[Henoko Boat Capsizing Accident] Considering the 'Questions' at the Bereaved Family Press Conference, Part 1: What Should Be Asked at a Bereaved Family Press Conference?
This series is not intended to criticize the individual reporters who asked the questions. Nor is it intended to speculate on the reporters' intentions.
However, not blaming individuals is different from glossing over the problems with the questions. Based on the published Q&A, I will consider whether the questions were in line with the purpose of the press conference, whether they revealed new facts, and whether they were worth the burden placed on the bereaved family.
It is precisely because the parents answered sincerely that we were able to learn so much. However, the fact that they answered does not mean that it was good to ask those questions.
What did the parents intend to convey by holding the press conference?
On July 30, 2026, the parents of Tomoka Takeishi, who died in the Henoko offshore boat capsizing accident, held their first public press conference.
The focus of the press conference was clear.
The parents revealed that they had filed criminal complaints against a total of 11 people, including the principal, grade head, and accompanying teachers of Doshisha International Junior and Senior High School, as well as individuals associated with the Helicopter Base Opposition Council. They explained why they decided to file the complaints, what problems they believe existed in the safety management of the school and the council, and to what extent they want the location of responsibility to be clarified.
What the parents are seeking is to ensure that the accident is not dismissed as the sole responsibility of the boat captain.
Conducting a site visit. Discussing the risks. Creating a detailed plan. The teachers fulfilling their duty of supervision and verifying the results.
If even one of these basic safety management steps had been carried out appropriately, could the accident have been prevented? They want the authorities to investigate the responsibility of both the school and the council. And they do not want the same accident to ever happen again.
The parents stood at the press conference to convey that to society.
Questions that clarified the core of the accident
In the Q&A session, there were many questions that were in line with the purpose of the press conference and clarified the structure of the accident.
The Asahi Shimbunasked what the school and the Helicopter Base Opposition Council each should have done to prevent the accident.
Through this question, the 'four opportunities to stop the accident' as envisioned by the father were specifically presented. It also highlighted the view that the council side also had a responsibility to verify the appropriateness and safety of having school trip students ride on protest boats.
The Yomiuri Shimbunasked the lawyer how they view the criminal liability of the school and the council from the perspectives of foreseeability, duty of care, and the duty to avoid results.
From the lawyer's response, the thinking behind the criminal complaint was clarified, including the inherent danger of maritime activities, the danger of the waters at the site, the fact that school trip students were put on protest boats, and the fact that the school and the council had not established a concrete navigation plan.
ABC Televisionasked how they received the school's response after the accident and what kind of explanations or initiatives they are seeking in the future.
The father revealed that since the end of May, there had been no opportunity to receive a concrete explanation from the school. Furthermore, he stated that rather than just waiting for the results of an external investigation, the school should have explained the problems it noticed and the clear errors it made to the students and the bereaved family.
Okinawa Timesasked what they are requesting of schools nationwide to prevent the same accident from happening again.
The father replied that he was not asking for anything special, but rather that they thoroughly implement 'the obvious things': site inspections, safety consultations, meticulous planning, and appropriate supervision and verification. The mother also expressed the view that the management and supervision system for private schools itself should be reviewed.
Through these questions, the cause of the accident, the lack of safety management, the responsibilities of the school and the council, and the efforts necessary to prevent recurrence became more clearly visible.
Questions have a role in revealing facts and ideas that society does not yet know. I believe these were questions that fulfilled that role.
Were all the questions in line with the purpose of the press conference?
On the other hand, while listening to the Q&A session, there were also questions that made me pause and think.
What would you say to your late daughter, Chika, if you could meet her one more time?
What do you do every day while thinking of Chika? How do you spend the monthly anniversary of her death?
What kind of slander and defamation have you received?
How do you take the concern that peace education might be stifled?
Why has the reply to the council been stopped for about three weeks?
I believe each question had its own reason from the side of the person who asked it. However, the fact that there is a reason on the reporter's side does not mean it is necessary to ask the parents directly.
This press conference is not a place for celebrities or public officials to explain their activities. It is a press conference by ordinary parents who lost their 17-year-old daughter in a sudden accident.
Holding a press conference does not mean they have agreed to answer any and all questions. Much less should it mean that they have offered up their grief-stricken private lives for the sake of news reporting.
What was newly revealed by the questions?
When considering whether a question was appropriate, the first thing I want to confirm is what was clarified by that question.
If you ask about the lack of school site inspections or planning, you can understand where the opportunities to prevent the accident were.
If you ask about the legal responsibilities of the school and the council, you can understand why they filed a complaint not only against the captain but also against school officials who were not at the scene.
If you ask about the school's response after the accident, you can understand to what extent explanations and dialogues were conducted.
On the other hand, what was newly clarified about the cause of the accident or the location of responsibility by the question, 'What would you like to say to your late daughter?'
By asking 'How do you spend the monthly anniversary of her death?', what was learned that is necessary for preventing recurrence?
What was shared as a result was the most private and profound grief of a mother who had lost her daughter.
There is no doubt that her words were moving. However, the fact that a moving answer was obtained does not prove the necessity of the question.
I will consider this issue in detail in the second installment.
Was it necessary to ask again what had already been said?
Another thing that concerned me was that there were many questions that overlapped with the content the parents had already shared on note.
What kind of child Chika was.
Why she participated in the Henoko course.
That she did not have the purpose of engaging in protest activities.
That the parents are keeping their distance from political disputes between the left and the right.
That they have suffered from slander and defamation against Chika and the students.
That they are not categorically rejecting the school or the teachers.
That they are seeking the clarification of the truth and the prevention of recurrence.
The parents have carefully chosen their words to convey these points on note since the accident.
Of course, there are times when it is meaningful to reconfirm even previously published content at a press conference. However, if you are going to ask again about things that can be confirmed in public documents, you need to think about what you want to newly clarify with that question.
Had the purpose become to have the person themselves speak again of the grief that had already been shared?
I will examine this point in detail in the third installment.
A single reporter asking multiple questions in succession
In this press conference, there were scenes where a single reporter asked multiple questions at once.
Questions that are heavy both mentally and legally—such as specific examples of slander, the possibility of civil litigation, exchanges with the council, and points they cannot accept regarding apologies—were piled up all at once.
For the reporter, there may have been many things they wanted to confirm during the limited opportunity.
However, the ones answering are the parents, only about four months after the accident. While tracing painful memories and being mindful of legal implications, they must organize and answer multiple questions.
In press conferences for general accident victims and their families, the principle should be one question per person. Only if clarification is needed after the answer should one related follow-up be added. Even just that would make a significant difference in the burden on the bereaved family.
The rule of one question per person is not just to limit reporters' questions. It is also a consideration to allow them to answer each question carefully.
Things to consider before asking a question
Before asking a question at a bereaved family press conference, shouldn't we at least consider the following?
Does this question align with the purpose of the press conference?
Will that question reveal new facts or perspectives?
Can it be confirmed in public documents such as notes or reports?
Is it something that must be asked directly to the person themselves?
Is there a public interest that justifies the psychological burden caused by the question?
Are you asking multiple heavy questions at once?
Are you continuing to press even after they have indicated a desire to refrain from answering?
This does not mean refraining from asking questions and weakening the investigation of the accident.
Regarding the responsibilities of the school, the council, and the administration, as well as the lack of safety management and the response after the accident, we must ask strictly.
However, I believe we must not be mistaken about who we are directing those strict questions toward.
Questions directed at organizations and parties in a position to be held accountable and questions directed at parents who have lost their daughter should not be the same.
Those being questioned also have things that should be protected
The media has a role to reveal facts that society should know. For that purpose, strict questions are sometimes necessary.
On the other hand, those being questioned also have dignity and a private life that should be protected.
Especially when ordinary people who have suddenly lost family members due to an accident hold a press conference themselves to appeal to society, I believe the media should not take advantage of that courage.
The parents answered each question sincerely over a long period of time.
While strictly questioning the school's responsibility, they spoke about how Chika loved the school and her teachers, and appealed for an end to the slander and defamation directed at current students and teachers. They also avoided making assumptions about Chika's feelings that would be convenient for themselves.
Through those answers, we were able to learn about the parents' sincere character and Chika's straightforward way of life.
However, that is only because the parents faced every question with sincerity.
The fact that the parents answered sincerely does not mean that it was right to ask those questions.
Preview
Next time, we will take up the question, 'If you could meet Chika one more time, what would you like to say to her?' Is obtaining a moving answer the same as the question being necessary? We will consider the meaning of asking about grief at a bereaved family press conference.
*This article was written based on the Q&A from the press conference published by the Okinawa Times. Please check the original article for the full text of the statements.
https://www.okinawatimes.co.jp/articles/-/1893776