A PHENOMENON THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED
In the story that shook Japan in July 2022, there is a figure standing in the shadow of the main perpetrator — assassin Tetsuya Yamagami. That figure is journalist Eito Suzuki, whose publications about the Unification Church became the very «map» by which Yamagami navigated his path to murder. But was Suzuki merely a «source of information,» or did he become an accomplice — not legally, but morally — to a crime he himself may not have intended?
This text is not a legal analysis, but an exploration of the moral responsibility of a man whose words, written in a comfortable office or on the pages of a blog, transformed into a weapon in another man’s hands. It is an investigation into the boundaries of journalistic ethics, the psychology of influence, and that thin, almost invisible line where informing becomes incitement.
PART 1: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MECHANISM — HOW WORDS BECOME WEAPONS
1.1 Identification: When the Reader Becomes a Follower
Tetsuya Yamagami did not simply read Eito Suzuki’s blog. He absorbed it, he breathed it, he lived by it. The psychological phenomenon of identification is a process in which a person unconsciously identifies with a character, author, or idea, perceiving their goals and struggles as their own.
Yamagami grew up in a troubled family. His father committed suicide. His mother, after that, immersed herself in a religious organization, making large donations in the hope of improving the family’s situation. In 2002, Yamagami’s mother went bankrupt but did not leave the church. The local Unification Church community gradually returned half of her donations to the family, and in 2009 the entire family, including Tetsuya, signed a non-dispute agreement. His brother was ill and also committed suicide. Yamagami had reasons to hate the Unification Church — and he did hate it. But hatred, as an emotion in itself, has no direction. It seeks form, language, justification. And Suzuki gave him that language.
When Yamagami read the «Daily Cult News» blog, he saw not just articles. He saw confirmation of his own experience. He saw that his suffering was not a coincidence, not an isolated case, but part of a «system.» And this system, according to Suzuki’s narrative, was not merely «problematic» — it was «evil.» Yamagami did not just agree with Suzuki — he became him.
The moral question: Does a journalist have the right to create a narrative that, when read by a psychologically vulnerable person, becomes a «guiding thread» to violence? Suzuki wrote for thousands of people. But among those thousands was one for whom his words became more than mere words.
1.2 Validation of Feelings: When Hatred Receives «Scientific» Justification
One of the most powerful mechanisms of psychological influence is validation — the confirmation that a person’s feelings are «normal» and «justified.» For Yamagami, his hatred of the Unification Church was not just an emotion — it was his identity. And when he read Suzuki, he saw that his hatred was shared by others, that it was «right,» that it was «just.»
Suzuki wrote about «malicious fundraising,» about «blackmailing believers,» about an «evil organization.» He did not just report facts — he gave them emotional coloring. He created a language in which Yamagami could speak about his pain.
The ethical paradox: A journalist has the right to report on abuses. But when reporting shifts into a constant, one-sided, emotionally charged construction of an «enemy» image, it ceases to be merely journalism. It becomes propaganda. And propaganda, especially directed at a psychologically vulnerable audience, carries moral responsibility for its consequences.
1.3 Cognitive Framing: How Suzuki Built a «Conspiracy Theory»
In psychology, there is the concept of «cognitive framing» — a way of presenting information that determines how a person will interpret that information. Suzuki created a clear, simple, and, above all, emotionally charged frame:
Unification Church = evil
Politicians supporting the Church = accomplices to evil
Fighting the Church = fighting for justice
In this frame, there was no room for nuance. No room for alternative viewpoints. No room for complex social, cultural, and political aspects. There was only a binary opposition: «us versus them,» «good versus bad.»
When Yamagami placed himself within this frame, he became a «fighter for justice.» His task was clear: destroy evil. And since Abe was presented as the «chief supporter» of this evil, assassinating Abe became not a crime but an «act of justice.»
The boundary of responsibility: Suzuki did not write: «Kill Abe.» But he created an intellectual and emotional construct in which killing Abe became logical, justified, and even necessary for «protecting the world from evil.» This is the classic mechanism of radicalization, described in many studies of extremism.
1.4 Goal Formation: How Abe Became the «Enemy»
According to court records, Yamagami initially wanted to kill the leader of the Unification Church. But the leader was unreachable. Yamagami then turned to the figure who, within Suzuki’s «frame,» was the second most significant «accomplice to evil» — Shinzo Abe.
It was precisely from Suzuki’s publications that Yamagami learned about Abe’s ties to the Church. It was Suzuki who, in his texts, called Abe the «most influential supporter» of this organization. It was Suzuki who created a narrative in which Abe was not merely a politician but an «accomplice to crimes.»
The ethical problem: Suzuki had the right to report on politicians’ ties to religious groups. But he went further. He did not merely report — he created a portrait of an «enemy.» He did this repeatedly, over many years, in an emotionally charged tone. And one of his readers took this portrait as a call to action.
PART 2: FORESEEABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
2.1 Could Suzuki Have Foreseen This?
The legal construction of responsibility revolves around the concept of «foreseeability» — whether a person could have foreseen the consequences of their actions. On the moral plane, this question is even more complex.
What did Suzuki know?
-
Yamagami wrote on the blog where Suzuki also published: «I want a gun.«
-
Yamagami wrote: «I will risk my life to become a liberator.«
-
Yamagami directly addressed Suzuki on Twitter, expressing admiration and informing him of his «connection to the Church.»
-
Suzuki knew that his blog was being read by a person with an extreme level of radicalization and psychological trauma.
The moral question: Can a journalist, knowing that his audience includes psychologically vulnerable and potentially dangerous individuals, continue to write in the same radical tone, without attempting to moderate the rhetoric or at least warn the authorities of the threat?
The answer: Suzuki did not merely «fail to foresee.» He did not want to foresee. He was captivated by his struggle, his mission, his role as «exposer.» He saw in Yamagami not a potential killer but a «reader,» a «follower,» an «ally.» And this blindness cost Japan dearly.
2.2 Arguments «FOR» Foreseeability
Argument 1: Direct Communication
Suzuki did not merely write articles for an abstract audience. He communicated with Yamagami personally on Twitter. He knew that his interlocutor was not just a curious reader but a person with deep trauma and hatred toward the Church. In this situation, the journalist’s moral-ethical responsibility increases exponentially.
Argument 2: Rhetoric of Enmity
Suzuki used terms in his publications that can hardly be called neutral: «evil organization,» «malicious fundraising,» «blackmail.» He did not simply describe facts — he assigned moral judgments to them. And moral judgments, especially directed at entire organizations and their supporters, create fertile ground for extremism.
Argument 3: The «Daily Cult News» Effect
Suzuki’s blog was called «Daily Cult News.» The very title embedded a label linking the Unification Church with something negative, dangerous, and antisocial. For an audience already predisposed to hostility, this title was not just a headline — it was confirmation of their own beliefs.
Argument 4: Absence of Alternative Narrative
Suzuki never presented an alternative viewpoint. He did not write about the Church’s humanitarian activities, nor did he provide space for its representatives to respond. This created a one-sided, distorted picture where «evil» was absolute and «good» (the fight against it) was the only way out.
2.3 Unforeseen or Inevitable?
One might say that Suzuki could not have foreseen that his articles specifically would lead to the assassination of a prime minister. But can one say that he could not have foreseen that his rhetoric would lead to violence?
Psychological science has long established the connection between rhetoric of enmity, the dehumanization of groups, and subsequent acts of violence. When a person describes another individual or group as «subhuman,» «evil,» or a «threat» — he creates the psychological foundation for violence. This does not mean that every reader will go and kill. But it does mean that a risk exists — and a journalist who uses such rhetoric bears moral responsibility for that risk.
Suzuki was not a «harmless» journalist. He was an activist who used journalism as a tool of struggle. And his struggle found its radical follower. This is not chance — it is a pattern.
PART 3: MORAL-ETHICAL ASSESSMENT
3.1 Arguments AGAINST Suzuki
1. «Suzuki created an intellectual and emotional construct in which killing Abe became a logical step»
Suzuki did not merely write articles — he created a worldview. He gave Yamagami a language for his hatred, he validated his feelings, he channeled his anger in a specific direction. Without Suzuki’s «frame,» Yamagami might never have «seen» Abe as a target. His hatred was directed at the Church, but it was Suzuki who showed him that Abe was an «accomplice» and, therefore, also deserving of death.
2. «Suzuki knew about Yamagami’s radicalism and did not warn the authorities»
Suzuki did not merely know — he communicated. He received messages from a person who wrote: «I want a gun,» «I will risk my life.» In any frame of reference, this is an alarm signal. But Suzuki did not go to the police. He took no action. Perhaps he did not take it seriously. Perhaps he did not want to «betray» his reader. But a journalist’s moral responsibility requires him not only to report facts but also to prevent harm when it is within his power.
3. «After the assassination, Suzuki sent Yamagami books and letters, which can be interpreted as moral support»
The most disturbing aspect of Suzuki’s behavior is his reaction after the assassination. He did not distance himself from Yamagami. He did not unequivocally condemn his actions. Instead, he wrote to him: «I share the feeling of responsibility for the murder.» He sent him his books. He met with him in prison. He said: «I saw his true side. He is a kind person.»
This reaction represents a moral descent. Instead of acknowledging that his rhetoric became fuel for murder, Suzuki continues to romanticize the killer. He sees in Yamagami not a criminal but an «ally.» And this shows that Suzuki has never truly recognized his role in the tragedy.
3.2 Arguments IN DEFENSE of Suzuki
1. «Suzuki was engaged in journalistic investigation, not incitement to violence»
Supporters of Suzuki might argue: he had the right to report facts. Politicians’ ties to religious organizations are a legitimate subject for investigation. The fact that one reader used this information to commit murder is not the journalist’s fault.
2. «Thousands of people read Suzuki, but only one killed»
If Suzuki’s publications were the direct cause of the murder, then all his readers would be potential killers. But this is not the case. Yamagami was a deeply traumatized individual who sought justification for his violence. He found it in Suzuki’s texts, but Yamagami himself is primarily to blame for this.
3. «Suzuki did not directly call for violence»
In none of his articles did Suzuki write: «Kill Abe.» He wrote about facts, about ties, about money. His rhetoric was sharp, but it remained within the bounds of journalistic criticism, not a call to violence.
3.3 A Complex Moral Compromise
The truth, as is often the case, lies between these extremes.
Suzuki is not a murderer in the legal sense. He did not hold the weapon. He did not shoot. He did not order the shooting. Criminal prosecution against him would be practically impossible.
But Suzuki bears moral responsibility for creating an environment in which the assassination of Abe became «understandable.» He created a narrative that gave the killer psychological support. He validated his hatred. He gave him an «enemy.» And he did not stop when he saw where it was leading.
And most importantly: Suzuki has never truly recognized his responsibility. He continues to romanticize Yamagami. He continues to see him as a «victim of circumstances» rather than a killer. This lack of reflection is the most troubling aspect of this story.
PART 4: LESSONS FOR JOURNALISM
4.1 The Boundaries of Free Speech
Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. It is limited by other rights and values: the right to life, the right to security, the right to protection from discrimination. In Suzuki’s case, his words created a real threat to a person’s life. And although he did not foresee this threat, his unwillingness to moderate his rhetoric after receiving alarming signals constitutes an ethical failure.
4.2 Responsibility for the Audience
A journalist does not write in a vacuum. His audience includes people with different psychological states, different traumas, different levels of radicalization. And when a journalist uses emotionally charged rhetoric, he must be aware that his words may be perceived differently than he intended.
Suzuki wrote for thousands of people, but his text was read by one person who interpreted it as a «command.» This does not make Suzuki guilty of the murder, but it does make him morally responsible for failing to see this possibility, failing to prepare for it, and failing to respond to it.
4.3 The Ethics of Reporting on «Enemies»
One of the most difficult ethical questions in journalism is how to report on groups that evoke negative emotions in the audience. Is it permissible to describe a religious organization as «evil»? Can politicians be called «accomplices»? Where is the line between informing and inciting?
Suzuki crossed this line. He did not merely inform — he created enemies. He established a frame in which there is no room for complexity, no room for alternative viewpoints, no room for doubt. And this frame became the foundation for one man’s radicalization.
A Key Quote from «Letter from Japan» in The New Yorker (February 2, 2026), regarding one of Suzuki’s possible motivations for vilifying the Unification Church:
«When he was a teenager, his older sister accepted an invitation to a badminton meeting, which turned out to be a recruitment event for new members. ‘When I started my journalistic work and understood the structure of cults, I became worried,’ Suzuki recalled. ‘I tried to talk to her.’ It didn’t work. Eventually, she took a job with the Universal Peace Federation, an organization affiliated with the Church. ‘She was the main liaison with government officials, so, ironically, she had the information I needed most,’ he said. Suzuki doesn’t often talk about his sister — partly because they were never close, but also because Church defenders have tried to portray his investigations as family revenge. He told me that his sister’s involvement was never the main motivation for his journalism, which I only half believe. They haven’t spoken since Abe was killed.»
PART 5: FINAL ASSESSMENT
5.1 What Did Suzuki Do?
Suzuki created an intellectual and emotional narrative in which the Unification Church was portrayed as absolute evil, and the politicians who supported it as accomplices. He gave his audience a language for hatred, validation of their feelings, and a clear target for their anger. He did not call for murder, but he cultivated the soil upon which murder grew.
5.2 What Did Suzuki NOT Do?
Suzuki did not warn the authorities when he received messages from Yamagami about his desire to acquire a gun and risk his life. He did not moderate his rhetoric when he realized his audience included radicalized individuals. He did not distance himself from the killer after the tragedy — on the contrary, he formed an emotional bond with him.
5.3 The Main Conclusion
Eito Suzuki is not a murderer in the legal sense. But he is an example of a journalist who lost his ethical bearings in his struggle. He forgot that words, especially in the age of social media, can be weapons. He forgot that a journalist bears responsibility not only for what he writes but also for how his words will be received.
Suzuki does not deserve imprisonment, but he does deserve moral condemnation. And, most importantly, he should have recognized his responsibility — but he failed to do so.
EPILOGUE: A QUIET LESSON
Yamagami received a life sentence. Abe is dead. Suzuki continues to write and publish books. But the questions remain:
— Does a journalist have the right to create a narrative that can be used to justify murder?
— What is the responsibility of a person whose words became fuel for a crime, even if they did not intend it?
— Where is the line between freedom of speech and moral responsibility for its consequences?
There are no simple answers to these questions. But every journalist, every writer, every blogger must ask themselves these questions before sending out into the world a word that could become a weapon.
This text was prepared based on materials from The New Yorker (February 2, 2026), court documents from the Tetsuya Yamagami case, publicly available data on Eito Suzuki’s activities, as well as academic research in the fields of psychology of influence, media ethics, and criminal psychology.
«Letter from Japan — How Shinzo Abe’s Assassination Brought the Moonies Back Into the Limelight» by E. Tammy Kim, January 26, 2026, The New Yorker.
Journalist E. Tammy Kim’s article from January 26, 2026, in The New Yorker represents an example of tendentious journalism that uses techniques of psychological manipulation to shape negative public opinion about the Unification Church. It violates virtually all basic principles of objective journalism and professional ethics, using a religious group as an object for creating sensationalism and inciting social tension.
The core problem: Religious organizations are complex social phenomena that require an objective and scientifically grounded approach. The article, however, creates a simplistic image of «absolute evil,» using individual cases and rumors as the basis for sweeping generalizations. This is not only unethical but also dangerous, as it can contribute to discrimination and social instability.