Posted by Eric Muller (visiting from <a
href="http://www.isthatlegal.org/";>isthatlegal.org</a>):
RHETORIC AND REALITY.
Thanks, as always, to Eugene for the invitation to guest-blog here
again. It's always a pleasure. Yesterday Eugene [1]critiqued [2]a
letter I signed in which a group of historians and researchers
(including me) complained of the decision made by many TV and radio
shows to present, without opposition, Michelle Malkin's revisionist
account of the Japanese American internment. (Malkin argues in her
book "In Defense of Internment" that the eviction, removal, and
detention of 112,000 people of Japanese ancestry in World War II were
all justified by solid evidence of widespread espionage by Americans
of Japanese ancestry both before and after Pearl Harbor. My (and
historian Greg Robinson's) debunking of Malkin's revisionism is
[3]here.) Eugene says that the phrasing of the letter "will likely
sound to many like a guild guarding its professional turf against
upstart competition, not a substantive critique that should make the
media or viewers take notice." The problem, Eugene says, is that the
letter buried [the lead--which is that Malkin's book gets history very
wrong--] under a different lead that . . . frames the argument exactly
the way that professional academics ought not frame it -- at least if
they want to persuade their lay readers." I've thought about this a
good bit since yesterday. I agree with Eugene's assessment of how many
people are likely to read the first few sentences of the letter,
especially those who come to the debate suspicious of academics in the
first place. I wish I could go back in time and make some of Eugene's
suggestions before I signed it. But I don't regret signing it, even in
the format in which it appears, because the letter points out
something very important---something that Eugene's well-taken
criticism of the rhetoric misses. The premise of Eugene's criticism is
that in the controversy stirred by the publication of Malkin's book,
"a substantive critique" actually has a chance of "mak[ing] the media
or viewers take notice," and that it has a shot at reaching, let alone
"persuading," some appreciable number of "lay readers." Since Malkin
published this book several weeks ago, she has appeared to present her
historical account of "vast networks of Japanese American
spies"---unopposed---on probably a half-dozen prime time shows on
cable television (Fox, MSNBC, CNBC, HBO, C-SPAN (although that one
wasn't primetime)) and many, many national and local radio programs.
On just two occasions, both of them on local radio (one in
Philadelphia and one in North Carolina), I was invited to present an
opposing view and did so. On a third occasion (also on local radio in
Philadelphia), I was invited to present a response after Malkin spoke,
but [4]the show apparently thought better of it after hearing from
Malkin for 15 minutes and hung up on me before giving me a chance to
speak so that they could take "an important call from the Republican
National Convention." (I wasn't in the listening area so I never
learned who the caller was.) The result of this one-sidedness is
exchanges like this wrap-up exchange at the end of her interview
yesterday on WPHT radio in Philadelphia:
Radio Host: The bottom line here, Michelle, is don't let your kids
be taught that we did despicable things to the Japanese Americans
during World War II, 'cause it ain't true. Malkin: That's right.
One might say, "Well, if you want to get the opposing views out there,
you need to do more than gripe about it in some lame letter; you need
to appeal directly to these shows to present an opposing view." But
here's the thing: I (and others) have done just that. I have
approached each and every radio and television show that has showcased
Malkin for the last several weeks---in most instances (when I was able
to learn of it) before Malkin's appearance---and made the substantive
case that Malkin's book presents a history so false that it amounts to
a smear on the reputation of an entire ethnic group (not to mention a
brief for the mass internment of Arabs and Muslims). In not one
instance has any show--radio or television---agreed to present an
opposing view; they've just presented Malkin. (The two local radio
shows on which I did appear approached me because their producers had
seen my blog.) And the book, as of last weekend, was at #31 on the New
York Times bestseller list, and has hovered near the top of
amazon.com's sales list for several weeks now. So, while Eugene might
deem Greg Robinson's and my substantive case that Malkin is wrong to
be "a point that should be persuasive to media and to viewers, and
that appeals to acknowledged media ethics," and that should lead the
media to conclude "that at least some contrary voices should be called
on to rebut her arguments," the fact is that it hasn't. I know, I
know: some are already itching to fire off an email to me telling me
that I'm just jealous because Michelle Malkin's book is selling like
hotcakes and being talked about on TV and radio while mine didn't and
isn't. Please. Anybody who thinks my efforts of the last few weeks
have been about selling books doesn't know me at all (and doesn't know
my book). Amazon had two hardcover copies of my book left in stock 3
weeks ago, and--guess what!--[5]it still has two hardcover copies of
my book left. This isn't about selling books, and it isn't about
getting my handsome mug on TV or my mellifluous voice on the radio.
It's about countering, in the only way I know how, the stunningly
successful spread of false insinuations about the loyalty and conduct
of a group of Americans I've come to know and care deeply about. By
the way, for those who are curious, I have assumed that the name
"Historians' Committee for Fairness" is just a play on the "[6]Fair
Play Committee," an organization that formed at one of the ten
Japanese American Relocation Centers to protest the government's
program of eviction and incarceration. I don't know for sure, as I
didn't organize the letter-writing effort. But I don't think it's
anything more than that. Certainly it's not the name of a
longstanding, established organization such as the [7]American
Association of University Professors or the [8]Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth.
References
1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_09_00.shtml#1094055824
2. http://hnn.us/comments/40982.html
3. http://www.isthatlegal.org/Muller_and_Robinson_on_Malkin.html
4.
http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2004_08_29_isthatlegal_archive.html#109404158526053875
5.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226548228/ref=ase_ericmuller-20/104-9012536-0935160?v=glance&s=books
6. http://www.resisters.com/documents/FPC_Bulletin_1.htm
7. http://www.aaup.org/
8. http://www.swiftvets.com/
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
