Abstract
Recent scholarship has aimed to expand the concept of political scandal by examining problematic statements made by public figures, often termed “talk scandals.” However, a major limitation of existing studies is the lack of clear differentiation between gaffes and talk scandals. This study aims to better understand talk scandals by focusing on the political dynamics, including the relationship between the media and politics, that generate them. Using a new collection of political gaffes, we examine the frequency of gaffes associated with different cabinet positions, the locations of gaffes, the durations of gaffes, and the major societal actors who expressed offense at statements made by Japanese cabinet ministers. Through quantitative analysis and case studies, we explore why problematic statements escalate into scandals while others quickly fade from public attention. Our analysis suggests that the news media alone cannot independently transform a gaffe into a talk scandal. Instead, journalists must reference and justify their coverage by citing clear criticisms from offended groups or individuals. These statements tend to develop into talk scandals only when they receive strong and sustained criticism within the political arena.
Introduction
Political scandals are prevalent in modern democracies. They typically attract media attention and may affect the reputation and careers of political actors. They are studied with emphasis on understanding their political causes and consequences, but also as mediated and communicative events. Thompson (2000) classifies political scandals into three main types: financial, sex, or abuse of power. Ekström and Johansson (2008) argue for broadening this framework by studying what they call “talk scandals.” At the center of talk scandals are specific verbal transgressions that media outlets dramatize and build a narrative to hold elites accountable. To study the relationship between the press and politics, expanding on scandal types and examining transgressive political speech through either cross-country or single-country studies is an important endeavor. We seek to contribute to this literature by doing the latter. We provide systematic descriptive evidence on talk scandals in Japanese politics and examine possible mechanisms that escalate gaffes into talk scandals.
Scandals have received extensive media coverage in Japanese politics. The mainstream media frequently uncovers transgressions linked to politicians in national and local newspapers. Television infotainment programs often cover financial and abuse of power scandals, while weekly magazines are a more common and reliable source for scandals involving sexual transgressions. However, a different picture emerges when examining scandals at the highest levels of government, specifically those involving cabinet ministers. From the start of the Ikeda administration in July 1960 to the end of the Kishida administration in October 2024, sixty-five ministers have resigned. 1 Two ministers resigned over sexual misconduct, and another two stepped down following allegations of power abuse. Approximately twenty-two ministers resigned due to financial irregularities. Nine ministers left their positions due to policy failures or corruption linked to bureaucrats or the bureaucracy. Another nine resigned primarily for violating election campaign regulations. Lastly, twenty-one ministers resigned after making a gaffe.
The twenty-one cases of resignation due to problematic statements differ significantly from typical scandals involving sex, money, or power. These ministers stepped down after making remarks rooted in carelessness, arrogance, political convictions, or a combination of these factors. The consequences of talk scandals can vary significantly depending on the circumstances. For minor gaffes, politicians may mitigate substantial negative repercussions by promptly issuing an apology or deflecting criticism with ambiguous language. Although talk scandals usually fail to generate criminal convictions, they can sometimes paralyze the legislature for weeks or cause considerable damage to bilateral relations with foreign countries.
The main research question we address is as follows: why do some gaffes escalate into scandals while others do not? We argue that a critical ingredient for Japan’s news media to generate a talk scandal is to reference criticisms raised by external actors. This research builds on the theoretical distinctions proposed by Ekström and Johansson (2008, 2019) for talk scandals, as well as the concepts of indexing, framing, and mediatization (Bennett 1990; Entman 2012; Mazzoleni and Schulz 1999).
We concentrate on cabinet ministers rather than other politicians for two reasons. First, the consequences of talk scandals are more observable and easier to study in the case of cabinet ministers. There is a detailed historical record of ministers who resign or issue formal apologies, which is harder to observe for parliamentary members not serving in the cabinet. Second, the news media is more likely to report on and discuss statements made by cabinet ministers.
Talk Scandals and Japan’s Media Landscape
The study of scandals has been an important research area in political science and communication studies. Scholars have examined many of the ways that scandals affect politics, such as candidate evaluations (Bhatti et al. 2013; Funk 1996), electoral accountability (Eggers and Fisher 2011), satisfaction with democracy (Kumlin and Esaiasson 2012; Norris 2019), or trust in government or politicians (Ares and Hernández 2017; Bowler and Karp 2004). Scandals are also studied as communicative events as “something that is shown, reported, staged and kept alive day after day” (Ekström and Johansson 2008: 18).
In his work on political scandal, Thompson (2000) develops the concept of mediated scandal and classifies scandals into three major types: financial, sex, or abuse of power. Building upon Thompson, Ekström and Johansson have argued that the classification of scandal be broadened to include an important fourth type called “talk scandal.” According to Ekström and Johansson (2008: 64), “talk scandals” involve utterances that transgress norms of public discourse. They identify five types of talk scandals: (1) the disclosure of observed backstage utterances; (2) the accidental collapse of backstage and frontstage utterances; (3) the produced/purposive collapse of backstage and frontstage utterances; (4) the transgression of norms in the public sphere; and (5) unsuccessful utterances in journalistic interviews.
Ekström and Johansson’s important study has been utilized to study speech discourse and scandals in various countries, including Israel, Canada, Hong Kong, and Nordic countries (Ekström et al. 2022; Kampf 2009, 2011; Lee 2012; Patrona 2019; Pollack et al. 2018; Trottier 2018). While the previous literature has advanced the study of scandals, political communication, and transgressive speech, one of its challenges is to distinguish clearly between gaffes and scandals. As Ekström and Johansson (2019: 187) explain, “The differences between gaffes that disappear without political consequences and more serious violations of discursive norms are anything but unambiguous.” To further develop the comparative scandal literature and media-politics scholarship, it is important to clarify and study this distinction.
Ekström and Johansson (2019: 184) define talk scandal as “an action that constitutes a transgression of norms, rules, or moral codes.” For talk scandals to exist, politicians’ statements must generate public discontent and threaten their reputation and career. While we borrow from Ekström and Johansson’s definition, it does not neatly differentiate between talk scandals and gaffes that fail to become scandals. Their definition also does not emphasize some of the important underlying political dynamics of talk scandals, such as the role played by external actors. This leads us to modify their definition below.
Japan is a valuable and interesting case to study talk scandals. A few basic features related to scandals and their media landscape are worth a brief mention. The first is its frequent cabinet reshuffles. Between 1947 and 2012, Japan has seen more individuals hold the post of prime minister and a greater number of cabinets than any other established parliamentary democracy (Masuyama and Nyblade 2014: 61). 2
Japan’s press club system is also important in shaping how the mass media covers scandals in Japan. Newspaper companies employ a “collective coverage” system in which “beat reporters” closely monitor key figures such as the prime minister, chief cabinet secretary, and other cabinet members (Taniguchi 2018). These beat reporters are part of Japan’s kisha club (press club) system, which scholars have described as an “information cartel” that limits access and information to press club members (Au and Kawai 2012; Freeman 2000; Yamamoto 1989). The press club system is dominated by media conglomerates that oversee newspapers and television stations. Scholars sometimes refer to these conglomerates, along with the public broadcaster NHK, as Japan’s “inside media” because of their strong ties with government institutions (Prusa 2024; Pharr 1996).
Talk Scandals and Possible Escalation Mechanisms
The previous literature on talk scandals has struggled to clearly differentiate gaffes from talk scandals. Ekström and Johansson (2019), for example, view talk scandals as actions that transgress a norm and focus on elaborating on five possible types of how talk scandals are mediated. Their focus on defining and categorizing types of talk scandals leads them to pay less attention to the role of other political actors. The contribution of this paper to the comparative scandal literature and media-politics scholarship lies in identifying the role of mediated references to external actors’ criticism as an important pathway through which gaffes become talk scandals. Thus, for this paper, we define talk scandals as mediated events triggered by political speech that violates specific norms, rules, or moral codes and elicits strong reactions from other actors, such as calls for public apology or resignation. The distinctive contribution of this study lies in identifying and examining a key pathway through which gaffes become talk scandals by focusing on the role of mediated references to external actors’ criticisms.
There is no ironclad theory to explain the escalation of gaffes into scandals, but some of the literature on indexing, framing, and mediatization is useful in studying media coverage. In Bennett’s (1990) index theory, journalists attempt to filter or “index” the range of opinions and criticisms expressed in the political process by quoting relevant political actors. Some support for this theory came from studies of the United States and foreign policy (Bennett et al. 2007; Zaller and Chiu 1996) and from studying news coverage in the United Kingdom (Bennett and Alexseev 1995).
The concept of indexing is similar to framing. In a study focusing on presidential scandals in the United States, Entman (2012) views news production as a site where political elites contend to control news frames. He argues that the failure of journalists to frame high-cost misconduct as a scandal is “because journalists cannot impose the scandal frame or elevate substantively damaging malfeasance to high magnitude on their own” (2012, p. 25). He does not examine presidential gaffes but escalating gaffes to talk scandals may involve a similar logic: journalists may need to frame the gaffe as inappropriate by relying on external sources.
Another popular concept to help understand how the press constructs media events has been termed mediatization. “In the same way that media select and frame events, the media select which actors will receive attention and frame those actors’ public images” (Mazzoleni and Schulz 1999: 251). Ekström and Johansson (2019) view talk scandals as being highly mediated, which can also be said of talk scandals in Japan. Our main argument, however, is that Japan’s news media may not have enough power to transform gaffes into talk scandals on their own. To generate talk scandals, journalists may need to cite and reference strong criticisms from external actors, as suggested by some of the above research (Bennett 1990; Entman 2012). We argue that gaffes tend to escalate into talk scandals when they receive strong and sustained criticism within the political arena. Our basic conceptual model leads us to focus on gaffes, media coverage of these gaffes, the presence or absence of external criticisms, and whether talk scandals emerge from the original gaffe.
How the News Media Cover Gaffes in Japan
To study how gaffes become talk scandals, we focused on providing two sorts of evidence. The first is from the compilation and analysis of a dataset of gaffes. The second is the use of several case studies to illustrate some of the mechanisms behind the patterns covered in the analysis.
As there is no comprehensive list of gaffes, we compiled our own dataset of inappropriate remarks made by cabinet ministers and prime ministers using books and newspaper databases. We selected five books by journalists and non-fiction writers that contained detailed lists of political gaffes. 3 While the authors exercised their own judgment in selecting gaffes, these books provided a valuable starting point in building our dataset. In addition to books, we used two electronic databases from the Asahi and Yomiuri newspapers to verify existing gaffes and identify additional cases. 4 Yomiuri maintains the largest circulation in Japan, followed by Asahi. 5
Exercising judgment was crucial in determining the inappropriateness of statements. Simple misstatements or minor factual errors were generally excluded from being considered gaffes. We excluded two types of gaffes made by prime ministers: remarks about the Central Bank’s interest rate and comments on the timing of general elections. In Japan, most political observers do not expect prime ministers to be truthful on these topics. Gaffes not reported by both newspapers were excluded, as they typically attract less attention. Our final list includes 344 gaffes made by 155 different cabinet ministers. Notably, one-hundred ministers were linked to a single gaffe, while six ministers made more than ten gaffes each.
Position, Location, and Duration of Gaffes
We analyzed our dataset of gaffes to gain a more comprehensive understanding of gaffes and how the news media covers them. While the most important part of this analysis focuses on media references to external actors, we also examined the frequency of gaffes associated with different cabinet positions, the location of gaffes, and the duration of gaffes. We use some of this analysis to also discuss some of our additional expectations on how the media covers talk scandals in general.
We have opted to present our descriptive evidence for the entire 1960–2024 period. We agree with the argument that Japan’s press club system—and the traditional media conglomerates—has remained relatively robust and has not undergone the sorts of drastic reforms that have weakened traditional media groups elsewhere (Buchmeier 2024; Hayashi 2018). As press club reporters have largely followed similar strategies in covering gaffes linked to high-level politicians, we do not expect drastic change over time. We plan to examine the temporal dimensions of talk scandals in Japan in future research. 6
We begin by examining the frequency of gaffes associated with various cabinet positions. We expect that the mass media is more likely to report on the financial scandals of ministers in prominent and influential positions compared to those in less powerful roles. Scholars of Japanese politics, such as Kato and Laver (2003), have identified the Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Finance, and the Chief Cabinet Secretary as the most important and powerful positions. Consequently, we expect the mass media in Japan will be more likely to scrutinize their speech and report on their verbal transgressions.
Table 1 displays the number of gaffes reported in newspapers for the top ten ministerial positions, listed in descending order. Two key interpretations can be drawn from this data. First, there is considerable support for the argument that the news media tends to report more frequently on gaffes made by individuals in prominent and influential positions. However, Table 1 also reveals that gaffes made by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Defense are often reported, despite these positions not being considered as powerful or influential by scholars. These roles, being relatively low profile within the cabinet, may be used to reward less capable politicians. The frequency of gaffes in these positions could be attributed to their involvement in controversial policy areas.
Number of Gaffes by Cabinet Position.
We also determined the specific location or venue where ministers made the gaffes. Earlier in the discussion, we highlighted the importance of Japan’s press club system, which we expect will influence where gaffes are reported, with a critical distinction being formal versus informal settings. We classified locations into eleven distinct categories based on the descriptions provided by reporters, ranging from press conferences to television programs. Table 2 presents the number of gaffes for each category in descending order. According to this table, the most common locations for gaffes reported in the mass media are Diet sessions and press conferences. These are highly formal occasions on which Japan’s major press clubs allocate substantial resources to cover the statements and actions of ministers.
Location of Gaffes.
Note. Gaffes linked to resignations are indicated in parentheses.
At the bottom of Table 2, fewer gaffes were reported in interviews, television programs, diplomatic meetings, and magazines. Excluding diplomatic meetings, these more informal settings allow reporters greater flexibility in structuring conversations with ministers. This can lead reporters to attempt to elicit gaffes through persistent questioning, while some ministers may respond more openly in a relaxed environment.
Table 2 also provides information about the number of resignation-related gaffes made at each location. The most common venue linked to resignations is the highly formal press conferences. However, the second and third most common locations are interviews and lectures, which are informal settings where ministers may not be adequately prepared to make statements or may be uncertain about the presence of news reporters. Reporters’ use of small audio recording devices at informal events has also played an important role in documenting inappropriate comments leading to some of these resignations.
When compiling the list of gaffes, we identified the start and end dates in each newspaper. For end dates that were more challenging to determine, we looked for either the last publication date or the date of a conclusive event, such as a resignation or the issuance of a formal apology. To illustrate the duration of media attention to gaffes, the histogram in Figure 1 displays the number of days from the initial report to the final report, using the average of two newspapers, subject to a limit of sixty days. Over 80, or 24%, of the 344 gaffes are reported within the span of one day, as indicated by the first bar. Approximately 70% of all gaffes do not last more than seven days. The duration of media reports declines until around ten days, but no clear pattern emerges after that point, except for the cases coded at the sixty-day limit. 7
Duration of news coverage.
Counterintuitively, the duration of media attention is not clearly correlated with the magnitude of talk scandals. The average length of media coverage for gaffes linked to ministerial resignations is 7.0 days, while the average for gaffes not linked to a resignation is 7.6 days. Among the twenty-one ministers who resigned due to their gaffes, ten resigned either on the first day the media reported the gaffe or the following day, suggesting that media coverage is overly critical from the outset.
News Media References to External Actors
The last and most important analysis of the dataset aims to examine our main argument that the news media may need to cite and reference strong criticisms from external actors to generate talk scandals. We conducted a basic analysis of the groups identified by journalists as expressing offense in response to political gaffes. Specifically, we examined whether the newspaper reports attributed criticism to political and social actors, including opposition party legislators, members of the ruling party, interest groups, and foreign governments. For comparative purposes, we classified the gaffes into two categories: those that culminated in a ministerial resignation and those that did not.
Table 3 presents the contingency tables for resignations and criticisms related to gaffes made by each political actor. Criticism from opposition party members was the most frequently reported (n = 220), followed by references to ruling party members (n = 76). When opposition party members voiced criticism, 12.3% of the associated gaffes (n = 27) are related to resignation, compared to only 4% (n = 5) when no such criticism was reported. By contrast, when ruling party members issued criticism, 23.7% of the gaffes (n = 18) are linked to resignation, whereas only 5.2% (n = 14) were associated with resignation without criticism from ruling party members. Notably, criticisms from ruling party members seem to be more restrained and less condemnatory than those from the opposition. Gaffes that attracted criticism from foreign governments were also more likely to be associated with resignations (23.9%) than those that did not receive international criticism.
Criticisms Raised by Political Actors Regarding Gaffes and Resignation.
Note. Percentages are in parentheses.
Aggregating the sources of criticism provides a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics surrounding political gaffes. In Table 4, we have counted the number of times that news reports mention any critical political actor (opposition party members, ruling party members, interest groups, and foreign governments). When the number is summed, the total ranges from zero to three, as no gaffe received criticism from all four. Notably, none of the gaffes that received no criticism (n = 69) were associated with a resignation. By contrast, when a gaffe was criticized by one type of actor (n = 176), only 5.7% (n = 10) are associated with a resignation. This proportion increased to 16.7% (n = 13 out of 78) when two actor types were involved and rose sharply to 42.9% (n = 9 out of 21) when three actor types voiced criticism. This systematic descriptive evidence provides some support for the argument that political gaffes are more likely to escalate into major scandals when they provoke broad and sustained criticism from multiple influential actors.
The Aggregated Number of Political Actors and Resignation.
Examples of Gaffes and Talk Scandals
We provide additional descriptive evidence below to highlight possible mechanisms suggested in the analysis of the dataset. In selecting which cases to write about, we wanted to include examples of talk scandals that generated a strong reaction from offended parties, such as talk scandals that culminated in a resignation or generated considerable media coverage without a resignation. We also selected examples of gaffes that generated weak or no reaction from offended parties. 8
Talk Scandals with Strong Reaction from Offended Parties
In this section, we examine four cases where gaffes escalated into significant talk scandals. Each case generated a strong reaction from offended parties, with three of the four cases culminating in the resignation of a minister. We provide information about the gaffe while also focusing on the role of the media and their coverage of which groups were offended by the remarks.
The first example involves Kuraishi Tadao, who served as Minister of Agriculture in the Sato administration. On January 23, 1968, North Korean vessels captured the USS Pueblo, a US Navy surveillance ship, off the coast of North Korea. The incident heightened tensions between North Korea and the United States and impacted Japan’s foreign policy and fishing operations in the northern regions. At a regular press conference following the cabinet meeting on February 6, Minister of Agriculture Kuraishi stated: As for the safe operation of fishing boats in the Sea of Japan, it is essential to have warships and artillery. The current constitution, which relies on the goodwill and trust of other nations, places Japan's security in the hands of others. A country with such a ridiculous constitution is like a mistress and lacks a foundation for true independence. We must take responsibility for defending our nation ourselves. . .
9
The media reported Kuraishi’s remarks during the evening news on February 6, which were subsequently published in the morning edition of newspapers on February 7. Opposition party members seized this opportunity to question Kuraishi during the Diet session on the morning of February 7.
When questioned about his remarks from yesterday, Kuraishi responded, “There is a great deal of exaggeration and misinterpretation. The news article does not accurately reflect my true intentions.” He added, “Since there was no agenda pertaining to my jurisdiction at the cabinet meeting yesterday, I simply conversed with news reporters.” Three opposition members questioned Kuraishi consecutively, criticizing him for not respecting the principles of the current constitution, accusing him of offering insincere and clumsy apologies, and demanding his resignation from the cabinet.
Following the Diet deliberation, three opposition parties decided to boycott all sessions until Kuraishi resigned. In addition, the federation of labor unions demanded his resignation. One newspaper received over 100 letters expressing dissatisfaction with Kuraishi’s gaffe (Asahi, February 13, 1968). The objections from the opposition parties were strong enough to stall all legislative sessions. After the boycott lasted more than two weeks, the government yielded to the demands of the opposition parties, paving the way for Kuraishi’s resignation on February 23 after a little more than two weeks of newspaper coverage in which reporters referenced criticisms from the opposition, ruling party, and social groups.
A second example of a gaffe that generated a major scandal and resulted in the first cabinet minister being dismissed by a prime minister in 33 years is that of Fujio Masayuki. Following a landslide victory for the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in the general election, Fujio assumed the role of Minister of Education in the third Nakasone Cabinet on July 22, 1986. Although this was his second ministerial position, he had no prior record of gaffes. This scandal centers on a series of highly provocative statements made by Fujio concerning Japan’s wartime history and its relationships with neighboring countries. The gaffe we detail below generated media coverage that lasted for nearly a month and a half, the longest in our dataset among those ministers who resigned.
In the spring of 1986, a newly certified history textbook faced criticism from the Chinese government due to its specific terminology. Prime Minister Nakasone and Education Minister Fujio discussed the matter. On July 25, just three days after his appointment, Fujio made the following statement at a press conference concerning the history textbook issue (Asahi, July 27, 1986): Is the Tokyo Trial (International Military Tribunal for the Far East) objective? Does the winner have the right to judge the loser? If world history is indeed the history of war, then trials must be held everywhere, and the same standards should be applied.
When asked for his opinion on the certified textbook discussed during the debates, he replied: That was done by the previous cabinet, and I have nothing further to add. That's fine. My point is that those who are complaining should think about whether they have ever engaged in similar actions throughout world history. It's good to acknowledge ours, but they must also recognize theirs.
Initially, the Japanese mass media did not report Fujio’s remarks. However, two Korean newspapers, Kyunghyang Shinmun and Dong-a Ilbo, published his statements in Korea on July 26, 1986. The strong negative reaction from South Korea was subsequently covered by Japanese newspapers on July 27, including excerpts from Fujio's press conference. In response to South Korea’s reaction, Fujio stated on July 26, “They can say anything about my statements, but I am not in a position to evaluate what they say. Why should I apologize? I have no reason to apologize” (Asahi, July 27, 1986). Although Fujio did not apologize, the Japanese government officially expressed regret to the South Korean government on July 30 to ease tensions.
Three weeks later, Fujio participated in interviews with the monthly magazine Bungei Shunju, which targets moderately conservative readers. 10 The galley proofs were informally circulated and reached the cabinet secretary and the prime minister in early September. The magazine published the interview on September 10. In this interview, Fujio reiterated statements he made since becoming education minister. One particularly contentious statement concerned Japan’s annexation of the Korean Peninsula in 1910. He claimed that the annexation was based on an agreement between Japan and Korea and asserted that Korea bore responsibility for the annexation.
Japanese newspapers first reported Fujio’s remarks on the annexation of Korea in their morning edition on September 6. Korean newspapers also covered the story on the same day. 11 The Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs demanded an explanation from the Japanese government, characterizing Fujio’s remarks as a serious distortion of history intended to justify the colonization of Korea. They warned that Prime Minister Nakasone’s planned visit to Korea could be jeopardized unless Fujio resigned. Consequently, Prime Minister Nakasone had no choice but to officially dismiss Fujio to mitigate the damage his comments had caused to Japan–Korea relations. Strong criticisms from the South Korean government played a significant role in escalating his gaffe into a talk scandal.
A third example of a gaffe leading to a resignation is that of Hanashi Yasuhiro, who served as justice minister in Prime Minister Kishida’s reshuffled second cabinet in 2022. Hanashi, a former police bureaucrat and sixth-term member of the lower house, held the important role of providing the final approval for death penalty sentences. Although he had not authorized any executions at the time, his inappropriate comments embarrassed the LDP and contributed to a quick resignation.
At a political fundraising party organized by the LDP vice foreign minister on the evening of November 9, Hanashi made the following remarks to attendees: “The justice minister is an obscure position that only makes headlines in the evening news after orders to carry out an execution have been stamped in the morning” (Asahi evening, November 10, 2022). Hanashi was attempting to amuse the attendees by making light of his role, but he may not have considered that reporters were recording everything and could use his words against him.
The following day, the mass media published details of Hanashi’s remarks, prompting immediate criticism and calls for his dismissal by opposition party leaders. On November 10, and during a plenary meeting of the upper house on the morning of November 11, Prime Minister Kishida expressed his intention to retain Hanashi in his current position. Given that Hanashi is a member of the Kishida faction, it is possible that Kishida was trying to protect him longer than necessary.
One key development that negatively impacted Hanashi’s fate was his decision to explain himself during a press conference following a cabinet meeting on the morning of November 11. He admitted to making similar remarks at other fundraising parties and meetings with local supporters. Just as the news reports began to cite criticisms expressed by the opposition and ruling parties, Hanashi resigned in the afternoon (Asahi, November 12, 2022).
The final example in this section is a case where a minister faced strong calls to resign but managed to retain his position. Yanagisawa Hakuo was the Minister of Health, Labor, and Welfare in Prime Minister Abe’s first cabinet from 2006 to 2007. On January 27, 2007, Yanagisawa traveled to Shimane Prefecture to attend a meeting organized by a support group led by an LDP prefectural assembly member. During his thirty-minute speech, he addressed various topics, including pensions, welfare, medical care, and the declining birth rate.
Yanagisawa made a controversial statement when discussing declining birth rates, comparing women to machines and devices that give birth to children. He explained, “The number of women between the ages of 15 and 50 is fixed. Because the number of birth-giving machines and devices is fixed, all that can be done is for each woman to do her best.” Although the event concluded without objections from organizers or attendees, major newspapers reported Yanagisawa’s remarks the following day (Asahi, January 28, 2007).
It is likely that attendees provided information to reporters, as the initial news in both Asahi and Yomiuri included phrases such as “according to several people who attended the rally.” When interviewed by reporters on January 28, Yanagisawa explained, “The issue of declining birthrates is complex, so I used terms like ‘machines’ as an analogy for the production of goods. I recognize that this was inappropriate and rephrased it with different words. I had no intention of showing disrespect towards women” (Yomiuri, January 29, 2007).
Leaders from opposition parties demanded Yanagisawa’s resignation and criticized Prime Minister Abe for appointing him. During an upper house session, Abe issued an official apology on behalf of Yanagisawa. This unusual move signaled Abe’s determination to keep Yanagisawa in his post. Female MPs from the opposition continued to call for his resignation, while female MPs from the governing party criticized his remarks as inappropriate but did not openly demand his resignation. Media coverage faded after three weeks, with Yanagizawa successful in retaining his position.
In some of the cases we examined, such as Yanagisawa, the earliest publication gave a straightforward account of what the minister said, while subsequent publications sustained the coverage by adding information on various criticisms. The Asahi initially reported the straightforward fact of what he said and where, noting that no one objected to his statement (Asahi, January 28, 2007). Yomiuri then published its first article one day after Asahi, not only describing what Yanagisawa said but also addressing the opposition parties’ demand for his resignation (Yomiuri, January 29, 2007). When one newspaper breaks the story, other publications may need to focus on what was said and which groups or individuals in politics or society are offended by the gaffe.
Gaffes With No or Weak Reaction
Our study of the duration of gaffes reveals that most have a short lifespan and fail to attract significant media attention or develop into scandals. However, these seemingly “minor” gaffes are not necessarily trivial, and one might wonder why they fail to develop into scandals. We discuss two below that failed to attract media coverage or receive sustained criticisms from external actors.
On September 8, 1989, Mizuno Kiyoshi, the Director General of the Management and Coordination Agency during the Kaifu administration, addressed the growing number of foreign workers at a regular press conference (Yomiuri evening, September 8, 1989). He remarked, “It’s similar to disposing of garbage. You take it here and there, and then you take it somewhere else.” When questioned by reporters about the meaning of his statement, he clarified, “I meant that because various ministries and agencies with conflicting interests are involved in this issue, responses will vary.” He denied ever considering foreign workers as garbage and promptly retracted his statement.
This statement attracted little attention, as none of the other newspapers—Asahi, Mainichi, and Nikkei—reported on his remarks. No opposition parties raised the issue during the Diet session. 12 At the time, Japan was known for its passive attitudes and policies regarding the acceptance of foreign workers, and the number of foreign residents and workers was quite small. There were no protests from foreign workers, lawyers, or non-profit organizations. Most news reports deemed this statement unworthy of coverage.
After Mizuno, another notable case involves Aso Taro, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who attended local gatherings with supporters in his district. On January 13, 2020, he delivered speeches to different audiences, stating, “Japan is the only country in the world where the same people, the same language, and the same dynasty have continued for 2,000 years.”
Aso’s words reflect the view of those who believe that only one ethnic group has existed throughout Japan’s history, a notion that has repeatedly faced criticism over the years. His remarks also clearly contradict government policy, which is based on the Ainu Measures Promotion Act aimed at eliminating discrimination against the Ainu people.
At a press conference following the Cabinet meeting on January 14, Aso apologized for his remarks made the previous day. Members of the Ainu ethnic minority in Hokkaido expressed their anger and criticized his remarks as shameful. Despite the strong feelings of hurt among the Ainu people, they remain a small minority group with limited political influence. In the absence of significant protests from other groups or the opposition parties, the news media stopped covering Aso’s gaffe almost immediately.
The cases above help illustrate patterns uncovered in the dataset analysis and provide additional descriptive evidence on possible escalation mechanisms. In the first set of cases that led to resignations, the news media almost always referenced one or more offended groups or individuals. This was not always the case for many gaffes in general, including the two examples of minor gaffes mentioned above. Politicians often retracted or apologized for their remarks, effectively quelling potential scandals. Additionally, many gaffes failed to generate significant political or societal reactions even if they were controversial in some respects.
Conclusion
Before discussing the most important results of this study, we wish to briefly mention some of the limitations of our study, along with suggestions for incorporating social media dynamics, examining prime ministers and recent cases, and undertaking comparative analyses across different media systems. First, we selected cases based on the reactions of other political actors to gaffes, without regard to changes in the media landscape or political institutions. We also did not fully examine changes over time or consider how possible mechanisms have evolved given significant technological changes in communication or political reforms.
Scholars such as Pollack et al. (2018) have argued that talk scandals can emerge from postings on Twitter or social media platforms. In recent years in Japan, international tech companies such as Google, X, and TikTok have become major gateways of news in Japan, while the localized Yahoo! continues to serve as a leading news portal site. Social media users, including celebrities, are quick to catch an initial media report of a gaffe and then comment on it and forward it to other users. Recently, TV news stations have also posted news clips on YouTube, which makes it easy for users to share and post comments. Not surprisingly, ordinary members of Japan’s parliament have generated gaffes that have appeared on X or other social media sites. 13 However, most of these cases failed to escalate into a major talk scandal. 14 In future research, studying the role of social media in generating, amplifying, and accelerating different types of scandals is needed, along with more comparative analyses across various media and political systems. 15
A second limitation is primarily related to our case selection. We did not provide any descriptive cases involving prime ministers. Prime ministers differ significantly from ordinary cabinet ministers; the resignation of a prime minister results in a change of government, which involves different dynamics compared to the removal of a minister due to a scandal. Furthermore, prime ministers' gaffes referring to foreign countries or societies can sometimes create strong frictions in bilateral relations. In 2025, for example, remarks by Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae regarding Taiwan drew an intense reaction from the Chinese government. 16 Since it is very difficult, if not impossible, to remove a prime minister to calm political tensions, talk scandals involving prime ministers can be far more damaging than those involving cabinet ministers.
The distinctive contribution of this study was to identify and examine a key pathway through which gaffes become talk scandals by focusing on the role of mediated references to external actors’ criticisms. Our research on Japan strongly suggests that newspapers avoid making their own judgments about gaffes and instead focus on citing and highlighting social and political reactions from others. We also suspect that the degree of criticism in news coverage may depend on the source and intensity of these reactions. Without robust external critiques, journalists struggle to frame various transgressions and escalate such transgressions into a scandal (Entman 2012). Given features such as Japan’s press club system, the “inside media” cannot independently apply their own political or moral principles when writing about controversial political speech. Instead, reporters seem to “index” the range of opinions and criticisms expressed in the political process by quoting relevant political actors (Bennett 1990).
Based on the analysis conducted in this paper, whether ministers make sincere apologies for their gaffes depends on the strength of societal reactions. When opposition parties responded to gaffes in a divided manner or when social actors lacked the means to lodge a strong protest, ministers avoided giving apologies. We also observed a similar pattern when there was no clear offended party. This led us to conclude that gaffes escalated into scandals in Japan only when there were strong and continuous criticisms from actors within the political arena. The same dynamics that we identified in this study may apply to talk scandals in other democracies.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-hij-10.1177_19401612261423412 – Supplemental material for Political Speech, Scandals, and the News Media in Japan
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-hij-10.1177_19401612261423412 for Political Speech, Scandals, and the News Media in Japan by Matthew M. Carlson and Yukio Maeda in The International Journal of Press/Politics
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-2-hij-10.1177_19401612261423412 – Supplemental material for Political Speech, Scandals, and the News Media in Japan
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-hij-10.1177_19401612261423412 for Political Speech, Scandals, and the News Media in Japan by Matthew M. Carlson and Yukio Maeda in The International Journal of Press/Politics
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
A previous version of this paper was presented at the 10th Conference of the International Journal of Press/Politics, held at the University of Edinburgh from October 16 to 18, 2024. The authors express their gratitude to those in attendance for their valuable feedback on the paper. We also thank Hiroshi Kosuda, Mitoe Onoda, and Asaka Suzuki for assisting in data collection and Seungyeon Kang for locating Korean news articles. The authors are further grateful for the comments and feedback from the anonymous reviewers and the associate editor.
Correction (June 2026):
The Data Availability statement has been updated, and an additional online supplementary material document has been provided for this article.
Ethical Considerations
Not required. All information in this paper is compiled from publicly available materials.
Informed Consent
Because the study analyzed publicly available materials and did not involve human subjects research, informed consent was not required.
Author Contributions
Each author contributed equally to this work. The authors' names are listed in alphabetical order.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 24K04712.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
Author Biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
