The following is the continuation of the previous chapter.
Asahi and NHK's conspiracy
And as early as 17th the same as the Asahi Shimbun’s first report, the Democratic Progressive Party used document group B as a question as early as possible, and on May 19 the Communist Party the AKAHATA published a document of the document A.
The depth of the human relationship between Asahi Shimbun and the DP, and between NHK and the Communist Party can be imagined.
Both NHK and the Communist Party are presenting the full text of Document A, but Documents B does not publish the full text until today, as well as the DP that used the scooped Asahi Shimbun for questioning.
After a while, on June 2, the Democratic Party announced Document A on the ground that it acquired a separate document from document group B which had been acquired in the past.
NHK on the same day reported it as if it was a new scoop, but in reality, this is the same document that NHK himself reported on May 16.
What on earth is it?
Different documents A and B Similar things are brought to NHK and the Asahi Shimbun from different people, and the scoop at 11 o'clock in the evening coincidentally coincides with the scoop of the morning newspaper by chance - there cannot be such a thing.
So the same person brought only document A to NHK, and brought only document group B to the Asahi newspaper?
That is unlikely.
Document A does not know who wrote it, but also the date and time and the name of the attendee are written, which is more credible than document group B.
Still, a mystery remains.
That is because these documents are handling caution documents which should be called low-quality products.
Even if it is a recorded document of MEXT, there is no signature.
Particularly in the document group B, it is not known what kind of opportunity was created and used.
There is no whole credit, it is memo writing.
Anyone can easily fabricate such a thing, it is difficult to prove that it is not forged.
But document A is more credible, it is examined by anyone, including the name of the officer, and if for someone who knows the internal circumstances, counterfeiting is easy.
Conversely, if this was an internal memo of MEXT, the person who caused the leak could be charged with a breach of confidentiality obligation set by the National Public Service Act.
Do humans afflicted with such risks exist in active bureaucrats?
It is a dangerous document to report no collecting evidence for the top 2 of the media ranking of Asahi and NHK.
What will it do if it turns out later if it is an imitation?
In the case of the Asahi Shimbun, since apology of comfort women coverage and forging of the Fukushima nuclear power plant report, the number of copies still continues, and in recent years the management team is said to be demanding an informal media attitude towards scooping ahead unreasonable scoops.
This draft continues.
