“Because readers aren’t interested.” Ask people in the news industry why international coverage is so scarce, and this is the answer that comes back. Then, when you ask readers “Why aren’t you interested?”, the response you often hear is “Because it has nothing to do with me.” In Japanese newspapers and television, reporting about the world accounts for less than 10% of the total—not even half of sports coverage. Yet it would not be an exaggeration to say that very few media professionals and readers/viewers alike see this situation as a problem. Certainly, with newspapers and television losing audiences and the resulting financial strain, the media may feel they have no room to invest in costly international reporting. But is it really acceptable to leave things as they are? Let us explore why international reporting is necessary.

Journalist covering riots in Ukraine Photo: Mstyslav Chernov (CC BY-SA 3.0)

The world is connected

To begin with, whether something “has to do with me” may not be an appropriate yardstick for judging the necessity of reporting. If you look at each event in the world, its relevance to any one person may be slight, but the same could be said of much domestic news. How much do the scandals surrounding celebrities or sports-related stories affect people’s lives? The same question arises with traffic accidents or crimes. We also need to consider locality. Depending on the case, how much do events in Hokkaido affect people in Kyushu? The mass media constantly emphasize patriotism and national self-centeredness, but there are also voices saying that instead of prioritizing reporting at the large unit of the “nation,” the focus should be on more local information.

However, taken in aggregate, it is undeniable that both domestic and global events have an impact. Moreover, the world is intricately intertwined, and no matter where you live—even when it’s something happening on the other side of the globe—it is becoming impossible to separate yourself from it. On a world map, the borders dividing states are clear, but if you look at the increasingly active flows of goods, money, and people, national borders can be seen as one big illusion. For example, in Japan the food self-sufficiency rate is relatively low, with 60% of food imported. The energy self-sufficiency rate is even lower, with 94% of energy needs met through imports, mainly from the Middle East. Even to make a single battery used in electronic devices, the raw materials for the parts may come from Africa or Latin America, while manufacturing may take place in Southeast Asia. Conditions around the world affect the acquisition and production of these goods. Transport can be affected as well. For instance, Somalia, which collapsed as a state in the early 1990s and had long been dismissed as a “country of no concern,” gave rise to piracy precisely because of that collapse, becoming a major threat to the sea lanes linking Asia with the Middle East and Europe, and prompting many countries, including Japan, to dispatch their navies.

Anti-piracy measures off Somalia Photo: Eric L. Beauregard (U.S. Navy)

It’s not only about goods essential to daily life or security issues. Problems such as infectious diseases, pollution, and environmental degradation know no borders. Infectious diseases may be carried by humans, migratory birds, or foodstuffs. Pollution and contamination flow through the seas and air. And sea level rise and extreme weather caused by climate change have reached a serious level we can no longer ignore. For such global problems, looking only inward cannot stop the damage; we need global responses from people who are aware of and understand the world.

There is the aspect that we need information about the world because our country is affected by it, but we must also not forget that our country likewise affects the world. The media can play a vital watchdog role with respect to the actions of our own government, corporations, and individuals around the world. For example, companies seek their own profits and to provide consumers with cheap products. But in doing so, issues of exploitation—of natural resources and foodstuffs, for instance—that hinder the economic growth of poor countries (unfair trade, etc.) arise. Tax haven problems that enable large-scale tax evasion (illicit financial flows) out of poor countries also occur. We can also point to problems such as deforestation and overfishing carried out by companies around the world. Unless media on the perpetrator side proactively highlight the existence and scale of these negative impacts on the world, they will neither be recognized nor be adequately addressed.

Photo: Allen Shimada (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

Where do taxes spent overseas go?

In domestic coverage, how taxes are used draws great attention, and whether that use is appropriate is questioned. However, a significant portion of taxes is also spent abroad. The Japanese government allocates more than 1 trillion yen every year to official development assistance (ODA). Naturally, we also need to ask whether this spending is appropriate, but if information about the world does not circulate, citizens cannot even take part in that discussion.

To begin with, Japan’s ODA may look large in absolute terms, but compared with other advanced countries it is small relative to the size of the economy. Considering that it is less than one-third of the UN target (0.7% of gross national income, GNI), the need to consider whether this is appropriate as an international contribution becomes apparent. But if international reporting is scarce, this too will go unquestioned.

As for ODA recipients, we also need to consider what kind of aid should be provided, to which countries, and to which organizations. In terms of national policy on ODA, should we prioritize economic infrastructure such as roads and dams, or social infrastructure such as health care and education? There may be room for examination and debate. As for destinations, do we choose based on humanitarian need, or do we prioritize returns to our own country? Aid to countries with the greatest humanitarian needs is consistently insufficient, and many lives are being lost. Other ethical issues also arise. Should we continue to provide aid to foreign governments that commit large-scale human rights abuses, or stop? The same judgments are called for with respect to aid to individual organizations. For example, the “White Helmets,” whose rescue work in Syria has drawn global attention and who receive support from many countries including Japan, have been dogged by serious questions about their activities, such as suspicions that they have cooperated with al-Qaeda–linked groups.

Not only taxes; governments also use human resources in diplomacy. In Japan’s case, for example, staff, experts, and volunteers are dispatched through the activities of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). In some cases there are also military deployments. In addition to anti-piracy operations off Somalia, there is logistical support for U.S. wars and participation in peacekeeping operations (PKO). When considering whether to take part in such activities, public opinion is an important factor in a democracy, but for that, a certain level of knowledge and understanding of world affairs among the public is indispensable. Here too, the role of international reporting is crucial. When the Maritime Self-Defense Force was dispatched off Somalia and when the Self-Defense Forces were sent to South Sudan, how much material for judgment did the media provide? And as for PKO deployment destinations, why was South Sudan chosen rather than Cote d’Ivoire or Lebanon? Was this unrelated to the oil in South Sudan? Even if we say that citizens’ voices need to be reflected in foreign policy, information about the world is essential to forming that public opinion.

PKO operations in South Sudan (Thai military) Photo: Aekkaphob / Shutterstock.com

Do people really have “no interest”?

Setting aside whether domestic or international events are deemed “important,” the issue of “interest” remains.

The media proclaim a social responsibility to provide readers and viewers with “important” information, but they are also businesses and are mindful of providing the information audiences want (that which they are most interested in). In today’s media, the latter often seems to dominate. But to what extent can we really say readers and viewers are “not interested” in world events? For those who view things through a nationally self-centered lens, many are surely interested in world affairs insofar as they affect national interests. Among those with a somewhat more global outlook, there are also a fair number who care about the world out of concern for people in trouble or for the sustainability of the planet. Many people simply like overseas travel or are interested in the world out of sheer curiosity. If you look closely, there is a certain level of demand.

However, existing “interest” is certainly limited. Celebrity scandals attract intense interest for some reason even though they are not “important” to viewers. And no matter how “important” an issue may be, one can assume that interest will be low for events that happen far from home. That said, the media are by no means merely passive, mechanically receiving people’s “interests” and responding to them. It is undeniable that they also create interest by deliberately focusing on particular information and perspectives.

In reality, interest and information are closely linked. Depending on the case, the more the media cover a topic, the more people come to recognize “this topic is important,” and the more interest grows. Conversely, if people do not encounter information in the first place, they have no way to become interested. So is it that there is no reporting because there is no interest, or that there is no interest because there is no reporting? It’s a classic chicken-and-egg situation. If the media judge that information about the world is important both for our own country and for the world, coverage will increase and so will interest. However, interest does not immediately catch up with the level of information, and it takes time for “interest” to be recognized as demand for information about the world. In the meantime, news organizations bear costs and risks. Changing the status quo requires a “bet” by the media. That is a tall order for today’s media industry, which lacks slack.

Photo: wellphoto / Shutterstock.com

In any case, it is clear that the lack of information about the world serves neither the world nor Japan. People with limited knowledge of global affairs join trading companies, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, JICA, NGOs, and also become educators and politicians. This is not only a problem of limited knowledge about the world; it also becomes a problem of low recognition of the world’s importance. The education system naturally bears some responsibility for this situation, but the media bear a large responsibility as well. And when people with limited knowledge and interest in the world enter the media, this vicious cycle continues.

As globalization accelerates, in far too many fields “domestic issues” and “global issues” can no longer be separated. Whether you think your hometown or your country is what matters, or you think the world is what matters, the time has come to feel a sense of crisis about the scarcity of information about the world—for surviving in it and for making it a better place.

Writer: Virgil Hawkins