Reporters need to tread a fine line to get the news in the public interest out there, but also avoid liability in the form of defamation actions or other legal trouble.
Japanese news, especially when reporting on crime, is characterised by a highly cautious tone. This cautiousness is not just due to cultural nuances but also a language structure that adds a level of tentativeness, especially when facts are not fully confirmed.
We’ll look at an article in 毎日新聞 that uses phrases such as “とみている,” “とした疑いがある,” “入手しており,” “流用したとみられる,” and “によると” to indicate that the information being presented is subject to change or isn’t yet fully verified. Understanding these expressions can give readers insight into the delicate balance news organisations must maintain between reporting quickly and respecting legal and social considerations.
Finally, a short analysis into the Japanese legal landscape will provide insight as to why these practices are necessary.
Read along with the article here: 三菱UFJ元行員、他顧客の現金で窃盗の「帳尻合わせ」 FXに投資か
Notice the intentional gap left after the bracket, this is done similarly to how colons are used in English headlines to denote a break between the facts and opinion.
1. とみている: the tentative conclusion
One of the most common phrases in crime reporting is “とみている,” which can be roughly translated as “it is believed that” or “it is considered that.” This expression is used when the authorities or reporters are still drawing conclusions based on available evidence but aren’t ready to make definitive statements. The phrase I say in my head to cover this is to take the Japanese literally and say “X is being looked at as … / being viewed as / being treated as”.
警視庁は、盗難の発覚を遅らせるために、貸金庫で預かった現金の帳尻が合っているように偽装していたとみている。
The police are treating the pretense of making the numbers add up in the cash accounts in the safe deposit books to slow down the realisation of the theft.
This phrasing introduces an element of caution, showing that the investigation is ongoing, and no assumptions are being made about the outcome. In a crime report, this keeps the door open for new developments or for the possibility of the suspect’s innocence. There is also a direct reference to the police and so the reader understands this is part of the investigation or investigator’s opinion about facts.
This grammar is also used a lot in the passive form: 大半が現金だったとみられる。
2. とした疑いがある: the suspicion of guilt
Another commonly used phrase is “とした疑いがある,” which translates to “suspected of having done…” or “under suspicion of…”. This construction is a way for the media to convey suspicion without directly accusing someone of a crime. It’s a staple in news articles where the police have gathered evidence or made an arrest, but there hasn’t been a determination of guilt from the courts.
This phrase signals that the police are still piecing things together but there is enough reason to believe the person may be involved. This keeps the legal process intact while providing readers with the crucial information of an ongoing investigation.
元行員は盗難に遭った貸金庫の顧客が来店した際などに、一時的に別の貸金庫から現金を移していたという。顧客が被害に気づくのを遅らせようとした疑いがある。
The former employee is said to have temporarily transferred cash from another safety deposit box when customers who had fallen victim to theft visited the store. It is suspected that this was done in an attempt to delay the affected customers from noticing the theft.
3. 入手しており: evidence acquired
The phrase “入手しており” means “having obtained” or “having acquired” and is used when referring to the evidence collected by authorities. In crime articles, it often indicates that certain pieces of information or materials, such as documents or data, have been secured by the police or investigators.
The use of おり in 入手しており is not specifically a case of humility or politeness, but rather a form of conjunctive usage that connects two clauses or actions in a more formal, narrative style. The おり form comes from the ており construction, where おり is an older, more formal version of the ている form.
In this case, the police are not necessarily being humble. The use of おり doesn’t indicate politeness or humility (which would typically be shown through おります or honorific expressions like なさる). Instead, it reflects the formal tone of a news article. It’s a stylistic choice that aligns with the conventions of formal reporting, ensuring that the language remains neutral and objective, without implying too much personal involvement or direct action from the authorities.
元行員は移した現金の動きを詳細にメモに残していた。警視庁はこのメモも入手しており、窃盗容疑で捜査している。
The former employee had kept detailed notes on the movement of the transferred cash. The Tokyo Metropolitan Police have also obtained these notes and are investigating under charges of theft.
4. 流用したとみられる: suspected misuse
Another key phrase is “流用したとみられる,” which translates to “suspected to have misused” or “believed to have misappropriated”. This phrase is commonly seen in financial crimes or cases involving the misuse of resources. It’s an important linguistic tool for crime reports, as it implies the possibility of illegal behavior, without definitively accusing someone.
元行員は盗んだ現金を外国為替証拠金取引（FX）などの投資に流用したとみられる。
The former employee is believed to have diverted the stolen cash into investments such as foreign exchange margin trading (FX).
5. によると: according to sources
One final phrase often seen in Japanese crime reports is “によると,” meaning “according to” or “according to reports from”. This construction is commonly used to attribute information to a source without confirming its accuracy or direct involvement in the matter at hand. It serves to convey that the information is based on an external party’s report or an official statement but not necessarily verified by the media outlet itself.
三菱UFJ銀行などによると…
According to the Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group …
A Delicate Balance of Reporting
These expressions are just a few examples of the linguistic choices that shape how crime stories are written in Japan. By using language that introduces uncertainty, media outlets maintain an important ethical distance from their sources and avoid legal complications that might arise from presenting unverified information as fact. For readers, it’s a reminder that Japanese news stories often take a cautious approach, ensuring that nothing is presented too definitively until all facts are confirmed.
For anyone studying Japanese or analysing media practices, these phrases provide valuable insights into the subtleties of language and journalism. Whether you’re examining the way crime is reported or simply looking to deepen your understanding of Japanese, recognising the function of phrases can give you a much better understanding of how Japanese media navigates the delicate balance between reporting and respecting legal processes.
Journalistic practices are inherently vulnerable to legal challenges, particularly in cases of libel or slander. In Japan, the legal system places a high value on protecting an individual’s reputation, and thus, media outlets face significant risks when reporting on crimes or even suspecting individuals of committing them.
Libel and Slander in Japanese Law: The Basics
Libel (written defamation) and slander (spoken defamation) in Japan are governed by the 民法 (Civil Code) and the 不正競争防止法 (Act on the Prevention of Unfair Competition). According to Article 709 of the Civil Code, anyone who causes damage to another’s reputation by false statements is liable for compensation.
Media outlets can be held accountable if their reports are deemed to damage someone’s reputation without justifiable cause. The burden of proof lies with the individual who claims defamation, and it is up to the court to determine whether the statements made in the media were not only false but also harmful.
In Japan, reputational damage is considered more serious than in other legal systems, leading to relatively stringent defamation laws. This makes the legal consequences of publishing inaccurate or defamatory crime reports particularly severe. This concern has driven the adoption of cautious language and hedging in crime journalism.
The Role of Tentative Language in Crime Reporting
Media outlets are aware that they must avoid portraying someone as guilty without sufficient evidence, as even an implication of guilt can open the door to defamation claims. While this is the case around the world, and media organisations have been caught many times making defamatory claims, style guides and accepted practices can go a long way to get out of potential legal quagmires.
The expressions serve as linguistic safeguards that protect journalists from making legally dangerous statements while still informing the public about ongoing investigations.
The Legal Risks in Crime Reporting
While tentative language helps mitigate the risk of defamation, crime reporting in Japan still carries inherent legal risks. Several factors contribute to the vulnerability of crime stories to libel and slander lawsuits:
False Accusations and Legal Liability
Even when media outlets use cautious language, they still face the potential for lawsuits if an individual feels their reputation has been unjustly harmed. A false accusation of a crime, regardless of the phrasing, can be grounds for a defamation claim. The ambiguity of certain phrases, such as “suspected” or “believed to have done,” can be interpreted by some as implying guilt or dishonesty, even if that wasn’t the intention.
Court Precedents and Media Responsibility
Japanese courts have a well-established history of protecting individuals from defamation by the media, even in cases where the media is simply reporting on police investigations. The judiciary tends to lean toward protecting a person’s reputation, often awarding significant damages for reputational harm.
In landmark cases, courts have emphasised the responsibility of journalists to ensure that their reports do not cause undue harm. The use of tentative language in crime reports is often cited in these cases as an effort to avoid defamatory statements. However, the line between cautious reporting and defamation can sometimes be blurred, especially in cases where even minor misstatements or omissions could lead to reputational damage.
In addition, the Press Council of Japan and other industry bodies have issued guidelines emphasising the ethical obligation of media outlets to avoid sensationalism and to report with accuracy. These guidelines encourage the use of cautious phrasing and the presentation of both sides of a story, where possible, to reduce the likelihood of legal action.
The Role of the Media in Preventing Defamation
Given the high risk of legal action, Japanese media outlets often take extra steps to minimise the possibility of defamation or slander claims. These steps include:
- Verification of Information: Before publishing a report, news organisations often conduct extensive checks with law enforcement agencies to ensure the accuracy of the information.
- Balanced Reporting: Reports often include statements from both the police and the defense (when available) to provide a more complete picture of the situation. This helps to avoid presenting one-sided narratives that could be deemed defamatory.
- Apologies and Retraction: In cases where media outlets have made mistakes, there is a cultural norm of promptly issuing apologies and retractions. Japanese newspapers and TV stations are known for their swift actions in correcting any inaccuracies, especially when it comes to sensitive crime stories.
Conclusion: A Fine Line Between Reporting and Defamation
Crime reporting in Japan is fraught with challenges, particularly due to the country’s strict defamation laws.
In a legal environment where the burden of proof lies heavily on the accused, media outlets must remain vigilant and responsible in their reporting. The ongoing tension between the need for quick, accurate reporting and the desire to avoid costly defamation lawsuits underscores the delicate balance that Japanese journalism must maintain.
