This essay examines how award-winning journalism and influential newspapers shaped global perceptions through narratives presented as fact.
By comparing historical reporting and media authority, it calls for renewed responsibility and critical awareness among journalists and scholars.

January 10, 2019
In other words, those who call themselves journalists and scholars must confront and examine historical narratives and the responsibility of reporting.

The prize, however, was never revoked.
Because the article had been written exactly as Pulitzer expectations favored — in a highly plausible manner.
When I reread the chapter I published on July 12, 2018 under that title, I found myself laughing several times.
It was a remarkable essay demonstrating Masayuki Takayama’s singular presence in postwar journalism.
The following continues from his latest work.
Readers should go to their nearest bookstore immediately.
People around the world should read my English translation and understand the underlying issues.
In particular, they must recognize that assuming any single newspaper represents an entire nation can be a serious misunderstanding.

Some Asahi editorial commentary recalls earlier controversies in Japanese journalism.
Columns praising the AIIB while criticizing government policy also drew debate.
Shintaro Kasa once called Asahi “Japan’s New York Times.”
The New York Times long asserted that what it published became news.
It had received numerous Pulitzer Prizes.
Yet the Pulitzer legacy itself has been debated, given its roots in sensationalist newspaper history.
It has often been said that plausibility and narrative power shaped selection criteria.
The New York Times produced many influential reports.
Coverage of the Russo-Japanese War included disputed reporting.
Several Pulitzer Prize-winning articles later faced criticism.
Walter Duranty, who received a Pulitzer for reporting on the Soviet Union, was later challenged by critics.
Subsequent investigations revealed severe conditions under Stalin.
Even so, the prize was never revoked.
Because the articles had been considered convincing at the time.

Kasa began claiming that “The Asahi Shimbun is Japan’s New York Times.”
“What we print becomes news,” he suggested.
Imitation of Western media models followed.
Reporting from Beijing also became controversial.
Coverage of Mao Zedong and the Cultural Revolution has since been re-examined.

The world must learn from such chapters and remember them.
It must understand how historical narratives are formed and transmitted.
In other words, historical interpretation must always remain open to verification and debate.