According to this article at the Japan Media Review website of the USC Annenberg School for Communication, the book is an expose of the 週刊誌、or weekly tabloids.

There is no exact equivalent of the 週刊誌 in the American press, though this quote from the review gives some interesting context:

Writers such as Bill Sloan, S. Elizabeth Bird, and Jim Hogshire have argued persuasively that the influence of U.S. supermarket tabloids is greatly underestimated. They argue that many readers take the tabloids very seriously, often relying on them as their sole source of written news, and that many readers' worldviews and sometimes even politics are heavily influenced by them. Hogshire in particular cites a number of examples of flag-waving by the U.S. supermarket tabs that have helped to rally readers behind various national causes. No doubt the U.S. and other Western tabloids regularly capitalize on nationalism. Perhaps most important, however, all three authors point out that the total circulation for the top six U.S. tabs was more than 10 million in 1997. This is greater than the combined circulation of all 15 Japanese weekly newsmagazines and comparable to the total circulation of the top ten national U.S. daily newspapers (as well as Yomiuri Shimbun).

I guess most people on this blog are familiar with Noam Chomsky's critique of the American mainstream press.

I am running out the door, but the book does not seem to be an "expose" of the weekly magazines, but a look at the difference between them and the "real" newspapers. The problem with demonizing the Japanese "tabloid" shukanshi magazines is that they are the sole source for investigative journalism in Japan. Because they are not "respected," they can deviate from the official line and have often been the ones to actually break big stories, like the Lockheed Scandal, which the major papers knew about but chose to ignore.

there are never any solutions, when all anyone can see are problems.

It was pointed out elsewhere, but you can hear the actual broadcast (with the authors) in the link below.

Just click the appropriate "Listen" link.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/12012004

The readers of this site might find the arguments very familiar. Didn't realize how au courant the subject matter was...

I found that interview pretty poisonous, to be honest. The shukanshi press becomes a peg on which to hang a litany of familiar (and somewhat ancient) grievances against Japan: the Nan Jing massacre, comfort women, holocaust denial, rightist nationalism, the tendency to blame victims and ostracize critics... it's all here, alongside the assertion that the LDP are direct heritors of the fascist nationalist government of WW2. The authors, to their credit, do try to counter many of their examples with parallels from the US which are just as bad: the false accusation of Richard Jewel in the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, the excesses of the US tabloid press... They are also at pains to single out a few 'great Japanese individuals' who are 'reformers'. They note that the man falsely accused of a sarin gas attack had been apologised to by all who accused him, but had 'not received a cent in compensation'. In other words, while they see what's bad about Japan existing in America too, they see what's good about Japan as a reflection of what they think is good about America: individualism, litigation, etc.

What they don't do is try to offset the general impression of Japan as a deeply sick 'denial' nation ('this is disturbing stuff about a country usually considered a close ally of the US,' says the interviewer, summing up the whole tenor of the conversation) with any impression that America is sick. This is summed up in their anecdote -- part of a description of how critics of the Japanese system, like Prof. Watanabe himself, are ostracized -- about how the mayor of Nagasaki was shot with a handgun for suggesting that WW2 was the fault of the Japanese emperor. Declaring the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings themselves a far greater crime than any of the many faults they find against Japan would clearly be outside their remit.

As with Alex Kerr, and to some extent with Marxy's postings, I think this book turns a personal sense of betrayal by Japan's tight society into an accusation that its public has been betrayed. And, as usual, the Japanese public is extremely unlikely to agree.

I'm rather amused by the juxtaposition of these two phrases on the book's own, oddly sensationalist, website:

much of what you discover should frighten you.

and

How does one define the line between legitimate interpretation and outright political bias?

Took a look at the website and based on the hysteric tone of the writing, I rather doubt I'll be spending any money on this one. I'm curious as to what will be said by anyone who actually reads it.

Trevor: There are never any solutions, when no one can see the problems.

Momus: I really want to give your religious views about Japan a chance in court, but you toe the line between anti-Western Imperialist and Holocaust-denier. I know you like Japan - a lot - but that doesn't mean that Japan never committed war crimes or that the LDP isn't the direct descendent of the WWII government. Go do yourself a favor and look up the stories of the revered citizens Kodama Yoshio, Sasakawa Ryouichi, and ex-Prime Minster Kishi Nobusuke. You would have a much tighter case for your arguments if you had any idea about the history of which you discuss. But if you knew that history, you wouldn't be making those arguments...

Honestly, your Orientalism prevents you from seeing that you essentially wrote this sentence:

The weekly press becomes a peg on which to hang a litany of familiar (and somewhat ancient) grievances against Germany: the Nazis, holocaust denial, rightist nationalism, the tendency to blame victims and ostracize critics, Dachau...

I like this too:

And, as usual, the Japanese public is extremely unlikely to agree.

You sure know a lot about what Japanese people think for someone who spends no time speaking to Japanese people in their native language.

I'd also give you some cred if you realized that the firebombing of Tokyo was a much greater atrocity than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Everyone: I ordered a copy of the book, so I'll let you know if there is anything worth discussing.

The plot thickens.

It seems that a good percentage of Watanabe's claims against the shukanshi concern their treatment of the Soka Gakkai movement. His views on the shukanshi are quoted on several SG webpages. Also he has contributed an article to
this informational book on SG.

And Adam Gamble has contributed to an SG newsletter.

Do any of the other contributers to this blog, more knowledgeable about Japanology than I, have an opinion on SG? Can they fill us in a bit?
Was the SG mentioned in the radio program? I haven't listened to it.

Also have the shukanshi reacted to the book yet?

Sparkligbeatnic: Hmm, now that's interesting. Soka Gakkai are basically a cult-like New Religious sect. I have found that most Japanese are creepied out by them (although Momus knows more about what the Japanese think than I do.) At least you can say that their leader Ikeda Daisaku is a bit of a meglomaniac - there's posters showing him posing with world leaders/historians all over town.

I find it very suspicious that the American Gamble would have contributed to anything SG-oriented.

Nice footwork.

Momus: Maybe I should not bandy around "Holocaust-denier" so freely, but I don't see the point in hiding all Japanese wrongdoing when the "common knowledge" about Japan is that it is a peaceful, liberal democracy. Since the Japanese themselves do not know much about the war atrocities (opposed to the Germans who do), I feel that it is beneficial to at least dig up the dirt so we can build a more balanced picture. The Japanese war crimes were just as grim as the German ones, just much less easy to understand. Again, I suggest Ienaga Saburo's The Pacific War.

Your argument is the same as people who excuse the CIA atrocities because "the Soviet Union was much worse." That doesn't matter. I don't think the US gov't should be giving LSD to innocent bystanders like they did in MK-Ultra or sponsoring right-wing hit squads in Central America. People brought these ideas up to counterbalance the idea of America as a "bastion of freedom and democracy." Is America still one of the most free nations in the world? Yes, but obviously we have our own problems. I feel the understanding of Japan would be higher if you at least know what goes on behind the scenes, and it's not all pretty. We would treat it less like an imaginary utopia and more like a real country. There's a reason you aren't so defensive about Spain.

Also, your blanket equalization of the US press and the Japanese press is absurd, because the American press has been deemed universally "more free" than the Japanese press by many independent instiutions. The USA - for all its faults - has nothing like the press club censorship problems. The Japanese press is hands-down, no-question less free, but the question again is: does it matter?

Which one of these items is not like the others?

• Denying the Holocaust and supporting anti-Semitism • Smearing a prominent Buddhist leader • Whitewashing and denying one of history's worst war crimes, the Nanjing Massacre • Defaming Second World War Japanese military sex slaves or "comfort women

Anyone check out who the publisher of the book we are discussing is?

It's Regnery, an "American publisher that specializes in Conservative books" according to this Wikipedia entry.

Here's a list of "notable" books published by Regnery in 2004, from the Wikipedia article. Note especially the one titled In Defense of Internment: The Case for "Racial Profiling" in World War II and the War on Terror. I wonder what Watanabe would have to say about that one.

Still haven't listened to that Radio show, but I wonder if any of this can of worms came out in the interview? If it didn't either the interviewer didn't do their homework or, surprise, surprise, the American media is not as free as it is made out to be.

The list:

It's Notable books published by Regnery in 2004 include:

O'Neill, John E.; & Corsi, Jerome E. Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. ISBN 0895260174.

Patteron, Robert. Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security. ISBN 0895260867.

Michelle Malkin. In Defense of Internment: The Case for "Racial Profiling" in World War II and the War on Terror. ISBN 0895260514.

Horowitz, David. Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. ISBN 089526076X.

Hmm. This conservative connection is intriguing, because the main thrust of the book is anti-LDP/conservative hegemony in the media, no? I don't necessarily want to defend what looks to be a SG-backed publication, but they probably did not invent evidence for their claims. We'll see, I guess.

I kind of bought it on a whim this morning with some research money, and even if it is biased, I'd still like to see their examples of media folly and information blocks. But thanks for the possible bias: i'll keep that in mind.

For anyone who has listened to the radio broadcast (I haven't yet but given how interesting this looks I'll probably have to).

Did the interviewers:

(a) ask the authors about their connections with SG? Because one of the major sections of the book is about the squabble between the shukanshi and the leader of the SG.

(b) why the book is published by the foremost conservative publisher in the US?

According to the Wikipedia WNYCis the most listened to radio station in ths USA. It mainly provides programming from NPR and American Public Media. So if it turns out that a supposedly left-leaning public radio station was interviewing authors of this book and not asking these questions, then the American Media is in much worse shape than I thought it was.

The radio interview does mention the SG leader as one of the 'great Japanese individuals' who are 'reformers', but makes no mention of the authors' ties to SG. It doesn't surprise me in the least that this piece of Japan-bashing comes from a right wing publisher. I'm a bit sad that Marxy is having to resort to such hysterical arguments now ('holocaust-denier' -- thanks at least for withdrawing that) and team up with such dubious company. Whether you like the book or not, they've got your money now. I'm sure your dollars are wending their way to exactly the type of nutty, religious 'reformers' the Japanese have always been so good at repelling and ignoring.

I wonder if David Icke has written anything about Japan?

Okay, here's exactly how the book's authors go out of their way to mention Daisaku Ikeda, leader of SG, in the interview. Adam Gamble is talking:

'But I just wanted to get to the point that Prof Watanabe was talking about which is the marginalisation of reformers in Japan, we, in 'A Public Betrayed', get into one great Japanese individual after another, there's Katsuyuchi Handa the great Japanese journalist who's become almost a Salman Rushdie there in ways, he has to wear wig and sunglasses in public, there's, ah, Daisaku Ikeda, he's a great Buddhist leader in Japan who's received over 100 honorary degrees worldwide, continuously for forty years speaking up for the rights of common everyday people, he is continuously attacked in the Japanese press, and we get into one of these individuals after another...'

No mention that Ikeda is president of Soka Gakkai International, or that the sect finances programs in several universities in Japan (including quite possibly the department of journalistic ethics where Prof Watanabe works) and has a political party running in the diet against the LDP (the Clean Government Party, it's called, or Komeito). And certainly no mention of the strange case reported by Time magazine here

http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/951120/japan.html

where an assemblywoman called Akiyo Asaki died in mysterious circumstances after investigating pressures the Komeito party had been putting on its ex-members and revealing a masonic-like plot in Komeito-controlled local governments to award lucrative public contracts to fellow Komeito members. No mention of the fact that the sect filed a criminal defamation law suit against Shukan Gendai, one of the very national weeklies this book is taking an 'objective' look at, for publishing a story in which Asaki's husband and daughter alleged that Soka Gakkai was responsible for her death. No mention of the fact that SG has its own serious paper, (Seikyo Shimbun, circulation 5.5 million), its own sponsored high schools, and Soka University in Tokyo. The immensely wealthy sect may even have sponsored this book and underwritten its publication. Time magazine:

'Soka Gakkai's greatest vulnerability is its dark side. Nichiren was deeply intolerant of other Buddhist sects. He insisted that all Zen followers are devils, and he justified militancy and even violence to defend his sect and to repress rival organizations... Soka Gakkai shares Nichiren's militant aspect. It is openly hostile to other creeds, and members, especially important ones, run a frightening gauntlet if they try to quit.'

A more recent Time Asia article about New Komeito,

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501031201-549066,00.html

whose policies sound rather laudable, and who, says Time, are turning Japanese politics into a true three-party system. They made gains in November 2003 because of their opposition to Japanese involvement in Iraq, for instance. It sounds like a fairly healthy democratic picture, actually, far from the sinister monolith we hear about in these pages.

You can assess Adam Gamble's journalistic integrity by considering the following piece
N.Y. Buddhists offer alternative perspectives on Sept.11 in a Cape Cod newspaper called The Barnstable Patriot. He quotes advice from various American Buddhist leaders. But then he slips this in:

Of course, dogmatism does exist in Buddhism. Nichiren Shoshu, for example, a Japanese-based sect with a temple in Queens, has recently published statements more in tune with the Rev. Jerry Falwell or Osama bin Laden than popular Buddhist thought. According to Emyo, the sect's bimonthly newspaper, the terrorist attacks are ultimately the result of people slandering and ignoring the "True Law" of Buddhism. Their High Priest, Nikken Abe, recently stated, "It is disregard for the correct Buddhism that has given rise to various heretical teachings functioning as poison, and as a result many people are suffering. This we can clearly perceive from the recent events."

What he doesn't mention are his links with SG, or that SG had a falling out with Nichiren Shoshu in the early 90's and was 'excommunicated' by them. Couldn't he simply leave the statement on Nichiren Shoshu out of the article? Or does he writing have a hidden agenda?

SG still regard themselves followers of the founder of the Nichiren sect, Nichiren Daishonin, who is still regarded as a controversial figure in that he believed that he had the only true Buddhism. I wonder how SG fits that with their supposedly multilateral views.

The New Komeito, a partner in the current ruling coalition government, does seem to be an anti-war party. But there are some disturbing aspects to this story. Why does SG seem to need 'sakura' in academia and journalism? And why is this book 'Dirty Bertrayal' published by an extremely questionable publisher, that also publishes books advocating things like "Racial Profiling" and internment as part of the "War on Terror"?

Any insight?

I've been out of the house and busy with reading for school, so I appreciate all the detective work, Momus and Sparkligbeatnic. I cancelled my order. I'll try to check the book out in some kind of non-paying manner.

SG isn't probably all bad, but I am a bit skeptical about huge, wealthy tax-free organizations built on tithing with meglomaniacal leaders.

What we see here is the battle between two different "conservative" visions of Japan, neither of which I really agree with. This book being published on a conservative publisher doesn't suddenly make its criticisms against the media "wrong" or Momus' whitewashing of Japanese history "right" as much as it calls into the questions behind the book's criticism in the first place.

If anyone wants to read a liberal, balanced view of the Japanese media, read Lauren Anne Freeman's Closing the Shop. She is a professor at Princeton, not a journalist.

sparkligbeatnic said: Whitewashing and denying one of history's worst war crimes, the Nanjing Massacre

Good use of hyperbole there! Have you considered a job with Regent? ^_^ J/K

Momus: looks like you been doing at least a little homework on this one. Good for you.

All: thanks for uncovering a bit more about the book. Now I dont have to feel like such a card carrying member of the Chrysantamum Club for not buying it.

Let's try that again.

The italized text below was a cut-and-paste from the publisher's description of the book's contents.

My question was: Which one of the following items is not like the others:

• Denying the Holocaust and supporting anti-Semitism
• Smearing a prominent Buddhist leader
• Whitewashing and denying one of history's worst war crimes, the Nanjing Massacre
• Defaming Second World War Japanese military sex slaves or "comfort women

p.s. The most worrying thing to me about this whole story is coverage of the book by WNYC. Is no one else troubled by this?

I think some of the concerns that emerge in the interview -- and perhaps the reason the authors were even there -- come from the personality of Leonard Lopate, the host of the WNYC show. The 'holocaust denial' stuff was not going to be passed over (in fact, Watanabe went much further than merely accusing the weeklies of holocaust denial, he ended up saying that anti-semitism is rife in Japan because people need someone to blame for the economic downturn). Lopate is Jewish and features Jewish issues heavily on his show. He also speaks fluent Cantonese, which might explain his need to underline the Nanjing massacre as much as he did. I think it was remiss of him to ignore the SG connections, but he certainly had his own agenda. And the authors had theirs: go on an American show to talk about Japan, and play 'the holocaust card'. Sell books to outraged American Jews and perhaps even raise funding for that awfully nice Buddhist man who's trying to reform the Japanese anti-semites. (Oh yes, and there's the lovely fact that anyone who thinks holocaust-denial is not really an issue relevant to the topic at hand gets accused of being a holocaust-denier too, because it's just such a damn emotive topic!)

Personally, what disturbs me more than anything else is the concept of 'media atrocities' in the first place. Can atrocities happen in media? What kind of epistemology does that view rely on, and what does it mean for free speech?

Also, the book is a lovely example of anti-racist racism -- anti-racism coming full circle back to racism again. British football has recently seen this in the form of the paradox 'Well, since we have been wonderfully succesful in kicking out racism from our national game, lets all petition to ban Spain from competitions.' And these authors whip up racist anti-Japanese sentiment by saying the Japanese are anti-semitic.

A few things:

The duo made another appearance on WNYC's On The Media, which is not widely distributed on the NPR system. See: http://www.onthemedia.org/otm100104.html

Next, it's pretty ridiculous to make statements about American journalism based on either the conservative ties of one writer or the negligence of a radio host. Remember a U.S. listening audience doesn't mind even a little how people are aligned politically in Japan. Even a highly-educated NPR audience might have trouble naming the LDP as the leading party. So it's a pretty silly use of air time to question these people's associations during a short segment. What you don't know is what Lopate and the On The Media host asked the duo before they got on the air.

Finally, a publishing house doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a book's tilt. Take for instance Howard Dean's campaign manager Joe Trippi's book. It's published by a division of News Corp, which from his perspective is damn near the devil. I thought about asking him about that in a radio interview I did myself, but then I read his acknowledgements, which reveal that his old friend who helped bring the book into existence happens to work for that company.

Sometimes a writer will dance with the devil to get their work on shelves. And we know that publishing house has no hard time booking publicity appearances for their authors.

Even though we now know the book may have a pro-Soga Gakkai slant, I would still refrain from judging the actual content until getting a chance to read them. Dismissing all attacks on the Japanese media as some form of neo-racism seems extreme and silly.

Nobody is saying all attacks on the Japanese media are some form of racism.

Excellent fact digging by Sparkligbeatnic and Momus.

On a tangent, Momus' initial reply above brings up an interesting question for me: Do the Japanese people feel cornered unfairly when the West brings up its historical past? What is actually taught in class rooms? And is there a particularly Western view of "acceptance" of history that is not found in Japan, vis-à-vis Germany?

I think 'apology culture' is something we've been living through for the last 15 years or so, since the heydey of 'political correctness', which it's an offshoot from. Politicians have apologised for all sorts of things, although they've usually stopped short of financial reparations (the issue of reparations for slavery seems to have slipped off the agenda). However, 'apology culture' is much easier for winners than losers. It's also easier when you represent a state with universalist, paternalistic aspirations. I think Clinton's America was the sort of state which could make 'meaninglessly affirmative' apologies for all sorts of things. However, since Bush and the neo-cons arrived, there's been an abandonment of the kind of liberal, universalistic underpinnings you need for 'apology culture' and a retrenchment around values like 'full spectrum dominance'. Might, these days, is right, and might means never having to say you're sorry.

I wrote about this in an entry called 'The US becomes situated':

http://www.livejournal.com/users/imomus/61236.html

I think that when you abandon 'universalist' ideologies like liberalism and become 'situated', epistemology changes. You are entering postmodernity at that point -- there is no longer any attempt at balance or objectivity. If might makes right, it also makes 'truth'. Ron Suskind reported a 2002 conversation with a Bush aide which makes the outlines of the new epistemology clear:

'The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'

Now, in that kind of atmosphere, are we really to expect Japanese history textbooks to be rewritten? Touchy-feely Clinton style apology culture is dead, and it died in the US. With its abandonment of international treaties and institutions, the Bush administration has also abandoned all moral high ground and entered the postmodern hall of mirrors of relativism, in which all views are 'situated' and 'vested', and the view that prevails is simply the one with the most money and power behind it. Whether that's American or Japanese money and power is really immaterial.

And I'd add that, while the book we're discussing here professes to have a different epistemology (to be about 'distortion' and the line between interpretation and truth), in fact it's very much playing the new game. As we've discovered on this thread, the book is very much situated, very vested, and very much tied up with a perspective dictated by big money and big politics.

momus: you've mastered the "postmodern" aspect of using dense confusing text to hide your actual position. I cant make heads or tails out of what you write.

Chris_B, you've probably never tried to read any real postmodern writing have you? Here's a
starter.

That was a little cruel. Here's something lighter, that always gives me a laugh. And it almost all almost makes sense:

Jean Baudrillard's Disneyworld Company

sparkligbeatnic: ^_^ Lovely bullshit, both of em. I guess you know this dont you? The pomos should have just gone and killed themselves after the Sokal thing.

Long live The Englightenment!

Chris_B, I consider myself at least a postmodernist sympathizer though not a subscriber. And I don't pretend to be well-read.

I really like that Baudrillard essay for example. When I read it I feel like I've just finished a cup of dark roasted coffee and a Gitanes cigarette.

Sticking to one style of philosophy would be like listening to only one style of music.

For me, the Sokal affair is more an expose of the American academic community rather than a discrediting of primarily French thinkers/writers.

For example, the Schön scandal hardly discredits the entire physics community does it?

sparkligbeatnic: I see what you want to say, but in the case of the physics thing, the scientists caught the scam after the fact. The american "thinkers" did not. Not being a card carrying member of Thinking Fellers Local 101, I'm not really qualified to explain why I think post modernism is BS on philosophical grounds, but I can say I was raised by parents with PhDs in "real" science (biochem & pharmacology). I'f I'd have tried any of that relativist pseudo logic deconstruction crap in my house i'd have gotten a whipping for sure.

There's nothing wrong if people want to enjoy French nonsense, its just not for me and I cant abide by it being used in the same room as facts. I'd be happy to join you for that coffee and cigarette though ^_^

The point about the Schön scandal is that fraudulent work was accepted by all the top scientific journals. So if the Sokal incident proves that Postmodernism as a whole is corrupt then the argument is that the Schön scandal proves the corruption of Science, which is an absurd conclusion. What the Sokal incident rather proves, to my mind, is that the editors of the journal Social Text were gullible and did not have very stringent quality control.

The postmodern writers are worth reading for their imaginative concepts.

sparkligbeatnic: I think we are both beggaring the signifigance and conclusions of the incidents we respectively cited. I'll grant you the "imaginative" point simply because I can not claim to be thoroughly well read in French postmodern (still dont know what that word means exactly) writing and have not read them in the original language. From what I have read, my perception is they are disguising old conclusions to older arguments with new window dressing. I recognize that I am pre-biased against what I percieve to be the conclusions of what I've read. Obviously its just not my taste in thinking.

I'm not going to post anymore on this in this thread, I've gone too far off topic.

Chris_B, 'Off-topic' is my middle name.

Cheers,