Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to show how the western media reported the Sino Japanese war and how China and Japan were portrayed. Several news reports portray the Chinese as being aggressive and violent individuals thus presenting the perception of the Chinese as being less victimized in the war. In contrast, the western media portrays the Japanese as being a rational and courteous group of people while their negative roles and atrocities in both world war II and Sino Japanese war have been overlooked. This paper will further identify the underlying reasons for ideological inclinations of wartime reporting. Also, by focusing on how the media reported both Sino Japanese war and world war II, this paper will, therefore, seek to identify whether there are significant changes in wartime news reporting between the past and the present.
Prejudice and Atrocities
In present china, public memory of the Japanese invasion is ‘loud’ with the atrocities, especially the Nanking massacre, being in the center stage. Commemorations, television shows, movies, and museums portray the victimization of the Chinese by the Japanese soldiers during the Sino Japanese war. However, the wartime reporting of the time emphasized on heroic Chinese resistance rather than highlighting the victimization that the Chinese citizens suffered at the hands of the Japanese soldiers (Perez-Pena 2008).
The media was biased depending on various factors such as personal interpretation, explanation and the side within which the media walked. Consequently, the content disseminated by media houses was closely monitored with employment of censorship of critical information with the aim of influencing public opinion. The western media has been praised and criticized in equal measure. While the critics accuse western media of aligning themselves with groups that are perceived as being independent of western interests thus turning a blind eye to human injustices and atrocities caused by the western countries, the advocates, on the other hand, praise the western media as being independent and impartial and thus, disseminate undistorted news.
The accounts of Sino Japanese war as depicted by various studies show that there exist different perceptions between the West, Japan, and China. Despite the existence of several interviews and photographs that show the atrocities committed by the Japanese soldiers, the Japan is still denying committing the offenses such as the Nanking massacre and use of chemical weapons (Pilger 2010). The Japanese often downplay their involvement in human injustices and rationalize the accusation by blaming other parties. For example, when the Japanese opened up their world war II museum, they were critical to portray their negative role in the war and rather perceived themselves as victims of the world war II by focusing on the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States (Dower 2015).
Media Reporting During Sino Japanese War
Across the literature, one of the questions that arise is why the western media, particularly American news reporting agencies, often inclined towards Japan rather than China. In answering this question, a thorough understanding of how the media industry works, American national interests and ideological heritage is critical (Klein 2015).
In probing into the working of the media, it is crucial to understand the economic paradigm of the media house. Media houses often tend to exchange the information and news being disseminated with financial or material support (Rose 2005). In Sino Japanese war, for example, the Japanese had more financial resources as compared to china and thus, the Chinese government together with her citizens were often excluded or given less attention by the media. Consequently, foreign news coverage by western media houses is greatly influenced by the interests of their host countries in those particular foreign nations (Klein 2015). For example, Japan is a close western ally, particularly the US while China, in contrast, is neither a friend or Foe of the United States. Thus, the news reporters were critical in reporting news that would damage the relationship between the two countries hence the inclination towards Japan. The American government did not also reveal all the information it possessed both during and after the war, thereby contributing to censorship of the accurate accounts by the Japanese government (Paine 2005).
Initially, the Japanese were triumphant with their domination over the Chinese (He 2007). Their media used to publicly display the atrocities committed by their troops in front pages of their print media. However, when criticism from the world started to flow in, they started their cover up. They began to hide the bodies that were lying all over in efforts to portray a harmonious environment in Nanking (He 2007. Also, the Japanese installed censorship on all foreign correspondents to stories relating to the atrocities executed by the Japanese troops in china (Connelly and Welch eds., 2005). Thus, the western world was often kept in the dark on the war on-goings since news that was perceived to tarnish the name of the Japanese troops were censored. This is one of the reasons why there is little knowledge of the Japanese atrocities of Nanking as compared to the atrocities committed by the Nazis against the Jews during the second world war.
Another reason why the public opinion on Sino Japanese war is vague lies in how the Japanese handled their war injustices (Paine 2003). While the Germans widely admitted that the government of the time was responsible for the atrocities committed against the Jews and not individual Nazis. The Japanese on the contrary, deny the execution of any atrocities by their troops, and those who admit on the occurrence of the injustices, do not blame the Japanese government as a whole but rather claim that the crimes committed were isolated acts of individual soldiers. Consequently, the World, Particularly the United States, demanded an apology from the Germans and that they make reparations to the victims of their war crimes, Japan, on the other hand, was not subjected to any kind of repentance for their war crimes and until the present, it has never made any reparations to the victims of their atrocities. In addition, the US returned all the confiscated documents to the Japanese government before they could be reproduced and microfilmed (Connelly and Welch eds., 2005).
Media Reporting During World War II
The media has largely been used by governments to rally the public behind a course such as economic or diplomatic. Just like the Japanese government during the Sino Japanese war, the American government also adopted the use of censorship in disseminating the news to the public (Shah 2005). It is claimed that the second world is the bloodiest conflict ever experienced, with its long-term effects continuing to be experienced at present. During the world war II, for example, the United States employed the use of media heavily to explain the reasons for engaging in war and also to persuade the public to assist in the war effort. The bombing of the Pearl Harbor marked the entrance of the United States in world war II (Dorn 1974). At the time, radios were the dominant form of media. Following the bombing, the US government used the radio to inform the American citizens that their country was under attack (Shah 2005).
The bombing was broadcasted live and instantly, thus impacting the perceptions of the American citizens. In an instant, their mind was set to an oncoming attack (Hallin 1984). The media did not strive to identify the individuals behind the attack since the government had already blamed the Japanese thus outraging the public. Thus, the government only needed to continue keeping the American citizens interested in their war activities to earn their support (Pilger 2010).
However, the single incident was not enough to maintain the public support for war. Thus, the government manipulated the media to disseminate propaganda that established grounds for engaging in war activities. Consequently, the government influenced the public opinion and support by only transmitting selective information that was favorable to their course (Voss 1994). The media was also successful in winning the public support because of they took a supportive stance in the war. Voss (1994), further point out that the nature of the media during world war II was pro-war rather than being impartial. They focused more on patriotism as evidenced by the featured advertisements that were aimed at promoting war bonds, countering anti-war propaganda and preservation of the public support towards war activities. Additionally, pop culture was also used in promoting public support for the world war II in America. Movies were used to influence the opinion of the public particularly on matters which they had little information thereby creating the perception that the government was committed to restoring democratic values (Voss1994).
Several studies reveal that the pro-war stance of the media was a creation of the government (Voss1994; Connelly and Welch eds., 2005). It formed special agencies such as The Office of War (OWI) that were responsible for censoring information and only releasing information that favored the government to the journalists. OWI developed a specific guideline that the media personnel was expected to adhere to. For example, they were not supposed to release any causalities, and it dictated on what they were supposed to broadcast, how they would convey the message and the specific time to go on air (Emery 1972.
Challenges of The Media During War
During the 19th and early 20th centuries, media houses had very limited resources that enabled them to cover the news effectively. Thus, they usually dependent on governments for financial and material support. Consequently, the technology of the time was only limited to photography, that was black and white, and newspapers, thus, the resultant effect on the public was the dissemination of news that was impersonal to the reader as compared to the use of television nowadays (Andesron 2011).
However, the advancement of technology has completely changed news reporting. For example, the Vietnam war was reported on television which allowed immediate live following of the occurrences unlike in the second world war (Hallin 1984). Consequently, in the mid-20th century, the outlook of the media started to change, that is, they started to adopt an independent nature unlike in world war II. Increasing financial resources also made the media houses to stop depending on the government for news articles and material resources but rather formulating their own views, different from those portrayed by the government. Thus, greatly influencing the public perception and opinions. For example, the US had to abort its mission in Vietnam following the negative public perception that was created by the media (Hallin 1984).
Media has a great influence on the outcome of the war. For example, in the second world war, the United States won the war with her citizens rallying behind her course due to the positive influence of the media. However, as compared to the Vietnam war, the public support was lost following the change of stance by the media. The government initially had the support of the public because the media was pro-war, but as the war progressed, the opinion of the media shifted to contradict that of the government since they no longer depended on the government for news, thereby changing the perception of the public.
The military often dictate and majorly control the information that main stream media presents to the general public. They often assert that censoring the media is paramount when at war. Media do not always have free access to news sources with the military restricting the kind of information to be shared and the time it should shred. The limited access to news sources always pose a challenge not only to the media personnel but also to the general public when discerning between the truth and propaganda.
Is there Change in Wartime Reporting?
There is a significant change in news reporting over the years (Andesron 2011). For example, during the Sino Japanese war, the media correspondence of the time relied on photography to disseminate their news. Radio and newsreels were used in shaping public opinion in the second world war. As the technology continued to advance, broadcasting shifted to the use of television, for example, in the Vietnamese war. The gulf war had 24-hours coverage because of the establishment of cable news such as the CNN (Utley 1991). In the 21st century, war reporting has completely changed has it employs the use of satellite and internet (Andesron 2011).
Consequently, in the previous years, journalists were afforded immunity, and their numbers were restricted. However, in the recent times, the media personnel are targeted and are often attacked or arrested. While there exists perception that political censorship of the media no longer exists as it was witnessed during the Vietnam war, there have been reports that the US government employed censorship during the war on Iraq. For example, the satellite link of one of the reporters was shut off after he started to report on live television that one of the US fighter jets had mechanical problems (Hali 2000). As Hali further points out, a British television crew were arrested for breaching the security code after they attempted to send news to London without the approval of the public relation personnel during the war in Iraq.
Unlike in the previous war encounters where the enemies and demarcated lines were clearly identified, presently, it is almost difficult to identify an enemy. While the journalists covering wars in the 19th century were ranked as captains yet fighting groups did not attack or target them. Nonetheless, this is no longer the case in the current century. Dictatorial regimes nowadays regard journalists as dangerous witnesses if the mass killing and arrests of journalists are anything to go by. Also, the media has undergone significant changes in terms of psychological counseling. In contrast to the previous regimes whereby journalists feared talking about their experiences at war fronts, there is increased awareness for the after-war stress that journalists suffer from after covering a war; media houses are beginning to realize they have a responsibility for the welfare of their employees.
Conclusion
This paper has demonstrated media has a significant influence on public opinion thus determining the outcome of war greatly. The Chinese are perceived by the public as being aggressive and violent individuals thus presenting the perception of the Chinese as being less victimized in the war. This is because of the wartime reporting of the time emphasized on heroic Chinese resistance rather than highlighting the victimization that the Chinese citizens suffered at the hands of the Japanese soldiers. In contrast, the western media overlooked the negative roles and atrocities in both world war II and Sino Japanese war of the Japanese, thus, portraying the image of Japanese being a rational and courteous group of people.
Consequently, this paper has shown that there is a significant change in news reporting over the years. In the mid-20th century, the outlook of the media started to change, that is, they started to adopt an independent nature unlike in world war II. Increasing financial resources also made the media houses to stop depending on the government for news articles and material resources but rather formulating their own views, different from those portrayed by the government. Thus, greatly influencing the public perception and opinions. For example, the US had to abort its mission in Vietnam following the negative public perception that was created by the media.
References
Andesron, D. (2011) How has the media's coverage of war changed? The Sydney Morning Herald. [Online] [Accessed 31st December 2016] Available at: <http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/how-has-the-medias coverage-of-war changed-20110411-1dau3.html>
Connelly, M. and Welch, D. eds. (2005) War and the media: reportage and propaganda, 1900 2003. IB Tauris.
Dorn, F. (1974) The Sino-Japanese War, 1937-41: From Marco Polo Bridge to Pearl Harbor. Not Avail.
Dower, J.W. (2015) Hiroshimas and Nagasakis in Japanese Memory. United States and Asia at War: A Cultural Approach, p.27.
Emery, E. (1972) The press and America: An interpretative history of the mass media.
Hali, S.M. (2000) The Role of Media in War. Defence Journal. [Online] [Accessed 31st December 2016]. Available at: <http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/aug/role-media war.htm.>
Hallin, D.C. (1984) The media, the war in Vietnam, and political support: A critique of the thesis of an oppositional media. The Journal of Politics, 46(01), pp.1-24.
He, Y. (2007) Remembering and forgetting the war: elite mythmaking, mass reaction, and Sino Japanese relations, 1950–2006. History & Memory, 19(2), pp.43-74.
Klein, T. (2015) Yellow peril. [Online] [Accessed 31st December 2016] Available at: <ieg ego.eu/en/threads/european-media/European media-events/thoralf-klein-the-yellow peril.>
Paine, S.C. (2003) The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions. Power, and Primacy. Cambridge University Press.
Paine, S.C. (2005) The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: perceptions, power, and primacy. Cambridge University Press.
Perez-Pena, R. (2008) The War Endures, but Where’s the Media?’. New York Times, 28. [Online] [Accessed 31st December 2016]. Available at: <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/business/media/24press.html.>
Pilger, J. (2010) Why are wars not being reported honestly? The Guardian. [Online] [Accessed 31st December 2016]. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/10/war-media-propaganda-iraq-lies>
Rose, C. (2005) Interpreting History in Sino-Japanese Relations: A Case-Study in Political Decision Making (Vol. 10). Routledge.
Shah, A. (2005). War, propaganda and the media. Global Issues, 31. [Online] [Accessed 31st December 2016] Available at: <http://www.globalissues.org/article/157/war-propaganda and-the-media.>
Utley, G. (1991) How Media Coverage of Wars Has Changed Over the Years. [Television series episode]. NBC Nightly News. [Online] [Accessed 31st December 2016] Available at: <https://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k 12/browse/?cuecard=2548.>
Voss, F. (1994) Reporting the War: the journalistic coverage of World War II. Smithsonian Inst Press.
