[Insight & Opinion] The New York Times' "Like"... Is It Really That Good?

Feeling like escaping the heat, I visited Hokkaido, Japan for the first time in early July. As expected, the temperature was lower, making it much cooler. I stayed at Hakodate, the southern tip of the island, and on my way to Tokyo by high-speed train, I stopped for a day in a small city called Morioka. With a population of about 285,000, Morioka is the capital city of Iwate Prefecture and one of the major cities in the Tohoku region. Morioka became famous after The New York Times ranked it second among 52 places to visit this year, just behind London. Follow-up reports noted an increase in tourists since the selection.

However, I spent too little time in the city to properly evaluate the article’s content. I did see a piece written by an artist participating in a small gallery’s sculpture exhibition. The artist expressed pride as a local that Morioka was introduced in The New York Times. On the train, I reread the New York Times article about Morioka. The article mentioned that although the reporter traveled to many places in Japan, Morioka stood out not because of many sights or delicious food, but because it was an overall vibrant and healthy city.

Yet, as I felt that Morioka was not particularly different from other regional cities, I became curious about the reporter’s information network. The article, written by a Tokyo-based journalist who deliberately visited Morioka for three days, can be trusted, but the overt “praise of Morioka” inevitably raises questions about how the information was obtained and through which locals.

Upon arriving at Tokyo Station, I noticed a Morioka tourism promotion poster announcing its selection by The New York Times. It was somewhat unfamiliar to see such extensive use of foreign media mentions for promotion. This was probably due to the prestige of The New York Times, but the poster raised a question: Does The New York Times really have the authority to evaluate the value of a Japanese regional city and certify it as internationally recognized? Was the article truly worthy of such recognition?

The New York Times, one of the world’s leading news media, is widely known for its prestige and authority. Depending on what and how it reports, it can greatly influence global public opinion, not just the popularity of a specific city as a tourist destination. When you think about it, The New York Times is just one among many media outlets. There are other media in the US, the English-speaking world, and other language spheres that maintain comparable capabilities and excellent journalistic ethics. Nevertheless, The New York Times’ influence is overwhelming. Why is that? The biggest reason is that it produces information in English. The New York Times controls the media power of the world’s hegemon, the superpower United States. Thanks to the power and influence of English, which started in 18th-century Britain and continued in the US, English rose as the international lingua franca in the late 20th century, and media and so-called intellectuals in various countries have used this outlet as a source of information.

However, at this point, we should consider whether the world shown by The New York Times is all there is. Does higher trust in a single media narrow our perspective? How can we prevent this? We need to use diverse sources of information. Citizens should demand more varied information sources instead of relying heavily on biased media. It is also meaningful to challenge the unquestioning admiration for foreign media selections like those by The New York Times. Now, look around. You will soon realize that Morioka is not the only target for such questioning.

Robert Fauzer, Former Professor at Seoul National University

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.