A public betrayed--Who is actually betrayed? (2)

I noticed one thing after I post the first post.
Another strange thing one notices regarding the book, "a public betrayed" is that in the five case studies, only Shukan Shincho and Bunshun are criticized. Check it out for yourself.

Isn't it strange? From the first place, magazines like these are outside of Kisha Club, the very thing the book is criticizing. Secondly, two of the other four cases, Nanjing incident and comfort women are most heavily criticized by Shokun, Sapio, Seiron or these days by Will. Why did the authors pick only Shukan Shincho and Bunshun?

Takasaki Ryuji, a critique and sympathizer of Soka, is quoted in a book as follows.

　〈今でこそ『学会バッシング』の中心は新潮社の雑誌ですが、かつては文藝春秋の雑誌が中心でした。私が研究者として文春の雑誌の『戦争責任』を追及し闘ってきたのも、一つには『文春と闘うことで学会を守りたい』という思いがあったからです〉

My translation of the above:

These days the main "(Soka) Gakkai-bashing" magazine comes from Shincho, but in old days, it was those from Bungei Shunju. This is one of the reason why I fought and pursued "war responsibility" of Bunshun** in my research career; I wanted to "defend (Soka) Gakkai by fighting a war with Bunshun."
**Bunshun is abbreviation of Bungei Shunju

The whole picture is clear: these guys are using Nanjing and comfort women for the promotion of their religious master: Ikeda Daisaku, and not the other way around as they make it appear to be. In other words, now that Komei Party is a part of the Japanese government, it is this type of propaganda that we have to pay attention to: the book itself is a living proof of one of the sickest part of the Japanese media.