 |
 |
|
International Reporting and Responsible Media: Lessons From the United States and Japan |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Introduction First came the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, striking at the heart of American institutions. Then came the response, most notably the preemptive military assault on Iraq by the US-led coalition. The events following 9/11 showed how far fear for their own security can cause a nation's people to lose their capacity for rational, balanced judgment. They also demonstrated how seriously such events can obstruct the proper functioning of journalism. Responsible mass media are careful to transmit to the people of a nation facts and information as objectively and from as many viewpoints as possible to help them make reasoned judgments. Since 9/11, however, mass media in the United States too often have helped to whip up new levels of anxiety about security and heated patriotism among Americans. By broadcasting and printing material that only intensifies such feelings and hostility, and failing to critically examine government claims meant to legitimize the war on Iraq, those members of the media are party to making an unjustified war. We have seen this happen time and again in past wars, when journalism turned into jingoism, and rationality into profit-mongering. American journalism stumbled into the same pitfalls, largely because (1) it has become an overwhelmingly commercial enterprise. Television is owned mostly by giant capital concerns, which exert incessant pressure to generate ever-higher profit. And (2) there is nowhere near enough international reporting in the U.S. Americans do not receive sufficient information and news from abroad, including images and opinions people in other countries have about the United States. The results of several international public opinion surveys done after 9/11 were a stark reminder of the huge gap that prevails between the self-image of Americans and the image of the U.S. that people in other countries have. This article examines the procedures and problems in American television news reporting from 9/11 to the Iraq war, and reporting in Japan, particularly by NHK, during the same period. On a more general level, it discusses the importance of international reporting and considers how television should help a nation's citizens to understand what is going on outside their country. I. American Media and the Iraq War The preemptive attack on Iraq by the United States was justified on grounds that (1) Iraq and Al Qaeda were closely connected and Iraq provided safe haven for and assistance to Al Qaeda; and (2) Iraq had developed and stockpiled illegal weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and those weapons posed a serious threat to the security of the United States and to the rest of the world. From the outset, serious doubts stemming from a variety of sources were voiced about the reliability of those assumptions. In June and again in July 2004 the results of two bipartisan congressional investigations were made public, and those were followed in October with the publication of findings from an investigation by the Iraq Survey Group, a fact-finding mission made up of American and British scientists sent by the coalition to find illegal weapons in Iraq. These investigations concluded that there were no WMD in Iraq and that there were no grounds to link Al Qaeda with Iraq. Still, right up until the Iraq war started, and for some time after it began, American media held to the line taken by the Bush administration in justifying its actions. Not only did the media fail to critically investigate the facts that were used to back up the government position, they also continued to transmit unexamined information concerning "the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection" and the "threat" of Iraq to the security of the world. Finally, having helped to raise the pitch of war fever in the nation, the American media ended up aiding and abetting the prosecution of an unjustified war. 1. Media Coverage of the Iraq War The Broadcasting Culture Research Institute at NHK carried out a detailed survey and content analysis of news broadcasting in several countries to investigate what was being transmitted on television about the Iraq war, and how it was presented. The results were published in three parts from July 2003 to March 2004.1 (1) Reporting by Fox Stands Out In the content analysis, reporting by Fox presented a striking contrast with that of the other broadcasters. In the survey results published in March 2004, among all the broadcasters Fox gave by far the most time to reporting on American military engagements and movements, and to moves and decisions by both the U.S. and Iraq governments. On the other hand, whereas the other TV broadcasters gave at least some attention to casualties and losses on the Iraqi side, Fox did not even touch that topic. (See fig. 1.) Figure 1. Iraq War Reporting: Comparative Content Analysis (% broadcasting time; March 20, 2003, March 31-April 11, 2003)
Fox devoted significantly more time to certain items in this survey than other broadcasters, but the analysis also revealed a distinct slant in Fox news reporting. Compared with others, Fox showed a marked tendency to represent only one side and to report news concerning Iraq that was favorable to the U.S. government and unfavorable to the Iraq government. Furthermore, Fox gave at least 5 to 6 times more coverage than ABC or BBC to arguments and observations in support of the war. (See fig. 2.) Fox's attitude was observed as being "resolutely pro-American, sometimes explicitly pro-war." (Baltimore Sun, April 2, 2003) This is unabashed partisanship, but even then, Fox's stance in its reporting has gained a large following in the United States. According to survey data published in June 2004 by the Pew Research Center (PRC), the proportion of respondents who said that they always watch Fox was 17% in 2000, 22% in 2002, and in 2004 it had increased to 25%. (2) Information Sources and Misperceptions Unfortunately, the problem does not stop there. In October 2003 the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and the California-based public opinion and market survey company Knowledge Networks (KN) published the extremely interesting results of a public opinion survey. Entitled "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War," this survey report found that (1) one-third to one-fourth of the American people believe that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, and even if that is overstated, Iraq in any case has been supporting and giving aid to Al Qaeda; (2) one-fourth to one-fifth of Americans believe that WMD were found in Iraq, or that Iraq used WMD in the Iraq war; and (3) one-quarter of Americans, furthermore, believe that most of the world's people supported the preemptive attack on Iraq carried out by the U.S. without the sanction of a U.N. resolution. Every one of those ideas is clearly, patently contrary to the facts. Further, the data show that people with those misperceptions are much more likely to support the American war on Iraq. Whereas only 23% percent of those having none of the above misperceptions are behind the war, 53% of those having just one of the misperceptions support it. Among people with all three misperceptions, the figure rises as high as 86%. Figure 2. (a) Favorable Portrayal of American Government  Figure 2. (b) Unfavorable Portrayal of Iraq Government  The crucial point is the relationship between the misperceptions, and the sources of information for people who have those misperceptions. The PIPA/KN poll found that among respondents with even one of the above misperceptions, by far the largest proportion, as many as 80%, watched Fox as their major news source. The same trend was apparent among all respondents with any or all of the misperceptions, no matter which one was examined. The mechanism at work here, then, proceeds from Fox viewing  misperceptiona
support for the war.
Fox makes its support of the Bush administration and the preemptive war on Iraq very clear. It might be acceptable to do reporting like that, taking a clear, specific position when transmitting news and information. But if, as a result, viewers are led into developing misperceptions about something so vitally important as a war, then the broadcaster is guilty of derailing the responsible working of journalism and obstructing the functioning of reporting. 2. Image Gap Since 9/11 it has become evident, among other things, that there is a yawning gap between the image Americans have of their own country and the image that people in other countries have of the United States. In March 2002, USA TODAY, CNN, and Gallup published the results of a poll on the image of the United States held by Americans and by people in nine, mainly Middle Eastern, Islamic countries. An extremely large proportion of the American respondents, when asked to characterize their country, listed "trustworthy," "friendly," and "cares about poor nations." In contrast, the proportion of respondents in the Islamic countries with similar responses was tiny, in every case. (See fig. 3) Figure 3. Image Gap Between American and Islamic Nations' Views of the U.S. (% of respondents)
The same poll also asked respondents whether the United States and other Western nations respect the Islamic worldview. Compared with the 64% of American respondents who answered "yes," of respondents in the Islamic countries, barely 5% at the low end and 21% at the high end answered "yes." International public opinion surveys conducted by PRC and Gallup International yielded the same kind of results. II The Case of Japan How was the Iraq war covered by the media in Japan? The news content analysis done by the NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute, whose data appear in Figure 1, compared ABC (U.S.), BBC (U.K.), and Japan's public broadcaster NHK in the first phase of the analysis. 1. Reporting on Iraq by NHK NHK, compared with ABC and BBC, is generally concerned with analyzing the situation of the Iraqi military, Iraqi military and civilian casualties, security and order in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad, Iraqi sovereignty, and reconstruction. The composition of the content can be taken to indicate more balanced reporting by NHK that gives both sides of a story, compared with other broadcasters. In its news from Iraq, NHK gives relatively strong coverage to the people of the country and U.S.-Iraq information warfare, topics that ABC and BBC have not dealt with very much. Objective reporting of this kind depends upon the attitude toward and policies of newsgathering in the Foreign News Division. However, it appears that the attitude of producing news programs as a whole does not always reflect policies of objectivity. Beginning well before the Iraq war started, antiwar demonstrations took shape, grew, and spread in countries across the globe. Even in Japan, whose citizens are politically inert compared with some other countries, antiwar rallies and demonstrations were organized beginning in the middle of December 2002, and the large scale rallies and demonstrations of March 3, 2003 offered a superb opportunity for coverage. Yet these activities at home were given so little coverage on NHK's general television channel that it almost seemed as though NHK was ignoring what was going on inside Japan. One journalist launched a stinging attack on NHK accusing the broadcaster of deliberately deciding not to report one bit of the domestic antiwar movement. (Seki, pp. 20-21) Likewise, reporting on the U.N. Security Council, a crucial forum for debate and decisions on international issues, appeared to reflect an attitude that lacked the commitment to convey public opinion trends occurring both at home and abroad. The Security Council, at its meeting on February 14, 2003, was the scene of a showdown between the U.S. and Britain calling for a resolution sanctioning the use of force against Iraq, on the one hand, and the group of nations that were pressing to continue United Nations inspections and the search for weapons in Iraq, on the other. The French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, presented a particularly strong plea to extend the inspections. "In this temple of the United Nations," he said in closing, "we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and the immense honor must lead us to give priority to disarmament through peace." The conference hall was packed. The applause from the assembled ministers and diplomats was thunderous and long. It is a rare and unusual day that something occurs in the Security Council to stir such ringing, heartfelt, sustained applause. That day twelve out of fifteen members of the Security Council, an overwhelming majority, voted that the inspections in Iraq should continue. In its nightly news program, NHK reported the debate in the Security Council meeting and a part of de Villepin's speech, but not the roaring, sustained applause afterward, or the powerful, transporting atmosphere that pervaded the SC conference room on that day at that time. 2. Reporting on Abductions Again, while Japan's mass media may be comparatively objective in reporting on the Iraq war, in dealing with the North Korean abduction issue, they have fallen into exactly the same pitfall that has tripped up the American media in their reporting on 9/11 and the aftermath. (1) The Abduction Issue and the Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration Over the years between the late 1970s and early 1980s, a number of Japanese citizens disappeared under suspicious circumstances. These mysterious cases of missing persons were first reported by the Sankei newspaper in January 1980, which suggested that they had been abducted by North Korea. Seventeen years later, in May 1997, the National Police Agency made it clear in the Diet that it had confirmation that ten Japanese had been abducted by North Korea in seven incidents (later they added one person and one incident). At that time, however, North Korea maintained its stout denial of having had anything to do with the kidnappings, and investigations by Japan went nowhere.2 The stalemate was broken abruptly on September 17, 2002, during a visit to Pyongyang by Prime Minister Koizumi Jun'ichiro of Japan. The occasion was the first summit meeting ever to be held between the Japanese and North Korean heads of government. The talks between Koizumi and Chairman Kim Jong Il of the DPRK National Defense Commission culminated in an agreement known as the Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration. Prior to the summit, Japan had lodged a request with the North Korean government to supply information regarding the eight incidents in which eleven Japanese were thought to have been abducted, including news of what had happened to each of the victims and their current whereabouts. With the summit approaching, the North Korean side brought forth a list with information on fourteen people, including the eleven already named by Japan: five were alive, eight had died, and one they claimed to know nothing about. Then during the talks, Chairman Kim directly acknowledged that the abductions had indeed taken place and he apologized, explaining at one point that some North Korean agents during the 1970s and early 1980s had stepped way out of line in a misguided attempt to carry off some heroics. Among the results of the summit, (1) North Korea agreed to withdraw its long-standing demand for compensation for the decades of Japanese colonial rule in Korea, in return for economic assistance and cooperation similar to that stipulated in the 1965 normalization accord between Japan and South Korea. (2) Chairman Kim himself admitted that North Korea had engineered the abductions and apologized for them. These were considered historic and unusual achievements of Japanese diplomacy. In Japan, however, the North Korean revelation that eight out of fourteen people were dead stunned the nation, pushing all other news into the background. On October 15, North Korea let the five surviving abductees return to Japan for a temporary visit, but they were not given a moment's peace. The media swarmed, hounding their every move, morning, noon, and night, day after day. (2) Media Frenzy At that point, reporting in Japan on North Korea lost any semblance of objectivity. The most notorious examples were the reactions of the media to two interviews conducted in Pyongyang; (1) interview with Hye-gyong Kim, the fifteen-year-old daughter of Megumi Yokota, one of the abductees who North Korea said had died, and (2) interview with the family of Hitomi Soga, who was one of the five allowed to visit Japan. On October 25 and 26, 2002, Fuji Television and the Asahi and Mainichi newspapers broadcast/printed the text of a personal interview conducted with Kim in Pyongyang that many readers described as "cruel," "exploitative," and so on. The second concerned an interview for the weekly magazine Shukan Kin'yobi [Weekly Friday], which was published on November 15, 2002. Families and friends of the victims set up organizations in Japan partly to help combat intrusive and offensive journalism, one called the Kazoku Kai (Association of Families of Victims) and another, the Sukuu Kai (Association to Help Rescue Japanese Victims). They expressed their outrage in public statements, claiming, for example, "It is obvious that the Kim interview was a propaganda setup manipulated by North Korea"; "The media had to have known that they were being baldly exploited by North Korea"; and, "The Asahi newspaper seems not to know which country it is working for!" At a gathering with the media in January 2003, the Secretary General of the Kazoku Kai as much as accused the media, saying that the situation is "a war without weapons; the mass communications people should recognize that this is the first war situation since 1945." (Masukomi rinri [Ethics of the Mass Media], February 25, 2003) Television "wide shows" (news and gossip shows) are another venue that regularly vents complaints issuing from the Kazoku Kai and other groups. Some of the weekly magazines also have done their share of irate media-bashing, bandying about terms like "criminally offensive reporting," "treacherous mass media," "running dogs of the North," and more. Yet the media have a basic obligation to their countrymen to go outside their own borders and behind the lines of battle to gather news -- a duty that is all the more pressing in a case like the secretive North Korea, about which information is exceedingly hard to come by. Although their visit to Japan was meant to be short-term, the five abductees ended up going along with plans by the Kazoku Kai and the Sukuu Kai; they stayed on and never went back to North Korea. This was not well-received by everyone in the foreign ministry, some of whom were extremely irritated. "Now foreign policy is being made by the Kazoku Kai," one official allegedly fumed. What matters most, however, is that we have a precious opportunity now to work out a framework for peace and security in East Asia, and to build on the initiative of Japan. If we are deterred by such media frenzy, we stand to lose that chance. III International Reporting Vital to Peace To reiterate a statement made earlier, the first function of journalism is to provide facts and information from as many angles and as objectively as possible, thus enabling the citizens of a society to make fair and reasoned judgments about what is happening in their world. There can be no question in this day and age of the need for news and information from many sources all over the world. The best journalism demands as much. Only by reporting widely and fairly the conditions in other regions and other societies, the cultures and ways of thinking of other people, can the media help viewers and readers to better understand the realities of the world and judge things rationally. Wide and fair international reporting is especially important at junctures when tensions in international relations have risen to the brink of armed conflict. If reporting abdicates its responsibility and fails to be objective at a time when a reasoned assessment of the situation could lead to a peaceful resolution, it should be implicated if disaster follows. Partisan, biased, one-sided journalism can cause judgments to go awry, possibly inviting the risk of attack and destruction, with all the casualties and losses such violence entails. 1. Shrinking International Reporting in the U.S. Important as it is, reporting on other parts of the world has seen a marked decline in the United States. One survey found that at one point before 9/11, international news in the U.S. made up 2% or less in the news sections of the daily newspapers. Between 1985 and 1995, international news in the major weekly newsmagazines dropped by almost half, from 22% to 13%. Thirty years ago, international news took up 45% of news reporting on the American networks, but prior to 9/11, there were times when there was virtually none. (Parks, p. 56) A PRC survey published in June 2004 found that interest in international news in the United States has been rising recently, but that rise is most certainly conditioned by the Iraq war and the disturbing situation in Iraq following the takeover by the coalition. It undoubtedly reflects mainly a limited current concern for events in Iraq. The findings of another PRC survey in June 2002 suggest that in those sectors of the population where there is little interest in international affairs, the reason is a lack of adequate background knowledge. 2. Growing Interest in Japan There are no statistics, but in Japan's case the volume of international news being broadcast seems to be increasing. Both NHK and the commercial broadcasters schedule news programs four times a day -- morning, noon, evening and night. Compared with news programs broadcast by the American networks using terrestrial wave transmission, the number of news programs on Japanese television is higher, and actual broadcasting time spent on news is definitely increasing. NHK in particular sets certain hours for news reporting. NHK television broadcasting has five channels, two on terrestrial wave and three on satellite wave, the basic channel being terrestrial wave general television. Of all programming on that channel, close to half, or 45%, is either news reporting or news-related programs. This priority on reporting news, especially international news, is clearly apparent on the BS-1 satellite broadcast channel, which handles news and sports. Half of the 24-hour daily broadcast time on BS-1 is centered on international information, the core of which comes from news programs broadcast in other countries and is rebroadcast in Japan in two languages, the original and Japanese.3 NHK's overseas newsgathering system has been growing stronger year after year, while the American networks have gone the opposite way by dramatically reducing their foreign newsgathering activities. NHK currently has correspondents in thirty locations across the globe. In recent years, it has been expanding its capacity for foreign coverage in Asia, in particular. 3. Why Less International News in the U.S. There are probably other explanations for the shrinking international coverage in reporting in the U.S., but the main ones might include the following: (1) The United States sees itself as a huge, continental nation that is the fulcrum of international society. Perceiving themselves to be at the center, Americans have comparatively less interest in other parts of the world. (2) With the collapse of the communist states of Eastern Europe and the end of the Cold War, Americans turned their attention further inward than in the past. Also, (3) the television networks that have long provided the main source of news for the American public have been taken over by big capital, which puts them under unrelenting bottom-line pressure; the high cost of producing international news is disproportionate to the relatively low level of interest among viewers, and so it has been steadily cut in the programming. In contrast, international reporting is showing a tendency to increase in Japan. This may be partly because (1) NHK, as a public broadcaster, operates on revenue from subscribers and has a stable financial base, and the private and commercial broadcasters, although many of them have tie-ups with big newspaper capital, are not constantly harried by a parent company pushing them to bring in ever higher profits. Also, (2) Japanese society is becoming gradually more cosmopolitan and the demand for international news is rising. On the one hand, therefore, the amount of time allocated to broadcasting news on terrestrial television may be increasing, but a growing number of the programs seem to be infotainment-oriented. We should, at this point, take a close look at the situation to see whether or not they are actually providing the kind of information that is required. Also, as we noted, BS-1 of NHK transmits abundant international information, but the direct viewing audience is comparatively small. One challenge now is to ensure that the basic channel for the Japanese television audience, NHK's general television, transmits adequate international coverage to its much larger audience. Conclusion: Awareness and Responsibility What is necessary to raise the public's interest in international news? How can more international reporting be provided for the media audience? First of all, broadcasters and other media must be aware of the importance of international news. Even if public interest is not strong, that constitutes all the more reason to make added efforts to provide solid, abundant international reporting; if we do not, people will become less and less concerned about events and situations in the world, and they will make fewer efforts to understand them. When public understanding of international affairs undergoes a long-term decline and biases build up, it is very hard to turn that process around quickly, regardless of temporary leaps in reporting at times when international relations develop tensions. If exposure to and involvement with international issues, information, and events are inadequate, people have an extremely hard time making informed and rational judgments when they are forced to decide on such momentous matters as whether to support or oppose war. In that sense, international reporting is much more important in times of peace than at times of war. That is why international broadcasting media like the BBC, CNN, and Al Jazeera (ALJ) are of pivotal significance in the world. In particular, the establishment of ALJ has provided a way for the Arab world to even out the balance in what used to be a marketplace of international information monopolized by Western media. The importance of that change cannot be exaggerated. Nonetheless, the major source of information is the domestic media, which carry weight and have a decisive effect on how the nation's people judge things. The American networks are the major information source for Americans, and for Japanese, it is NHK and the private broadcasters. In each case, the data they provide become the basis for the way their citizens assess their country and the world. The United States happens to be the sole superpower in today's world, and it can probably do anything it sets its mind to. It can ignore the collective opinion of international society, and it can make preemptive war on a sovereign state on insufficient grounds, even when there is no direct threat to its territory. Such power is accompanied by equally large responsibility. That applies to the networks as well, whose responsibility to help people formulate reasoned, objective judgments is just as serious. The weight of responsibility of the mass media can be considered proportional to the power and responsibility of the nation in which they operate. The aim of international reporting is not simply to transmit news about changes in government, wars, major events, and developments that are occurring in other countries. The deeper purpose is to enable viewers and readers to construct an idea of the world that is as rational, objective, and solidly grounded in fact as possible. If the media can fulfill that role, the nation can see itself and its place in the world in a balanced, objective way, and its people are able to make consciously rational judgments. Thus the mass media themselves must integrate into their most basic premises the ongoing commitment to build a more rational view of the world. Since 9/11, the world has become increasingly polarized, each side seeing itself in terms of "us" (the just side) versus "them" (the enemy). Such a division in our minds tempts us to depict ourselves as human and the other side as irrational, cruel, beings whose actions are unreadable, unpredictable. It also leads to withholding information about the Other and rejecting all ideas that support the position of the Other. Divisiveness precludes empathy, and bars efforts to understand. The Us-Them dichotomy is a simplistic perspective that can lead to premature, precipitous use of military means to resolve problems before trying to understand the ideas and people behind them. Today the world is in a situation that demands efforts by the media to transmit information that is as objective and multifaceted as we can make it. We ignore this responsibility at our peril. Broadcasting uses frequency resources that are public property to carry out its activities. In order to serve a broad and diverse public well, broadcasters must be fully aware of their obligations and always transmit the news with objectivity and from multiple viewpoints. (Translation by Patricia Murray) Notes 1. The survey targeted the main weekday night news programs broadcast by ABC and Fox in the U.S.; BBC in Britain; TF1 in France; Al Jazeera in Qatar; and in Japan, NHK plus four key commercial broadcasters in Tokyo (excluding TV TOKYO). We analyzed the news shown on March 20, 2003, when the war started, and again between March 31, when the major Anglo-American offensive inside Iraq was launched, and April 11, the day Baghdad fell. 2. In 1910 Japan annexed Korea and occupied it as a colonial territory until 1945, when World War II ended. After Japan's defeat and its withdrawal from Korea, the peninsula was divided along the 38th parallel. In 1948, the Republic of Korea (ROK, or South Korea) was established in the southern part, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North Korea) set up its own government in the northern part, above the 38th parallel. Japan and South Korea signed a basic treaty in 1965 normalizing relations, but there was no contact between North Korea and Japan until 1991, when they finally began negotiations leading to restoration of normal relations. Those talks are still going on. 3. About 38 million households subscribe to NHK terrestrial television, and 12 million of those subscribers also pay to receive satellite TV. While the number of satellite broadcast viewers is smaller than the terrestrial TV audience, satellite television is making a significant difference in increasing the public's understanding of other countries and international issues. Selected Bibliography Chamoto Shigemasa, "Media repoto Vol. 98: Amerika Iraku kogeki de 'yokusan hodo' to kashita Nihon no masukomi ni igi ari!" [Media Report Vo. 98: Objections to Japan's Media Becoming Reporters in the Cause of the American Attack on Iraq!]. Hoso repoto, No. 182, May 6, 2003. Downie, Leonard, Jr., and Robert G. Kaiser, The News About the News, Knopf, 2002. Kaifu Kazuo, " 'Atarashii senso' to hoso media - ABC to Arujajiira wa nani o tsutaeta ka" ['The New War' and Broadcast Media: What Did ABC and Al Jazeera Report?], Hoso kenkyu to chosa (NHK monthly report on broadcasting research), January 2002. __________, "Tero hodo to Amerika nettowaku no kadai" [The Terrorist Attacks Reports and Issues for the American Networks], Hoso kenkyu to chosa, June 2002. __________, Iraku senso ni okeru Busshu seiken no joho sosa to media no sekinin" [The Bush Administration's Manipulation of Information in the Iraq War and Responsibility of the Media], NHK Hoso Bunka Kenkyusho nenpo (annual bulletin of NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute) 2004, March 2004. Kan Sanjun, "Nihon kokumin no seijukudo ga tamesareru" [The Maturity of the Japanese People Put to Trial], Shukan Kin'yobi, Sept. 27, 2002. Kitaoka Shin'ichi, "Sengo Nihon gaikoshi ni nokoru seiko de aru" [A Feat That Will Remain in the History of Postwar Japanese Foreign Policy], Chuo koron, November 2002. Morris-Suzuki, Tessa, "Hisuterii no seijigaku" [The Politics of Hysteria], Sekai, February 2003. Nagashima Keiichi and Hattori Hiroshi, "Terebi wa Iraku senso o do tsutaeta ka: Kaisen, Bagudaddo shinko kara kanraku made" [Television Reporting on the Iraq War: The Beginning, First Assault until the Fall of Baghdad], Hoso kenkyu to chosa, July 2003. ______________________, "Amerika no terebi wa Iraq senso o do tsutaeta ka: Kensho, FOX koka to senso hodo" [How American TV Reported the Iraq War: A Verification of the Fox Effect and Wartime Journalism], Hoso kenkyu to chosa, Sept. 2003. Nagashima Keiichi, Hattori Horoshi, and Sakai Ritsuko, "Sekai no terebi wa Iraku senso o do tsutaeta ka" [How Global Television Portrayed the Iraq War], NHK Hoso Bunka Kenkyusho nenpo 2004, March 2004. Nishigaki Toru, Gebhard Hielscher, and Kaifu Kazuo, "9/11 go no sekai to media no kadai" [The Post-9/11 World and Issues for the Media], Hoso kenkyu to chosa, Feb. 2002. Parks, Michael, "Foreign News: What's Next?" CJR, Jan.-Feb. 2002. Seki Chieko, "Terebi no nakidokoro: Hansen no koe yori seifu no iibun nagasu NHK no osoroshisa" [The Achilles Heel of Television: An NHK That Drowns Antiwar Voices with the Official Line is Frightening], Hoso repoto, No. 182, May 6, 2003.
Kazuo Kaifu Graduated in 1965 from the University of Tokyo, Faculty of Law. Employed at NHK the same year as a reporter. Became a correspondent and then vice-director of the Foreign News Division. Also served as director of NHK's Kobe Broadcasting Station, and was editor of BS News 50. Mr. Kaifu is now executive media analyst at NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute. He lectures at Aoyama Gakuin University and Shizuoka Sangyo University. |
 |
 |
