I am inclined to assume that a man’s idea is defined in accordance with what he thought and what social environment he experienced by the age of 20.

 

This assumption lingers in my mind whenever I meet political leaders for news coverage. Two men stand out among the politicians whom I have met in my career. One is Ichiro Ozawa, former leader of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ). The other is late Seiroku Kajiyama who once served as chief Cabinet secretary. Both belonged to the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) faction led by Kakuei Tanaka (prime minister from July 1972 through December 1974). The two men acted as the driving forces when Noboru Takeshita (prime minister from November 1987 through June 1989) formed his study group Soseikai (meaning creating politics). They parted company with each other when the LDP split in 1993. But both had tremendous influences on Japanese politics in subsequent years.

 

I got acquainted with Ozawa and Kajiyama in April 1982 when I was a politicalcorrespondent with Jiji Press and was assigned to cover the Tanaka faction. I had closely associated with Kajiyama until his death in June 2000. Both men were reputed for their “forcible” style but differed decisively from each other in some other points.

 

Ozawa stuck to his idea and forced his way to the extent he looked almost too much self-confident. He retains his style to this day. In stark contrast, Kajiyama was flexible. He often said, “There is nothing absolute in politics.” Because of that flexibility, he swayed immensely from time to time. One day, I noticed that the difference between Ozawa and Kajiyama might have come from how old they were when World War II came to an end. Kajiyama was 19 years old when the war ended. He had had the prewar Emperor-based history driven into his mind. All that was denied after the war. This made him not to believe in “absoluteness.”

 

I was a member of Hakumon Herald when I was 19 years old. One day, I was walking across the yard of Chuo University’s Surugadai campus where various student clubs were touting freshmen to join them. I happened to stop at Hakumon Herald’s booth and became a member.

 

But for that casual encounter, I would not have been engaged in journalism as I do even after my retirement age. When I joined Hakumon Herald in 1969, Japan was in the height of the student movement. From day to day, I spent hours at a coffee shop near the school, listening to my seniors argue about the Japan-U.S. security treaty, the Sanrizuka dispute (over the construction of Narita airport), the way the students should promote their activities, how they should organize their groups, etc.

 

All their argument sounded fresh to the newcomer who came to Tokyo from the remote countryside in Fukui Prefecture. I was talked down each time I broke in their argument. But I learned a lot while listening to them. One of those days, I brought the photos I had taken while covering student activities to the Asahi Shimbun. I remember I got a photo album and rolls of film in reward.

 

While I was looking for a job soon after I became a senior, I knew that some of the graduates who had been members of Hakumon Herald were active at Kyodo News and Jiji Press. I thought if they could join those news agencies, I might also be able to. That was how I made up my mind to walk into journalism. I am ashamed to say that I had no definite idea at the time about what sort of news stories I would like to write.

Yet I still retain my “anti-establishment” trait that I acquired through my engagement in the coffee-shop argument. I sometimes find myself apt to be swayed and influenced by people around me. But I am convinced that my experiences at Hakumon Herald have definitely led me into journalism.

(The writer, who is political commentator with Jiji Press, graduated in 1973)

 

 

 

ヘラルドは記者稼業の入り口

―ジャーナリストを目指す諸君へ―

田﨑 史郎

人間の発想は20歳前後の社会環境や思考によって、規定されるのではないか―。

そんな仮説を立てて、政治家を取材している。際立ったのは民主党の小沢一郎元代表と、故梶山静六元官房長官だ。2人とも自民党田中派に所属。竹下登 元首相が主宰する勉強会「創政会」結成の原動力となり、1993年の自民党分裂で袂を分かったとはいえ、日本政治に大きな影響を与えた。

 

彼らと1982年4月に田中派担当になった時に知り合い、梶山氏とは亡くなるまで親しくお付き合いした。2人とも「剛腕」と呼ばれた。だが、決定的 に違っていた。

 

小沢氏は自分の考え方に過剰なほどに自信を持って突き進んだ。これは今も 変わらない。かたや、梶山氏は「政治に『絶対』はない」と語り、柔軟だった。 ゆえに、梶山氏は時に大きくぶれたのだが、ある時、彼らの違いは敗戦時の 年齢に起因していることに気付いた。当時、梶山氏は19歳。それまでの天皇 を中心とした「皇国史観」をたたき込まれたが、敗戦によってすべてが否定された。だから、「絶対」を信じなくなった。 わたしは19歳の時、ヘラルドにいた。お茶の水の旧校舎、周囲が高い校舎で囲まれた中庭で、大学の各クラブ、同好会などが新入生の勧誘をしていた時、 たまたまヘラルドのところで立ち止まってしまい入会した。

 

でも、その偶然がなければ、今こうして、還暦を過ぎても取材していること はなかっただろう。学生運動真っ盛りのころだから、日米安保条約、三里塚闘 争、運動論、組織論などをめぐる先輩の話を大学近くの喫茶店で聞き入った。

福井の片田舎から上京してきたわたしにはそんな議論がとても新鮮だった。 何か口を挟めば必ず論破された。それでも聞いていることが生きた学びだった。 取材にも行って、撮った写真を朝日新聞に届けたこともある。それで、たしか アルバム1冊とフィルム数本をいただいた。

 

いざ就職活動の時期になると、先輩方が共同通信や時事通信に合格し、活躍 していることを知る。あの先輩が合格するなら私も入れるかもしれない、と思ったのがマスコミを志望した理由である。マスコミに入ってこういう記事を書 きたいなどという、目的意識は恥ずかしながら、実はあまりなかった。

でも、ヘラルドでの議論を通じて体得した「反権力」は今も自分の体内に息づいている。染まりやすく、流されやすいわたしにとって、ヘラルドでの体験が記者稼業の入り口だった。(時事通信社解説委員。昭和48年卒)