The Essays of Torahiko Terada 2
Introduction
Torahiko Terada was a Japanese physicist and writer born in Tokyo Japan in 1878.
He wrote many essays in his lifetime until he died in 1935 at the age of 57, and they have been widely read in Japan.
When he was a high school student in Kumamoto (a city in Kyushu, southern Japan), he studied English and literature under Soseki Natsume (a renowned Japanese writer) and physics under Takuro Tamaru (a prominent Japanese physicist). These two men greatly influenced him and infused him with a lifelong passion for science and literature.
As a physicist, he graduated from the Department of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Science, Tokyo Imperial University at the top of his class in 1903, received his PhD in science in 1908, and was appointed to an assistant professor. In 1909, he went to study abroad at the University of Berlin, visited various places in Europe, and returned to Japan via the United States in 1911. After that, he engaged himself in research in various fields of physics with many remarkable results. In 1917, he received the Imperial Prize of Japan Academy for his achievements.
As a writer, he started writing Haiku (a form of short Japanese poetry) under the tutelage of Soseki Natsume, and then went on to write prose and essays. Since he was a physicist as well as a writer, the subject of his essay varies widely, and the interest of his essays differed greatly depending on the subject matter. We find some are scientific and academic, some are literary and sentimental, and some are philosophical.
There is, however, a remarkable feature common to all of his essays: his attachment to logic, objectivity, honesty and curiosity, and his hatred of deception, hypocrisy, dishonesty and indifference. These traits resonate in the readers’ mind like the basso continuo in baroque music throughout his essays, leaving a comforting feeling of warmth, humility, profundity, and humanity.
His essays were written in Japanese in Japan about 100 years ago. So the social background of them is quite different from that of other parts of the world today. Nevertheless, his essays arouse our sympathy and call for our attention that seems even more imminent now than ever. This must be because there is something to be called a universal truth in his thoughts beyond time and space. The purpose of this blog is to introduce his such thoughts to the people in the world.
Needless to say, the difference in time, place and language are great obstacles to the above purpose, and moreover, it is almost impossible to transmit perfectly a thought written in one language in another language, so the complete achievement of the purpose cannot be expected. However, it must be worthwhile to transmit even a part of his thoughts to the world now that the world seems to have gone off course in the stormy sea of conflicts between ideologies, forces, religions and sense of values.
I would like to start introduction of one essay at a time every month. The first 9 essays, that express his basic attitude toward science, study and society, are from “The Essays of Torahiko Terada - A Japanese Intellect” published by Amazon Kindle eBook.
Praying this small attempt may contribute to world peace, --- even a little,
Bogey Bogwood 2023.01.25
A Thought on Journalism One day, when I visited the factory of a large newspaper company and saw the strips of newspaper flowing down the front of the high-speed rotary press like a waterfall, being cut, folded, and piled up, I couldn't help feeling that it was natural for journalism to flood the world. I was so impressed that I slipped on the stairs wet with machine oil and fell down to mess up my white summer clothes. Modern journalism is, after all, a peculiar phenomenon that has arisen as a result of great development of printing and transportation in modern times. At the same time, it may be true that journalism stimulates the development of these industries on the other hand. Anyway, thanks to the high-speed printing and high-speed transportation it has become possible to send to everyone's door the day's incidents up to noon in the evening news, and up to the evening in the morning news. This would be the cause of all the merits and demerits of journalism. The word "journal" has had various meanings since long ago, as you can see in the dictionary. It is said that its original meaning was "daily" and then the meaning of "daily printed matter" was added, and eventually "all regular weekly publications" too. Also, it is said that the person who runs such publishing business, or earns his living by writing manuscripts for publishing is a journalist, and the work of such person is called journalism. Only this much is written in my handy dictionary. However, these days in Japan, the word "journalism" seems to have so many other meanings, impressions, and nuances that it cannot be easily defined and explained in a few words. The interpretation seems to slightly differ depending on the person, not only that, even the same person may use the word with different meanings in some cases. Also, when it appears in a sentence, there seems to be a big difference in meaning and value depending on the context. Really, it is like an elusive monster, but it is a certain fact that there is something so-called "journalism". But we only cannot distinguish where its head or tail is, nor catch it. It is not my intention to catch the elusive head and tail, but I would like to write down a sketch of this mysterious phenomenon that I can see through the glass window of my study of an academic who knows little about the world.
The
literal translation of journalism is the principle of day-to-day. Based on this
principle, comes the demand to report on the incident happened this morning as
accurately and detailedly as possible by mid-afternoon, which is essentially
impossible. For example, suppose there is a murder case. In order to find out
what exactly happened at the scene of the murder, and the process from the
motive to the criminal act, even roughly, it actually requires many police
officers and judicial officials to scrutinize the case for many days and
months, and yet it usually is not easy to clarify everything in detail. It is
absolutely unreasonable demand to describe the whole story and even the
psychology of the people involved, based on the results of only a few hours or
even minutes investigation. The peculiar phase of journalism develops from the
attempt to meet this impossible supreme demand.
What is the wand to make this impossible
possible? It seems to be a method that may be called abstract generalization of
concrete facts or categorization of individual phenomena. Had it not been for
any murder at all in this world, there would be no possible wand. But
fortunately or unfortunately, there have been a great number of murders of all
kinds and types, and about each one of them, there have been a great variety of
records. Since long ago, in stories, novels and tales, there have been many
records of murder, although it is hard to tell how far they are true and how
far they are false. And we unconsciously have become absorbed in them, and
quite naturally we have created and stored various stereotypes of murder cases
in our minds. So, if right now, a case happens and is presented in front of us,
we are already ready to get an idea, though it may be vague, of what type the
case belongs to if we can know only a part of the details of the case, however
small the part may be. Whether our guess is right or wrong is another matter,
but the key issue is that we are able to guess anyhow. So, the reporter who is
ordered to report a certain murder case rushes to the scene, hurriedly gathers
any available materials, hurriedly lines them up in front of the catalogue file
in his mind, and then fits the materials into the most likely stereotype. Then,
somehow, a plausible murder story is created. Of course, he doesn't have time
to question how the story is far from the truth, but it is important how it is
plausible ad hoc. On the other hand, the readers of these articles also have in
their mind all kinds of stereotypes collected from the same kind of stories,
novels and other sources, so the newspaper's stereotyped description naturally
fits and matches one of the types in the readers' mind. And they will be
completely convinced, satisfied, and enjoy the sensation of the murder done by
others which they cannot do easily by themselves. No matter how far the story
deviates from the facts, it doesn't matter to the general readers who are
complete strangers to the perpetrators and the victims. If only the fact that
"there was a murder somewhere" is accurate and not a lie, it is
unlikely that readers would be so meddling as to complain to the newspaper
about other mistakes. And, by the time the truth comes out, readers and
reporters will have forgotten all about it.
However, there are not a few cases in which
the articles in the two newspapers on the same incident seem to be quite plausible
when viewed respectively, but when we compare the two, they are so different
and opposite that they seem to be different incidents. In such cases, even we
as optimistic readers can't help but feel some anxiety and frustration.
There were many interesting examples of such
articles in the newspapers in the old days. Sometimes, the words exchanged
between the two people before committing a double suicide were reported as if a
stenographer had overheard them standing by their side, and interestingly
described just like Chikamatsu or Mokuami’s (old Japanese popular novelists)
novel. It was a really entertaining reading but seems to be rare nowadays, at
least in Tokyo. However, the articles essentially similar to it can still be
found in daily newspapers as many as you like even today.
At a government office, there was a few days
meeting of local technical officials, and the minister was supposed to attend
and give a speech there during the meeting, but he was unable to attend on the
scheduled day due to some inconvenience. However, in the evening paper of the
day, it was reported that the minister had attended the meeting and had given a
speech.
One day, a young scholar presented a paper at
an academic conference, and on the evening of the presentation he came to my
house and was playing a trio ensemble with us. Suddenly a newspaper reporter
visited my house with a photography team, called the young scholar to the
doorway, heard the summary of the research he presented that day, then flashed
a magnesium flash and left, leaving the fume contaminated with magnesium oxide
on the dirt floor of the doorway. When I read the newspaper the next morning, worrying
if the scene of the poor performance of our ensemble was exposed, I found it
said that "--- we visited the scholar’s house in H town and ---". The
article reported that the interview was held just at the young scholar’s own
house.
Looking
at these two examples, there seems to be a well-established formula to write
newspaper articles, which is forbidden to break in any case. We, a little
perverse readers, are rather interested in the reason why the minister who was
supposed to come did not show up that day, or we acknowledge the significance
of the fact that the young scholar who presented the paper that day dared go
out to play in ensemble just that night. But writing about it as it is may be a
violation of the iron law of journalism. I had marvelled when I found these
facts for the first time.
This "typification of facts", which seems to
be an aspect of journalism, is certainly lying in a sense, but when profoundly
reconsidered, it can also be interpreted as a description of generalized normative
facts abstracted from the individual concrete facts.
In an elementary textbook of physics,
it is said that the acceleration of a falling object due to the earth’s gravity
is 9.8 meters per second. However, a piece of tissue paper dropped from the roof
of a department store never follows this rule. Because, the physical law of
gravitational acceleration is based on the standard case of gravity alone,
without the influence of air resistance, wind pressure, accidental electric
charges, and other factors. Furthermore, in order to calculate the acceleration
value in detail to five or six digits, various "supplemental
corrections" are required to calculate the standard acceleration value
from the actual measured acceleration value.
In the same way of thinking, lies in
newspaper articles may be regarded as a kind of "correction"
certainly in some cases. But unfortunately, in those cases, there is no such
solid base for “correction” as in physical laws’ cases, instead, there is only one
not very reliable base : the subjective categorization by the so-called common
sense of each reporter.
It is said that Cezanne never tried to depict
the present momentary appearance of each apple, but tried to capture on the
canvas the face of eternal and immortal apple that encompass all apples. It
would be just such an intention that science portrays the face of
"facts" in nature. It is not clear whether a newspaper reporter has
this intention to describe daily events, but if he has such an intention and
tries to carry it out and fulfill it, the newspaper reporter may have to be
equipped with the ability of keen observation and analysis far superior to that
of Cezanne and all scientists. It is not easy to become a newspaper
reporter.
Reflecting on myself, I see that there is
such a tendency among scientists ourselves, to a considerable extent, to take a
typological view similar to that of journalism. Everyone researches on a
phenomenon to which conventional analytical methods can easily be applied, but
they certainly tend to turn a blind eye to phenomena that are unmanageable
using conventional methods, even though those phenomena can be seen like the
lofty Mt. Fuji just in front of you. However, if one pioneer pays attention to
the phenomenon and starts to climb the mountain, swinging up a pickaxe, making
a path, then everyone after another flock to the foot of the mountain. This is
also thanks to the scientific development of journalism ; the research of
scholars all over the world can be quickly reported on the desks of scholars
all over the world. It is like all the aspiring suicides by jumping in the
country gather at Mt. Mihara when a suicide by jumping on Mt. Mihara is
sensationally reported by the newspapers in big cities. It is not only because
they have no time to think of other places to commit suicide, but also if they
go to Mt. Asama when Mt. Mihara is in the limelight, "they would not
appear in the newspapers".
In this way, newspapers, by the power of
their articles, typify the phenomena of the world, and at the same time, spread
the illusion of the typology throughout the world, creates the illusion that
the whole world is filled with that typology, and by doing so, further promotes
the propagation of that typology. This seems to be the way in which journalism
fully demonstrates its terrifying performance. For example, when all the major
newspapers report on a certain corruption case, all the newspapers in the
country respond to it, giving the impression that all the country is filled
with corruption cases. Even the judicial authority, which supposed to be
impartial, may not be able to avoid being stimulated by this to promote its
activity of exposing corruptions. For another example, when a certain newspaper
becomes popular by a story of a faithful dog, similar kind of stories of
faithful dogs come out one after another from other newspapers, then the whole
Japan is filled with dogs, and a modern version of "Hakkenden" (a
Japanese classic novel about eight faithful dogs) can be easily written. The
firstly reported faithful dog might have barked the truth, but among other dogs
reported later, there may be many dogs that bark the falsehood which is
reported as the truth. The fingers of journalism, like the fingers of Midas,
can turn anything they touch into gold, or conversely, they can turn all the gold
and diamonds into stone. Sometimes, like Circe, they turn all humans into
animals, and sometimes, conversely, they can turn a great faker into a great
man, as all of us already know very well. And it is really terrifying that we
all unconsciously fall under the spell of journalism, even though we are well
aware of the danger.
It
also should be noted that current Japanese journalism often even fails in its
magical spell and exposes its ugly tail in the area of so-called scientific
articles.
However, compared to twenty years
ago, the scientific articles in newspapers today are far more advanced than
ever. A long time ago, a person who introduced himself as a reporter from a
major newspaper visited me and asked me various strange questions about the
earthquake that struck a certain area. His questions were all so strange that I
could not answer and was almost silent. But the next day, in the newspaper, I
found it is reported that all his strange questions were affirmed by me, even
not as my own answers to the reporter, but as my affirmation to the reporter's
own thoughts stated grandly by himself. And the word "Ihen" (a
Japanese word meaning "disaster" with the pronunciation close to that
of "ion" in English) had been repeatedly written in the article, so I
wondered what did it mean, which later turned out to be "Ion".
In recent scientific articles appear
in newspapers, such things are hardly found. Because most of the newspapers are
clever enough to have scientists themselves write the article and publish it,
so such ridiculous articles can hardly appear. But among the articles seemingly
written by non-scientist newspaper reporters, there sometimes likely to be some
funny ones. For example, recently, a few newspapers mentioned "heavy
water". It probably was a translation of a foreign correspondence, but in
the eyes of a scientist, it looked really strange. After I read the article
very carefully, I understood it meant water made from heavy hydrogen D, but at
a glance the article looked like writing about some other strange and different
thing. It is like looking at my own face in a distorted mirror thinking it
looks strange but somehow familiar at first, and then after gazing it for a
while, gradually realize that it is my own face. If such depictions of
distorted profile of facts are limited to scientific articles, it would be
fortunate. However, every time we readers of newspapers find those articles, we
cannot help but imagine that similar distortions must be also in all other
articles on politics, diplomacy, and economics, if to a slightly different
extent. If you want to squeeze anything into a mold with a limited number of shapes,
you inevitably have to bend and distort it a little to get it fit. In case of
social and human affairs, the stock of the standard molds is incomparably
richer than in case of scientific articles, so in most cases it is easy to find
a proper mold that fits without too much bending. But in the field of science,
there are so few standard molds that the face of the scientific fact may be
terribly disfigured.
The scientific articles that annoy
scientists most are those about so-called "worldwide discoveries" and
"great inventions". It is not unusual for the facts that were
discovered ten years ago to appear as if they were discovered yesterday, or for
the facts that have been used everywhere for a long time to appear as if they
were invented the day before yesterday. Why can such a mistake been made? For
example, when some very specific study about a very specific part of some fact which
was discovered a decade ago turns out to be successful today, the success of the
study is often misrepresented in the article as today’s discovery of the fact
itself ; discovery of a certain correlation between sunspots and some
particular meteorological factors in a particular local part of Japan may be
reported as if it were the new discovery of the fact that sunspots are related
to the Earth's weather. There are so many such cases. This is, of course, due
to the lack of expertise of the reporter in charge, but more likely to be due
to the extreme incomprehension about the nature of scientific research. Such
incomprehension, however, is not limited to newspaper reporters, but common
among quite educated people in the general public as well, and the root of this
problem seems to be a serious fault in general scientific education in Japan,
which is not the fault of newspaper reporters alone. However, I hope that at
least reporters of the major newspapers, even if they do not have specific
scientific knowledge, will consider that the scientific research of a scholar
is not as easy as picking up a wallet on the street, but is more like putting
painstaking finishing touches on each and every rivet to build the framework of
Zeppelin. That way, we won't have to worry about misrepresenting a person who
finished just a single rivet as if he had completed the entire Zeppelin
overnight.
Among "great inventions" in the
world reported in scientific articles, there often are some claimed to be the
result of years of hard work by non-expert amateurs. In such cases, without
fail, an anesthetic is sprinkled between the lines of the article to create the
illusion that the fact of the inventor's being just an amateur should approve
that his invention is greater than that of experts. Also, it is implied that
the long years of toil would endorse the ingenuity of the invention. However,
in reality, in many cases, these inventions are quite incomplete or actually
not new at all. It is not generally recognized as an obvious fact by Japanese
journalists that today's scientific inventions require too much expertise to be
perfected only by mere unique thought or toil of an amateur.
Under these circumstances, many sincere
academic scholars are most afraid that their work will be published in
newspapers as "a great discovery in the world" or "a great
invention". If they happen to meet this disaster by mistake, they will
break into a cold sweat and flinch, and their friends will make fun of him,
because their researches look like branded as "bogus". Some generous
scholars may laugh it off, but among the narrow-minded and fastidious scholars,
there often occurs even a phenomenon of extreme antipathy and contempt towards
those scholars who make "newspapers’ favourite great discovery". In
such a case, journalism may even become a reef in the sea of science.
Pure physics and chemistry work, how great the work
may be, is too difficult for an amateur to understand, so there is little
concern that it will be a "such a great discovery", but in such a
field like meteorology or seismology, there certainly is. So when you are going
to publish a paper that is likely to cause such concern, you can make the title
of the paper rather difficult for an amateur to understand so that you will
never have to worry about being caught by journalists.
It is a fact that the scoops on discoveries,
inventions and other achievements of scientists lose their value as newspaper
articles after just one day passes. This fact also provides evidence of the
day-to-day principle of journalism. The work of a scholar is never done in a
day, nor does it disappear on the day it is published, but as a newspaper news,
it loses its value after one day. So, it is well-known that a scholar who
accidentally becomes a journalist’s victim can get away with it forever if he
manages to escape for just one day.
One of the causes of such a strange
phenomenon seems to occur in connection with the scoop hunting competition
among newspapers. They worry that some other might publish the scoop before
they do if they don't pick up the scoop today. And they don't have time to
scrutinize all the scoops to be published tomorrow. And tomorrow will be
another busy day with the work piled up for tomorrow itself.
It is also a well-known fact that
such a keen competition for just one day is effective in promoting inaccuracy
and untruth of journalism. Every sacrifice is made to outdo the others, and in
the end, the essential truth is sacrificed seemingly without regret. It is a
very interesting phenomenon that they start with the competition for facts and
end up with a competition for lies.
Comedies and tragedies created by
the scoop hunting competition among newspapers are not limited to above.
Naturally, the newspaper defeated by the other newspaper’s scoop would make a
pitiable effort to find another valuable scoop comparable to the other one. I
can’t guarantee whether it is true or not, but I have heard a rumour that, in a
certain country, when they couldn't find any topics that “had really happened”,
they “actually caused” a dramatic incident by elaborate dramatization and
staging so that they could publish the most sensational social media coverage,
which even caused a number of poor victims. From the journalist's point of
view, this may also be just the way to meet the demands of the era based on the
strong desire of the readers.
In the old days, there seem to have been some
countries where a phenomenon was prevalent; when newspaper company A holds an
event of "elephants’ parade" and fills most of its paper with the
article about the parade, giving the impression that the event is a major event
in the world though it is almost meaningless, then newspaper company B, not to
be outdone, immediately holds the event of "hippopotamuses' dance" to
counterattack.
I also heard that a small newspaper
provided a unique and useful article column, which was appreciated by a circle
of readers, but the big newspaper would never do the same even if many people
earnestly request it. This is also a rumour and the truth is not known, but it
is a very likely story. This may be another example of the sorrow of the
powerful.
These strange
phenomena inevitably occur as a result of the life-threatening competition for
survival among newspaper companies, and it seems that there is no help for it
as long as journalism is in the hands of profit-making organizations.
One possible way to eliminate the
demerits and the harms of journalism preserving its every merit and benefit at
the same time would be to remove at least the major newspapers out of the hands
of private profit-making organizations, and place them in the hands of public
organizations representing the entire nation. If this cannot be done instantly,
it would be the only alternative that as many people as possible patiently keep
the hope of getting closer to such an ideal at least.
There seem to be quite a lot of people
dissatisfied with the current journalism, but after all, they seem to have no
way but to give up. The human power, which cannot control even rain, wind, or
earthquakes at will, has no control over this natural phenomenon of human. We
seem to have no choice but to wait for the day when this mad wind will
naturally calm down after it has exhausted its own power and turn into the
peaceful spring breeze that will make the world better place to live in.
Anyway, I worry that, if we read only
stereotyped newspaper articles every morning and evening, exposing our eyes
only to inaccurate reports, our brain may be gradually degenerating. The Greeks
and Romans of the old days fortunately did not have newspapers, but instead had
only Plato and Cicero. So, they might have been so clever.
Even
now, several times a month, there still appear articles about suicides by
jumping into the crater of Mt. Mihara. I wonder how long they are going to
publish this stereotyped article. Everyone must be admiring their perseverance.
I think the fact that the sun appears in the eastern sky every morning is far
more important than such an incident. They may get rid of it already, but they
don't, probably because of the public's desire for the permanence of the
"stereotype" such as comic stories of Jiggs and Maggie (a series of
comics). Once in a while, however, they can leave out the articles on Mt.
Mihara, and instead dare put in a passage from Kojiki (a record of ancient
Japanese history), the Tale of Genji (a Japanese classic novel) or Saikaku (a
Japanese classical novelist). It might be rather refreshing. The stereotyped
routine articles like Mt. Mihara’s have long since become mouldy, but the
classics we read once in a while may provide us with fresh news, as it seems to
me, even after a thousand years. Yesterday’s lie is already dead and rotten
today. But the truth a hundred years ago is fresh, alive and active all the
time.
The appearance of the monster in Scottish
lake was a sensation. But modern journalism is producing much more horrible
various monsters every morning and evening, and sending them from the capital
to every corner of the world. And perhaps even more frightening, strange and
interesting than these monsters is the phenomenon of journalism itself.
Now,
the humourous appearance of an eccentric old scholar fearfully observing the
bizarre virtual dinosaur called "journalism" from the glass window of
the ivory tower must be in the eyes of a professional journalist looking at it
far from the busy street of Ginza. How it looks to him is left to the wise
readers’ imagination.
(1934 Chuo Koron)
*Translator’s
Reflection on “A Thought on Journalism”
This essay was written 88 years ago, but if
we replace the word “newspapers” in the essay with “media” , or “TV, radio,
internet, You Tube, blogs”, we find the situation is far more critical today.
Of course, the amount and the transmission speed of information is incomparably
greater now than 88 years ago. And also, anyone can disseminate any information
through the internet now, so we may be a disseminator and a recipient of
information at the same time. This makes the problem even more complicated and
serious.
There seem to be two fundamental problems :
the quality of the disseminated information, and the ability of recipients to
verify and discern the information. Today, poor quality information is freely
disseminated in large quantities, and each recipient’s ability to verify and
discern the information cannot keep up with its increasing quantity and speed.
Besides, the propaganda of freedom of speech and press is rampant. It sometimes
restrains us from questioning the quality of information, as we may be accused
of violating the freedom of speech and press when we say something critical.
The freedom of speech and press presupposes a high degree of intelligence on
the part of both disseminator and recipient, otherwise it will lead us to
catastrophe. We have many examples around us today ---- Covid, global warming,
wars, etc.
As a matter of fact, it is impossible to stop
disseminating any information whatever it may be. So, the only way for us to
avoid the catastrophe is to improve our ability to scrutinize and discern the
information.
Unquestionably we should discern false,
erroneous or malicious information, but even if the information is accurate and
with full of good intentions, it can be misinterpreted and misused, leading us
to disaster, if our ability of understanding the information correctly is not
good enough. One of such cases is the typological interpretation mentioned in
the essay. With just one key word, some stereotype comes to our mind, and we
think it is the whole picture. Just by looking at a part, we build up a false
picture of the whole through our poor imagination and prejudice.
We need to do our part before we put the
blame on the journalism.
Comments
Post a Comment