Abstract
One of the prominent political issues in contemporary Japan is the “uragane” (slush fund) scandal. This issue has been extensively covered by the media and is believed to have played a significant role in shaping public opinion during recent elections. However, the legal essence of the uragane scandal pertains to “fukisai” (off-the-books money) in political funding income and expenditure reports. The term uragane itself is inherently ambiguous and lacks a clear, consistent definition. Moreover, there are discrepancies in its usage across different politicians and factions, with some being labeled as uragane and others as fukisai. This inconsistency raises concerns regarding fairness and impartiality in reporting. Decision-making research has demonstrated that framing effects—the influence of language on decision outcomes—are prevalent in various contexts. Accordingly, it is plausible that the framing of the uragane issue may have shaped public opinion and voting behavior. In light of these considerations, this study aims to examine the targets of the uragane label in media discourse. Using a database of major newspaper editorials, we analyzed the use of the terms uragane and fukisai in relation to different political factions. The findings indicate that, overall, the term uragane was more frequently applied to the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (LDP) as a whole, as well as the Abe faction, while the term fukisai was more commonly associated with the Kishida and Nikai factions. For other factions, the use of either term was relatively infrequent. These results suggest a bias in the application of the “uragane” and “fukisai” frames in media coverage.
