I don’t know well if bad journalism or not, but, to read these articles in NYT was strange experience, while it’s not so sensational today(post-waiwai era).

A Plain School Uniform as the Latest Aphrodisiac:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07EED61F3AF931A35757C0A961958260&scp=3&sq=kristof+prostitution+japan&st=nyt
Schoolgirls as Sex Toys:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07EFD7103DF935A35757C0A961958260&scp=3&sq=loli-con&st=nyt
In Japan, Brutal Comics for Women: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E3DB1739F936A35752C1A963958260&scp=3&sq=kristof+japan+rape&st=nyt

Elevator ladies+falsetto voice+loli-con thing is nice.
Japan’s Feminine Falsetto Falls Right Out of Favor:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CEFD81639F930A25751C1A963958260&scp=1&sq=loli-con&st=nyt

It’s just a quick research result. As long as I remember, his reports on Japanese Family seemed generally stereotypical(a bit strange for me). Yes, his reporting was basically affectionate, but with more or less “lost in translation” touch, so they may have appealed to distant audience, not to many Japanese. Onishi’s is basically unaffectionate and his reporting tends to lack the distance, so he can make many Japanese upset. I am a bit fed up with mysterious and bizarre Japan and in this point Onishi is refleshing. Yes, it’s a kind of home-goroshi. I expect fair and accurate criticism from NYT.

Well, my take on Kristof is based on some faded memories and about 30 min of reading that I did the other day so I’m not going to go out on a limb defending him. It is possible to find some very good examples in his body of writing but it may be equally possible to find some bad. Did anything stand out as very bad for you?

“I’m not sure that this sort of coverage is all that necessary. I would rather just leave most American comparisons out all together.”

If comparisons (either to Martin Luther King or who/whatever) are left out, it must be asked, what is the point of reporting on many Japan issues? Basic political summaries have a place. So do social trend writings. But why Burakumin, welfare, militarism, etc. and why now? Does a Japanese audience need an article about heroin in Helsinki? Welfare problems in Belgium? Police corruption in Italy? Each of those would raise a question – what is not getting reported instead? How these articles could be related to the audience makes a big difference IMO.

I don’t think that it is asking too much that international news be made relevant to the intended audience. Showing where things stand in relation to the position that that audience occupies is important – either quantitatively discussed social realities or commentary on values and ideologies. If the articles can’t provide enough context because of word limits, showing how international issues relate to / compare with an environment that readers are more familiar with can help to add understandability.

My concern is that a lot of international reportage everywhere is simply voyeurism – a peak at the dark spots of others. Without context or comparisons, this can be a very dangerous thing.

I’d point to one area where there is an impetus for change – US healthcare. There has been some powerful reporting on the issue (not MMoore) that relies on comparisons with other countries. There seems to be a growing awareness that American healthcare, despite how great it can be for some, also fails many others. This is a discussion that has been carried out in relative terms and I think that it has been pretty effective in fulfilling one of the major roles of the press – advocating for change.

I’d also ask that you consider the potential positive impacts of reporting that forces American readers to think about (for example) the Middle East as a similar place in many respects. I saw a program on Food Network the other day comparing Saudi and US fast food joints. Loved it. This type of search for the different AND the familiar can be an effective way of promoting understanding.

I’m not sure that this sort of coverage is all that necessary. I would rather just leave most American comparisons out all together. I mean, really, when you only have 800-1200 words to talk about Japan, who cares how it compares to the U.S.? Besides which, when it comes to social policy, the United States is often the outlier, so it is useless in terms of establishing some kind of ‘international norm’ against which Japan should be judged. But that doesn’t mean that there should be a “look at what the Japanese are doing, isn’t it unique! (or uniquely bad!)” attitude either. That’s just a comparison in disguise.

Even that is better than “Japan is wrong on this, unlike America (or South Korea) which is great!”

We can find lots of examples of Kristof doing the rhetorically responsible thing – America is wrong on this, here is how the Japanese do it better. Or Japan is wrong on this, but we ain’t that great ourselves.

The first pattern, I described above as an “intellectual foot massage”, the second pattern(s) is more like a wakeup slap to the face which is exactly what journalists should be looking to deliver.

This goes for Japanese journalism as well (where it is a common pattern – Finland or whoever) but there is really no comparison between the potential impact of an article that uses an outside example to criticise one’s own country and a fleeting criticism of another country. Japanese journalists really don’t care that much about Finland. If you take the worst problem that Finland faces and sell it to Japanese audiences, it really won’t mean squat. People will just marvel at how %^$$ed up Finland is and move on. If, however, you use Finland as a sort of critical leverage to dissect aspects of Japanese policy (which is being done) it can produce a powerful drive for domestic change (and it has sparked wider debate on education and dozens of publications).

It’s not what I(m concerend that Onishi or Kristof is not nice nor sympathetic to Japan.Good report on Japan is “Japan is wrong on this and this and here is the background and this is how the society deals with the issue” But their narratives are usually in the format like “Japan is wrong on this and this,and that’s Japan”kind of determinism,as if they are sitting on higher ladder.

Like, let’s say, the Mall of America?

The vast majority were uncritical of Chang in 1997. It seems that Kristof has changed and this puts him in a minority.

BTW,I forgot to mention that there is even a book by group of Japanese writers accused Kristof era NYT report on Japan called “Japan Made In U.S.A”.

http://www.nikkeibp.co.jp/archives/043/43302.html

Anyway, where is Kristof’s praise for Iris Chang’s book? The NYT has zero hits for articles by Kristof with her name in them. The closest is this short book review by his wife (http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/12/13/reviews/981213.13wudunnt.html) in which she argues for the ~50,000 dead figure, saying that Chang is wrong and saying that this book “soars above most of the rest” of books about Nanjing i.e. Iris Chang, and a letter to the editor in which Chang complains that Kristof won’t accept the 300,000 dead figure.