, in the case of the abolition of daily newspapers, the social articles that should replace them should be as purely objective and sober as possible.
If I were to edit such a weekly or seasonal society section, I have wondered what kind of articles I would publish most often. If I were to write about murderers and criminals, I would try to keep such pieces as few and as simple as possible. I would attempt to describe the true path of the crime in a lucid, scientific manner, so as to warn everyone of the embryo of criminal instinct that lurks in the back of their minds. However, rather than reporting on such exceptional cases, I would make an effort to point out and report on seemingly mundane facts that occur in our daily lives on the streets and in our homes, facts that are typically overlooked by most people and yet have important implications for our current lives, in order to increase the public’s spiritual well-being and also prevent misfortune, even if only to a limited extent.
It would be meaningful and even edifying if it were to depict the fact that a child rescued a cat that had fallen into a sewer in a backstreet, or that a bicycle collided with a car and both drivers apologized. Whether it is a report of cherry blossoms in the park or the behavior of birds and animals at the zoo, some deep observation would offer the reader something. It is more useful to point out and warn the reader of all manner of negligence and danger that are not happening as often as they should. For example, we want to detect and warn in advance of the authorities, who are often inept, of injuries and inconveniences that are bound to occur in the future because of inadequate, mismanaged, or damaged train and public building facilities. For example, incomplete platforms and filthy facilities on trains, collapsing stone walls and crumbling cliffs, puddles and garbage dumps that cultivate disease and vermin, water ditches with cracks and fissures that could cut off water supply in the event of an earthquake, damaged and useless bridges, dangerous electrical line work, etc., should be reported to the public and to the authorities.
We want to explore the true value of such things before many people are led astray and become deeply involved in such things as public health superstition and lewd political demonstrations that disturb morale, dubious medical methods and drugs, and unscientific and worthless inventions and discoveries that masquerade as science. I would also like to offer critique and poignant advice on the organizational and administrative inadequacies and negligence of officials in government agencies and, especially as of late, major pharmaceutical companies.
The motive of all these investigations and criticisms should be purely positive. Rather than simply attacking and denigrating the parties involved for their various deficiencies, we would rather be less combative, and together with the general reader, we would like to be an institution that investigates ways to eliminate these deficiencies. If only such a mindset were more clearly expressed, even today’s newspapers would be a little more pleasant to read.
In order to realize the above ideals, newspapers must have a full staff of reporters who are first-rate in every aspect of general thought, not to mention every aspect of politics and art. This may be a difficult task. However, I believe that this is unavoidable and natural in order to fulfill the true mission of a newspaper as a “leader of society.” In order to become a forerunner in all areas of culture, it is impossible not to create the basis for becoming one.
With this in mind, my “experiment” led to the establishment of a dream-like newspaper.
The main brain of the company would have to be made up of representative figures from not only all government offices and schools and trading companies, but also from all political parties and all religious and ideological groups. And these employees should not be treated merely as contributors, as if they were a collection of feudal lords, but should take part in and be responsible for the company’s overall work. These reporters should endeavor to report accurately on all important matters that should be of benefit to the public in their respective fields of expertise, to provide appropriate advice and attention regarding disaster prevention, and to submit problems concerning public works and seek the best possible solutions from the public. Of course, these people would be, on the one hand, engaged in their respective duties, but it should not be considered in the slightest inconvenient for them to spend some of their time on the job and draft these articles for the public, and in fact, it is not impossible to consider this as part of the duties that come with the job. In addition, it is quite likely that by writing such articles, they would gain useful hints in the performance of their duties.
It would not be reasonable to leave the management of such a large newspaper in the hands of a few capitalists, but rather to the whole nation itself, or at least a large part of it, under joint management. In order to do so, the costs necessary for the maintenance of the management would be collected from the public in a similar way to taxes, and the journalists and editors should be determined by a suitably organized electoral system. However, in order to prevent the adverse effects that are invariably attached to such an electoral system, the position of these journalists must never be made materially advantageous. It is necessary to have an institutional structure that eliminates from the outset any possibility of personal advantage being gained by being a journalist. This is not necessary if all people are truly concerned only with the interests of society, but this precaution is, as we all know, absolutely necessary at the present time.
If such a newspaper were to be established, it would be a far cry from a newspaper as assumed from the conventional sense of the word. Rather, it would be a kind of research and reporting organization that would contribute to the general well-being and peace of the nation and society. There should be only one such newspaper in the entire nation, with appropriate branches distributed throughout the country and communicating with each other through the central office.
The establishment of such a special organization is a matter of course for the government of any country to consider, in order to provide accurate knowledge on politics, economics, education, religion, arts, industry, military affairs, and all other aspects of reality, to study and assist where authorities cannot reach based on public opinion, and to smoothly integrate all institutions of the nation and society. It is not something that should simply be left to a section in a corner of a small government office.
Needless to say, today’s newspapers were originally created to fulfill the same role as this hypothetical organization. Unfortunately, this has not been done in an ideal way, which is why we have the problems we have here. My thought experiment has only gone so far. Without sufficient training, there may be many flaws in the basic premises and in the logic of my reasoning. Nevertheless, this “experiment” has allowed me to make some progress in my thinking about newspapers and also enabled me to view them in a somewhat different light than I have in the past.
However, it seems that the publication of a weekly and a seasonal publication has made it possible for each individual to carry out this experiment, albeit imperfectly. In other words, it would be possible to achieve the goal by reading only the weekly and not the daily. I am not willing to force others to attempt this experiment, but I would like to try it for myself first. However, as long as the current seasonal and weekly newspapers continue to appear alongside the dailies, and if their editing methods are not the same as I have in mind, it is unlikely that I will ever be able to carry out the thought experiment I have in mind.
It may be a fool’s dream to immediately consider such a problem as the abolition of all daily publications as a practical problem. However, as I have said before, it would be an interesting and useful task for both newspaper readers and newspaper publishers to think about it as carefully and thoroughly as possible as a thought experiment. And I believe that the results will probably not be of such a nature as to cause anyone any harm.
