How Journalists Shaped American Foreign Policy: A Case Study of Japan's Military Seizure of Korea by Daniel A. Metraux (review)

It is often said that history is written by the winners. In Daniel Metraux's How Journalists Shaped American Foreign Policy: A Case Study of Japan's Military Seizure of Korea, the author presents history as understood from the perspective of seven influential journalists to demonstrate the variety of interpretation each journalist chose regarding the Japanese occupation of Korea from 1895 to 1910. Metraux, an accomplished Asian studies scholar at Mary Baldwin University, warns readers of falling prey to the Rashomon effect, or the danger of understanding only one side of a story. Metraux examined the reporting of seven different journalists, each of whom had a different take on what motivated the Japanese, the situation of the Korean people, and the execution of the occupation. He argues that the reports that circulated in the Western world, especially those available to US president William McKinley, influenced public opinion to adopt a very pro-Japanese stance without understanding the harsh repressions imposed on the Korean people.

The book is organized into two introductory chapters that present a brief history of Japanese militarism and imperialism that is juxtaposed with a description of American attitudes toward Japan and Korea at the time of the Russo-Japanese War. The introduction is followed by individual examinations of each of the seven journalists and their coverage of the conflict. He orders the chapters on a spectrum from subjectivity to objectivity by first presenting the histories of these journalists in foreign journalism, their experiences with East Asia at the turn of the twentieth century, and, finally, a critique of the material they presented. Metreaux begins with war correspondent George Kennan and his praise of the Japanese efforts, then moves to accounts from Frederick Palmer, Jack London, Frederick McKenzie, William Jennings Bryan, and William E. Griffis, concluding with Thomas Millard's anti-imperialist criticism of Japanese actions.

Metraux is clearly well read in both the historical background of the topic and the perspectives of the historians and travel authors who were writing about Japan and Korea at the time. This enables him to read these journalist accounts with objectivity and point out potential discrepancies and biases. He uses a wide array of evidence and sources to draw readers into the experiences of how the journalists traveled, how they gathered their material, and who they encountered. He concludes with a succinct review of the material, pointing out similarities and differences among the presentations.

The book's strengths include the readability of the material, the organization of chapters and perspectives, and the insightful commentaries Metraux provides in the footnotes. The stories of the journalists and their experiences in East Asia reveal interesting travel commentary alongside historical insights. One limitation may be the repetition of certain facts from chapter to chapter without respect to previous mentions. The book is an informative read that sheds light on the thoughts and reactions of journalists who ventured into barely charted territory. It brings back a sense of nostalgia and adventure for the time when the world relied on first-hand accounts of foreign lands to influence foreign policy and decision making.

This book will be useful for students of history and historians as an example of why it is essential to carefully examine historical accounts. Those who study or teach journalism will also find this book useful. It will challenge readers to question the integrity of historical authorship and journalism and to seek a well-rounded truth. With his convincing evidence of seven different perspectives of Western journalism on the Japanese occupation of Korea, Metraux reminds the reader to be aware of the danger of a one-sided story.