I am appalled by the nonsense of the media, who are living in a state of "peaceful complacency."

I feel a strong sense of discomfort and anger regarding an article about human injuries caused by bears, which was published on Yomiuri Shimbun Online.

"Nine out of ten bear-related human injuries involve facial wounds... Experts advise, 'If attacked, interlock hands behind your neck and curl up into a defensive posture to protect your body.'"

The headline and content of this article, as well as the media's attitude of reporting it as if it were the absolute correct answer, leave me with no other word than "peaceful complacency" (heiwa-boke).

Can the "Defensive Posture" be adopted in the field?

The "Defensive Posture" recommended by a professor at Akita University Advanced Critical Care and Emergency Center—interlocking hands behind the neck and curling up to protect the face and head during an attack.

Certainly, the expert is likely conveying "the possibility of mitigating injuries in the worst-case scenario." However, can a person, suddenly attacked by a beast over one meter tall, calmly assume this "Defensive Posture" amidst terror and panic?

The article, which directly quotes the professor, states, "The bear is said to leave within a few minutes if it understands there will be no counterattack." However, those "few minutes" are an unimaginable period of terror, which will feel like hours to the person encountering the bear on the spot. There is no guarantee that one can remain completely passive during this time.

Abandonment of Responsibility as Reporting Professionals

What I am most outraged by is the reporting attitude of the journalist who wrote this article.

They reported a single expert's opinion with a large headline, as if it were the "only correct answer when attacked by a bear," and concluded the article right there.

Why does a reporter, who should have far more abundant access to information than us ordinary citizens, conclude with just one opinion?

.What about the opinions of other experts? (e.g., "Counterattack is also necessary," "Other defense strategies")

.What lessons can be learned from past victim cases?

.Why are bears descending into human settlements? (The fundamental issue)

I am profoundly disappointed by the complete lack of these multifaceted perspectives and the urgent, heartfelt voices of residents who are at risk of becoming victims.

The idea that "The bear will leave if you don't counterattack" is a dangerously naive "belief in the fundamental goodness of nature."

The notion that "the bear will leave if you don't counterattack," which the article presumes, is a dangerously naive "belief in the fundamental goodness of nature" (seizensetsu) when dealing with a beast, whether it be a Grizzly or an Asian Black Bear.

Bears do not possess human reason. They act based on their instinct for survival, territorial awareness, and curiosity about moving objects in front of them.

Despite historical incidents where humans were eaten alive by bears, is the media intending to assert "human-like equal rights" to a beast?

Of course, unnecessary killing should be avoided, but an argument advocating "non-resistance is the best policy" in a life-threatening situation is completely divorced from reality. Does the media not have a responsibility to report on situations where counterattack becomes the last resort, and the knowledge required for it?

The Media's Power, Ending with a "Trash Article"

The media is a "power" that significantly influences society. Is it utilizing that power only to report a "trash article" like this one, which is so shallow, ignores reality, and seems to conclude the matter with a single extreme view?

This article, I feel, symbolizes the sickness in the current media's reporting attitude: neglecting factual verification and the presentation of diverse perspectives, and instead settling for easy information and sensational headlines.

I strongly feel that we, the general public, must not be misled by such "nonsense of the media living in peaceful complacency," and must instead seek realistic knowledge and countermeasures ourselves.