The "Despicable" Affair: Background Note On the Position as of December 11, 2008
The affair began after I wrote an editorial page article on the
Nanking massacre for the International Herald Tribune -- the New York
Times's overseas edition -- in December 2007. A few days later the
paper published two readers' letters on the same day which, by a
remarkable coincidence, suggested -- without a shred of evidence --
that my article had espoused views associated with Japan's lunatic
right. "Despicable" was how one of the letters characterized the views
the article had ostensibly advanced. Supposedly not only had I held
that imperial Japan had committed no war atrocities but I wanted
references to the Nanking massacre excised from Japanese textbooks!
These characterizations were preposterously at odds not only with the
obvious evidence of the article but with my general record as a
writer. I actually rank with the late Iris Chang as one of the most
insistent critics of Japan's war legacy. In a book published in 1995,
I led the foreign press in exposing Tokyo's erstwhile virtually
unpublicized not-a-penny war compensation policy. Moreover I have
repeatedly embarrassed Chinese leaders by pointing out that, under a
sub-rosa deal concluded with Tokyo in the early 1970s, they have
cooperated in blocking Chinese citizens victims from claiming
compensation from Japan in American courts.
I immediately complained to the Herald Tribune's editorial page editor
and took it for granted that, in line with the paper's normal policy,
the record would soon be set straight. After all, this was an open
and shut case and the mischaracterization was exceptionally damaging,
particularly in view of the fact that, as the editors were aware, I
happened to have a new book coming out.
All the circumstantial evidence moreover suggested that I had been
the victim of a sophisticated geopolitical disinformation initiative.
(Disinformation of this sort is standard in the East Asia watching
field and anyone who writes frankly on sensitive issues such
Beijing's acquiesc ence in Tokyo's not-a-penny war compensation policy
can expect his or her share. In the affair at issue here, the Herald
Tribune misrepresentations are only the most easily documented of
several strange "mishaps" that damaged my book's launch. The book is
exceptionally controversial in that, among other things, it argues
that in an era of "one-way globalism" the West is converging to East
Asian values and not the other way around. In particular freedom of
speech is visibly being eroded in the West and where issues such as
globalism are concerned the pressure to keep the discussion within
tight limits comes in large measure from the East Asian trade lobby or
from that lobby's surrogates in corporate America.)
In the event, though I followed up wit h several reminders to the
editorial page editor, it took the Herald Tribune nearly three months
to publish a correction. Couched in the form of an "Editors' Note,"
this appeared only after my book In the Jaws of the Dragon: America's
Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony was published on March 4.
The net effect was that in the run-up to the book's launch these
preposterous letters came up first, in the same file and sans
correction, for searches for my name at both Nexis and at iht.com.
Even worse, for much of the time the original article that they were
ostensibly paraphrasing was nowhere to be found, though it had been
posted at both sites at publication time. It is not putting it too
strongly to say that I was demonized. (As of early December 2008 the
original article had again disappeared from Nexis.com. Meanwhile one
of the offending letters existed there in uncorrected form as a
stand-alone document.)
On the basis of a survey of "Editors' Notes" going back to the
beginning of this decade, I have found no other instance where the
Herald Tribune took so long to print a correction. The previous
longest delay -- one of 82 days -- involved a difficult and obviously
contested issue where a correctio n was mandated in the end by a
French court. By comparison the delay in my case was 87 days, yet the
evidence that I had been wronged had been indisputable from the
start.
After I had completed promotional activities for my new book, I began
investigating what happened and in particular why the correction had
taken so long. The Herald Tribune editorial page editor has refused
permission to reproduce his two-sentence note of September 23 but the
gist of his position is that he "tried more than once" to explain what
happened and that the matter is "now closed." I am not aware that he
has explained anything or even "tried" to and I replied to this
effect. I have heard nothing more. Parallel efforts to get the Public
Editor to investigate the affair have proved even less fruitful. The
Public Editor has never even acknowledged any of several hard-copy
letters couriered to him since June.
One final point which may or may not be relevant: in a conversation
with the editorial page editor before the corr ection appeared, he
seemed to imply that he lacked authority to authorize a correction but
was sympathetic to my case. I assumed this meant he would take the
matter up with higher authority, which I took, perhaps wrongly, to
mean either the editor in chief or some editorial committee. Later
after I asked the editor in chief in May for his side of the story,
the editorial page editor intervened to reveal that he (the editorial
page editor) had had sole discretion all along. Although I don't think
anything he said was untruthful, his lack of frankness proved
confusing.
At the end of the day two facts remain:
1. The paper took an inordinately long time to print a correction.
2. The Times's complaint handling system has failed in its duty
to investigate the delay.
The "Despicable" Affair: Unanswered Questions
(as repeatedly stonewalled by New York Times group editors in both Paris and New York)
1. Has the IHT established the identities of the ostensible writers of
the letters and were these people writing under their real names?
(Fact: Neither of these people seems to be listed in the relevant
telephone directories and, based on a Nexis search, neither seems to
have a record of ever writing to a newspaper before or since.)
2. Given the objectively absurd nature of the misrepresentations, why
did not the IHT make appropriate checks before publication?
3. Why did the IHT take so long to publish a correction? (Fact: From
the date of the letters' publication to the date of the published
correction, 87 days elapsed. On th e basis of a survey of "Editors'
Notes" going back to the beginning of this decade, I have found no
other instance where the IHT took so long to publish a correction. The
previous longest delay -- one of 82 days -- involved a difficult and
obviously conte sted issue where a correction was mandated in the end
by a French court. By contrast in the case at issue here, no sifting
of evidence was necessary; quite literally an intelligent ten-year-old
would instantly have seen not only that my complaint was vali d but
that those who misrepresented were pursuing a maliciously mendacious
agenda.)
4. What was the explanation for the initial delay in posting the
Editors' Note online (although the note appeared in the print edition
on March 17, it was not posted at I HT.com or Nexis until considerably
later and only after I complained)?
5. Given that the Editors' Note subsequently disappeared from both the
IHT home page and Nexis, what security measures are in place to ensure
that online archives are not interfered w ith by unauthorized people?*
* Much could be added about strange inconsistencies in the way that
articles are presented in online newspaper archives. In this instance,
for much of the time before my book was published on March 4 (and
before the correction appeared), the offending letters were featured
together as one item in Nexis yet the article to which they referred
had completely disappeared from Nexis (though it had previously been
findable there).