Q: How was your interest in internment newspapers sparked, and can you tell us more about your research process?
Feighery: Like many of my generation, I first learned about Japanese American internment from Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston’s 1973 memoir Farewell to Manzanar, which became an NBC made-for-TV movie a few years later. When I came to Utah, I was intrigued to learn that another camp, Topaz, was only 130 miles away. That led to the discovery that journalists were among the people incarcerated there, and I wanted to know more about how they did their jobs behind barbed wire.
Q: How did your study of internment camps enhance your understanding of how journalists help foster communities?
Feighery: Dave Nord was my master’s advisor, and I enjoyed his 2001 book Communities of Journalism. When I started reading internment camp newspapers, I found that Nord’s concepts helped to interpret their functions in nuanced ways. For example, Nisei, who were US citizens, could express their views in these papers and enact Nord’s idea that “to argue about the state was to be a member of the nation.” That’s exactly what many Nisei were trying to prove.
Q: You wrote that major US newspapers “were instruments reinforcing power, not independent journalists challenging it.” Why do you think journalists failed, despite some initial opposition to the camps?
Feighery: The simplest answer is media ownership. William Randolph Hearst and Robert McCormick had strong political opinions, and they knew they could sell newspapers and boost their political clout by playing on people’s insecurities. Reed Smith’s recent article in American Journalism shows that some journalists were willing to defend Japanese Americans, but they were a distinct minority.
Q: You point out that editors maintained exchanges and shared copy among the camps. Can you expand on how that worked, and any benefits or implications?
Feighery: Early American newspapers routinely picked up items from other publications, and exchanges were a slightly more formal arrangement. Editors swapped issues with other editors, which helped them to keep up with the news and, sometimes, to fill space. This was especially common among the 19th-century Western frontier press. During internment, exchanges reflected and reinforced a common bond and identity.
Q: What did you learn about the importance or function of “Democratic” elections and editorial and community voices to communities ultimately under government control?
Feighery: In many ways self-governance was more show than substance. Worse, it exacerbated tensions among incarcerated Japanese Americans. First-generation Issei were the elders. They were accustomed to respect and deference, and internment broke that social mold. The government usually considered Nisei, with their citizenship status and native English, to be more “trustworthy.” So, they were preferred for elected positions and editorships. That, in turn, produced newspapers with a different generational perspective. The only editorial functions routinely performed by Issei were translations for the Japanese-language issues.
Q: Is there a common element to how camp newspapers published criticism?
Feighery: Not really, partly due to newspapers’ divergent formats. Some camp papers printed editorials and letters to the editor. Others, especially smaller papers, devoted their limited space to news, sports, and features. The fact that any criticism was published was among the surprising discoveries of this research.
Q: You end by saying contemporary journalists could benefit from the historic lessons of journalists who sought to create community amid crisis. What do you think are the important takeaways?
Feighery: In some respects, this goes back to the idea that arguing about politics is part of what it means to be an American. With the nation deeply divided, can news media function as not only as information sources but also as forums for civil discourse? As social media become less moderated, this could be a vital niche for traditional news outlets.
Interviewed by: Joel Moroney