Fettered Freedoms:

The Journalism of World War II

Japanese Internment Camps
by Lauren Kessler
In the spring of 1942,112,000 men, women and children of
Japanese ancestry - virtually the entire Japanese population
of California, Oregon and Washington - were uprooted from
their homes and, to use the euphemism of the time, "relo-
cated."! At first quartered in makeshift assembly centers,2
they were soon transported via shuttered railroad cars to one
of ten desolate, barbed wire enclosures the government offi-
cially called "relocation centers" or "evacuee communities."^
Endless rows of tarpaper barracks hastDy constructed on in-
hospitable land from California to Arkansas,4 these centers
were home to 90 percent of all Japanese Americans for all or
part of the war years.
The War Relocation Authority (WRA), established by ex-
ecutive order in March 1942 to oversee the internment and
operate the camps, attempted to create the trappings of a nor-
mal community within the barbed wire enclosures. The WRA
created a system of what it called "self-government": In
regularly scheduled, free elections with all camp inmates 18
Lauren Kessler is an associate professor in the School of Journalism
at the University of Oregon. She wishes to thank the Yasui family,
originally of Hood River, OR, for inspinng this research; Raymorlid
Okamura of Berkeley, CA, for sharing his careful scholarship; Carol
Hayashino of the Japanese American Citizens League for her support
and interest; and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon for
a research grant that helped support this effort
70 Journalism History 15:2-3 Summer/Autuittn 1988
or older eligible to vote, each barracks block elected a repre-
sentative to the community council. (But the council's role
was advisory only; it had no decision-making or policy-
making authority.5) Each camp had an all-inmate internal
security force. (But the men had no peacekeeping authority.6)
Employment was available for all who wanted to work. (But
wages equalled about 15 percent of the average American
salary.7 ) Schools and hospitals were cohstructed; intramural
sports, dances and other leisure activities were sanctioned.
Additionally, the WRA mandated the publication of
a newspaper at each camp ioc the purposes of "keeping the
The illustrations accompanying this article ap-
peared in Japanese internment camp newspapers
throughout the country during the period covered
by this study and are typical of the drawings found
in these publications.
residents of the center advised of WRA policies and of main-
taining morale in the center."^ Although created to act sole-
ly as a conduit for camp administrators, these newspapers?
also took CXI a life of their own, mirroring some aspects of
camp life while distorting or obscuring others. For what they
both included and excluded, these publications provide im-
portant windows through which to view the internment ex-
perience. The manner in which the papers were allowed to
operate also says mueh about the realities of eamp life.
Since John Stevens' groundbreaking research almost 20
years ago.io scant attention has been paid to intemment eamp
joumalism. What little research there is suggests that many
of the newspapers functioned with great autonomy and little
if any direct eensorship.ii This implies that camp journalists
experienced real freedom of the press and that the unrestricted
newspapers can be trusted as accurate portrayals of camp life.
bis study argues that all camp newspapers operated under
strict - although often invisible - eensorsbip and restraint.
Tbe joumalistie product tbat emerged reflected tbe fettered
freedoms of the internees, not the realities of intemment. It is
apparently true that reports officers, tbose WRA officials in
cbarge of^ overseeing newspaper publication, did not often
have to overtly clamp down on editorial operations.12 This
lack of overt interference has been interpreted as freedom of
tbe press. But eamp administrators bad many ways of control-
ling tbe newspapers they created. This study discusses the cul-
tural and political contexts in which these papers operated and
examines three of them in some depth.
Cultural and Political Atmosphere
Much bas been written about tbe physical desolation of tbe
camps: the harsb climate and unfriendly landscape, the un-
relenting drabness of barracks bousing for 10,(XX), tbe ubiq-
uitous barbed wire, tbe armed sentries.13 Although tbe offi-
cial rbetorie may have been one of "community," tbe atmos-
phere clearly was one of eoercion. But little has been noted
about internal eamp dynamics, tbe cultural and political
milieu within which inmates existed and their newspapers
operated.
To outsiders tbe inmate population may have looked
bomogeneous, but culturally three groups warily coexisted
within tbe camps.i'* The Issei were Japanese-bom im-
migrants who had eome to the U.S. beginning in the early
1900s. Like other immigrants, they eame in search of a bet-
ter life - and most found it, successfully establishing them-
selves as farmers, orcbardists and merchants along tbe Pacific
Coast. 15 Prior to internment, the Issei were highly respected
elders, the beads of extended families and family businesses.
But relocation and internment, which decimated businesses
and scattered families, stripped tbem of their stature. Now in
their 50s,i6 they were no longer tbe providers or tbe decision-
makers. Having prevented tbem from attaining citizenship,
the gcjvemment now labelled tbem "enemy aliens" because
they were not citizens. Inside tbe intemment camps, the once-
powerful Issei were not allowed to bold any elected office (al-
tbougb they were permitted to vote in eamp elections).i'^
isei were the children of tbe Issei. U.S. citizens by birth,
tbey were as energetically "American" as any second-genera-
tion immigrant group. Raised and educated in tbe United
States, tbeir native tongue was Englisb, tbeir cultural at-
titudes, American. Just coming of age at tbe time of intern-
ment, 1* tbey found themselves in Ibe uncomfortable posi-
tion of being given more power and greater trust tban tbeir
parents. Kibei were tbe offepring of Issei wbo bad been sent
back to Japan to live witb relatives and attend scbool.i^ Tbere
tbey formed Japanese babits and were indoctrinated witb
Japanese ideologies. Retuming to tbe United States, they
found themselves culturally and linguistically at odds witb
tbeir own generation. Although citizens by birtb, tbey were
under particular suspicion in tbe camps because of their recent
connection to Japan.20
This great cultural diversity resulted in pronounced politi-
cal differences. The traditional Japanese philosophy of
shikataganai - "It can't be helped; things happen the way they
happen, so just live day by day" meant that some camp in-
mates, notably elder Issei, accepted their fate passively,2i
Other more Americanized inmates tended to react to their dis-
location and incarceration in either of two very different
ways, both of which were grounded in their strong belief in
democratic principles.
One group believed the best way to prove loyalty to the
United States was to submit to intemment and WRA policies.
Joumalism History 15:2-3 SummerfAutumn 1988 71
Many of these "accommodationists" undoubtedly felt that
their incarceration was unfair, but they chose to overlook the
injustice and instead become model inmates. Believing that
the best hope of Japanese Americans was successful rein-
tegration after the war, accommodationists concentrated on
making improvements in camp life, encouraging military en-
listment to prove their patriotism and working for early
release and resettlement.22
The second group, the "left opposition," insisted on the im-
mediate restoration of civil rights. Citing their own loyalty to
basic democratic principles, they criticized their post-Pearl
Harbor treatment as both unjust and unconstitutional.23 To
the accommodationists, loyalty to the U.S. meant obeying its
rules; to the left opposition, it meant insisting on the full rights
of citizenship within a democracy. Yet another group par-
ticipated in the political life of the camps, the "right opposi-
tion." These were people who, for one reason or another, felt
primary loyalty to Japan.24
Operation of the Newspapers
Given this cultural and political patchwork, it makes sense
that WRA officials would favor accommodationist Nisei to
operate the camp newspapers. Officially, WRA camp ad-
ministrators selected the staff from "qualified persons among
the evacuees."25 But the qualifications were nowhere
specified. Many recruited to staff the newspapers had no jour-
nalism experience; others had the limited experience of edit-
ing assembly center bulletins.26 Very few were practicing
journalists before the war.27 Undoubtedly a primary
qualification was ideological compatibility. Because of cul-
tural conditioning and political views, a Nisei accom-
modationist would see the camp newspaper as a way to ag-
gressively prove the Americanism of the "evacuee com-
munity," keep morale as high as possible and promote nor-
malcy - all goals that meshed nicely with the WRA's attempts
to manage the camps.
With their absolute control over employment within the
camps, WRA administrators could easily replace errant
newspaper staffers. Just as important, they could reward those
who toed the line. After completing three months 00 the job,
any employee whose "conduct and the quality and quantity
of his work" were certified by a special Merit Rating Board
as "outstanding" could be made a member of the "Order of
Merit." This status would result in the preferential granting of
leaves for [xivate employment as well as other perks.28 Con-
sidering this system, it is not surprising that camp officials
would find little need to directly interfere with the
newspapers.
0,Officially, they had that right. The reports officer, under
the direction of the project director (the camp's chief ad-
ministrator) had "general supervision" over the paper.29 The
nature of that supervisicM was left to the discretion of in-
dividual administrators, with the exception of how they were
to oversee the Japanese-language sections of the newspapers.
(All the papers at one time or another contained Japanese-lan-
guage sections so that Issei could have easy access to WRA
announcements.) The WRA created a double translation sys-
tem, apparently to guard against unauthorized material being
published in Japanese. Translator A translated the English-
language material in the newspaper into Japanese. Then,
before publication, translator B, without access to the original
English-language script, retranslated the text into English.
The reports officer compared the two versions.30 The entire
newspaper operation was under the strict control of the
project director who could "suspend publication and distribu-
tion of the newspaper... in the event of flagrant disregard of
the responsibilities that accompany publication of a
newspaper. "31
Thus, each pjaper owed its life to the WRA, which man-
dated its creation, and to individual camp administrators, who
selected the staff and oversaw the paper's operation. The
papers were econanically dependent on the WRA as well.
The operating costs of some newspapers were paid out of
camp administration budgets; others were underwritten
wholy oc in part by the camp economic cooperative (created
and ultimately financed by the WRA).32 Camp ad-
ministrators provided barracks space and office supplies for
the newspapers.
72 Journalism History 15:2-3 Summer/Autumn 1988
A closer examination of three camp newspapers illustrates
why WRA officials found it unnecessary to overtly censor the
papers. The Hearst Mountain Sentinel, Rohwer Outpost and
(Tule Lake) Tulean Dispatch (later renamed ihe Newell Star)
were chosen for scrutiny here because they represent both the
gamut of camp journalism and the spectrum of intemment
camp experience. The Sentinel was the most professionally
edited and produced paper; the Tule Lake papers were
probably the least professional; the Rohwer paper was close
to tbe norm. Tule Lake was the most troubled of all the camps;
Rohwer was one of the quieter places. Heart Mountain, site
of the most concerted draft resistance movement in the camps,
was a mixture.
Like
Ice all of the ten intemment camp newspapers, these three
reflected accommodationist ideology. After giving the neces-
sary space to WRA announcements and official bulletins,
editors tended to concentrate on innocuous aspects of camp
life - notably sports and other leisure-time activities - rather
than the important issues that affected the inmates. Con-
troversy was almost always avoided. The cultural and politi-
cal diversity at the heart of the camps was rarely mentioned.
Heart Mountain Sentinel
By far the most professionally produced and edited paper
was the Heart Mountain (Wyo.) Sentinel, published weekly
from October 24, 1942, to July 28, 1945.33 An eight-page,
five-column printed tabloid, the Sentinel had the clean, com-
petent look ofa good small-town newspaper. The stories were
succinct and well-edited by top Sentinel staffer Bill
Hosokawa. One of the very few camp newspaper editors with
solid joumalistie training and experience, Hosokawa was a
University of Washington joumalism graduate and a former
editor of newspapers in Singapore and Shanghai. With an in-
itial staff of eight, he produced a paper that highlighted cer-
tain aspects of camp life, notably ^xxts, education, religion
and society. The paper devoted considerable space to stories
about Japanese American war heroes, the successes of relo-
cated camp inmates and news of the Japanese American
Citizens League (JACL), a national accomodationist or-
ganization in which Hosokawa was active. The Sentinel also
included newsbriefs from other camps, letters to the editor
and editorials.
Joumalism historian John Stevens calls the Sentinel "un-
challenged amcttig relocation center publications," praising
the paper for its editorial integrity and independence.34
Editor Hosokawa proclaimed that independence in a front-
page editorial in the first issue, writing:
Since tbe earliest days of this nation, a free and watchful
press has been the people's strength in this time of crisis. Such
a press has become an American tradition.
Having, as an American publication, inherited this (wiceless
legacy, the Heait Mountain Sentinel will try in its humble way
to maintain and further that tradition . . . .
Tbe need fora newspaper io wbicb the residents of this com-
munity migbt find expression has been urgenL^
Apparently not all readers agreed that the Sentinel was a
paragon of free speech, fa- a few weeks later, Hosokawa
found it necessary to defend the editorial integrity of the
paper.
Is the Sentinel tbe people's newspaper, or is it an ad-
ministration mouthpiece?
Tbis is one of tbe questions being put by nonstaff members
To tbose wbo believe tbe Sentinel is a mere moutbpiece,
nothing we might say in rebuttal would have any effect
A newspaper need not necessarily be a perpetual editorial
gadfly to attain results. If we bave not quarreled witb tbe ad-
ministration in our tbree previous issues, perbaps it is because
tbe people and tbe administration see eye to eye. ^
A year and a half later, the editor was still on the defen-
sive, writing that "It has been repeatedly charged by those on
one side of the fence that the Sentinel is the 'mouthpiece' of
the administration, a joumal of appeasement and Pollyanna.
This we deny." Echoing accommodationist ideology, he
wrote that the WRA was "honestly and wholeheartedly at-
tempting to aid us" and that "fighting issues beyond our con-
t r ol . . . i s . . . a waste of time and space.37
The paper certainly did avoid controversial issues. When
camp work crews struck for higher wages and the issuance of
work gloves and clothes,38 the Sentinel didn't cover the
story. In an oblique reference at the end of an editorial criticiz-
ing disturbances at another camp, Hosokawa wrote that "cer-
tain elements foolishly believe that riots and strikes are the
solution to their difficulties."^^ When hospital workers
Joumalism History 15:2-3 Summer/Autumn 1988 73
struck,^ the Sentinel was again silent, as it was during a
strike by members of the camp's internal security force.
During the winter of 1942, the Sentinel failed to cover what
had to be the biggest, and probably the strangest, story of the
season: the mass arrest of 32 inmates for violating security.
Those arrested and taken into custody by the U.S. Army were
children found sledding on a hill just outside camp boun-
daries. None was older than ll.' ii
When the newspaper did recognize controversial issues, it
invariably took the side of the administration. In the fall of
1942 when the camp first opened, inmates staged a series of
unsuccessful protests and demonstrations over the erection of
barbed wire around the camp perimeter. The Sentinel didn't
cover the protests, but after the enclosure was completed,
Hosokawa praised the camp administration for its
"reasonableness" and "understanding."42 When mess hall
workers struck in early 1943, a Sentinel editorial called them
"irresponsible" and "immature."'*^
'ut perhaps the best example of where the Sentinel's sym-
pathies lay was its ongoing editorial rebuttal of Heart
Mountain's draft resistance movement.''^ The paper heralded
the reclassification and drafting of Nisei as "great news" early
in 1944, mirroring the accommodationist line that being al-
lowed to join the military was an unbeatable opportunity for
Japanese Americans to prove their loyalty.45 But early on, a
formidable "left opposition" contingent at the camp dis-
agreed, arguing that inmates should refuse induction until all
rights of citizenship were restored. Within a month of the draft
announcement, a draft resistance group calling itself the Fair
Play Committee numbered 275 dues-paying members.
(Later, its ranks would swell to more than 1,000.)
The Sentinel called the draft resisters variously "stubborn
and intensely bitter,"47 "deluded youths"48 and "warp-
minded members" who made "wild-eyed statements" and
"lacked both physical and moral courage."'*^ Tne resistance
countered that the Sentinel was "utterly insensitive" to the
Fair Play Committee's "patriotic motives." Wrote the vice
president of the committee to the Sentinel: "If we as citizens
accept orders as a matter of course or well knowing that in-
validity of the law, we are not good citizens."50 When the
resistance movement culminated in the trial of 63 Heart
Mountain men for the violation of the Selective Service Act,
the Sentinel editorialized:
Loyal Japanese Americans as a whole coodemD the Fair
Play Committee and the actioo of the 63 defendants as being
as serious an attack on tbe integrity of all nisei as the sneak
attack on Pearl ^^
In avoiding certain issues and toeing the accommodationist
line on others, the Sentinel published material that must have
been pleasing to camp officials. For this reason, Hosokawa
and Haruo Omura, who took over the editorship in 1944, un-
doubtedly experienced the freedom to publish what they
wished.
Rohwer Outpost
The Rohwer (Ark.) Outpost was, like most of the other in-
ternment camp newspapers, a typed and mimeographed pub-
lication that both looked and read like the work of amateurs.
Published bi-weekly from October 24,1942, through July 21,
1945, the six-page publication included both English-lan-
guage and hand-lettered Japnese sections. During its first
year, the Outpost was edited by Barry Saiki, a University of
California graduate who, with no previous training or back-
ground, had edited the Stockton, California, assembly center
newsletter. Staff turnover was high, with more than 30
workers passing through the newspaper office during that first
year.52
74 Journalism History 15:2-3 Summer/Autumn 1988
like the far more professional Sentinel, the Outpost con-
centrated on covering the noncontroversia] aspects of camp
life. Sports and other leisure activities received extraordinari-
ly detailed coverage. News about education, religion and
agriculture was plentiful. The paper regularly published ad-
ministrative announcements and policy statements, usually as
verbatim correspondence from camp and WRA officials. As
in the Sentinel, much space was devoted to news of former
inmates who were serving in the military or who had secured
jobs outside the camp.
Austin Smith, Rohwer's reports officer, claimed that the
newspaper staff experienced great freedom. In his final
report, he wrote:
The average person would be surprised at how much freedom
of Ihe press was pennitted. This resulted in some material
being used that the administration didn't particularly l i ke . . .
but no real tiouUe was caused and the advantages far offset
the disadvantages.^^
A
ficcorc
rding to an Arkansas historian, the director of the
camp "granted the staff of the newspaper complete autonomy
in return for unbiased and accurate reporting of informa-
tion."54 Stevens suggests that camp officials may have over-
stated their case, but that the Outpost was somewhat out-
spoken. 55 The evidence, however, disputes the notion that
the staff operated with any real freedom. As with the Sentinel,
the staff was "free" to publish only the material camp ad-
ministrators would like to have disseminated anyway. The ac-
commodationist editors, by virtue of their ideology and goals,
chose just this kind of material.
"The function of a good newspaper is to repot news fiair-
ly, accurately and simply," wrote Outpost editor Saiki in his
introductory editorial.56 Just how well did the paper live up
to these standards? In covering camp life, staffer Bean Takeda
set the tone in his first column when he wrote: "By now the
consensus seems to be that this is a pretty good center. I've
been here three weeks and I like the place better with each
passing day."57 This sunny comment should be seen in the
light of several facts breezily reported in the weeks that fol-
lowed: A mouth and a half after the camp was settled, there
were still no schools or hospital facilities; there was no hot
water in one section of camp; by the end of October, workers
had not yet been paid for work completed in August; by the
end of November, the barracks still had no interior walls to
separate living units.58
Despite being a relatively quiet camp, Rohwer had its tense
moments. Few of these were covered by the Outpost. In April
1943, problems between Hawaiian seamen caught up in the
evacuation and Japanese American workers erupted into
violence. The mess hall riot and ensuing FBI investigaticxi
were not mentioned in the newspaper.59 In another incident
not reported by the paper, a young inmate was shot and criti-
cally wounded by a local resident who apparently believed
the youth was trying to escape. The inmate, however, was part
of an official work party. A local court imposed a minimum
fine on the resident. Another local was fined after he pleaded
guilty to striking an inmate truck driver in the face.<50 Again,
the paper omitted coverage.
M <lore important was the Outpost's handling of the ex-
tremely sensitive Selective Service registration issue. Al-
though Rohwer did not support a major draft resistance move-
ment like that at Heart Mountain, the draft was certainly a
controversial issue. In January 1943, the Outpost announced
without comment that Nisei would now be allowed to join
U.S. combat troops.^i Official announcements of mandatory
registration followed in February.62 In March, the first hint
that anything was amiss surfaced in the newspaper: a
newsbrief stating that few youths were signing up and
reminding them that registration was compulsory.63 The fol-
lowing month, a terse single-paragraph announcement - ob-
viously a verbatim statement from camp officials - noted that
"stem measures" would be taken if 18-year-olds didn't
register.64 Obviously, something was going on at Rohwer.
Exactly what, the newspaper didn't see fit to discuss.
Throughout its first year, the Outpost regularly featured
editorials written by Saiki. Rather than commenting on con-
troversial issues or discussing important events, the editorials
were almost unanimously patriotic exhortations. In a salute
to the Navy, Saiki wrote that "we too feel a surge of pride in
the heroic accomplishments of our fighting men of the sea."65
Journalism History 15:2-3 SummerlAutumn 1988 75
In a Halloween editorial that waxed nostalgic for the days of
trick or treating, he wrote: "It is for just such a spirit as this
that America and her allies are engaging in the greatest fight
in history."66 In another editorial, he exhorted readers to have
patience, strengthen themselves from within and work active-
ly for the war's end.67 Camp officials could not have gotten
better material had they written it themselves.
Tule Lake Publications
The Tule Lake internment camp in California was the most
troubled of the ten camps. Riddled by strikes, demonstrations
and bloodshed, it became a maximum security facility in the
summer of 1943, housing what the WRA thought of as
troublemakers. During that fall, 9,000 so-called disloyals -
inmates from all other camps who answered "no" to either of
two loyalty questions - were shipped to Tule Lake.68 Amid
the ongoing tension, a variety of publications were produced
under WRA auspices. The Tule Lake publications were per-
haps the least ambitious and most amateur of all internment
camp newspapers. Writing and editing were minimal because
the majority of the "stories" were reprints of official an-
nouncements. The production quality was so poor that many
issues are almost unreadable.
Tule Lake's first publication was the Information Bulletin,
published in May and June of 1942. This typed and
mimeographed sheet presented verbatim messages from the
administration. In mid-June, the Tulean Dispatch appeared,
published first as a biweekly, then as a daily. The four-page.
legal-sized mimeographed paper ran from June 15, 1942,
through October 30, 1943. In between administrative an-
nouncements and policy statements, a reader could find
newsbriefis concerning schools, churches, medical care,
agriculture and recreational activities. As in the Sentinel and
Outpost, the outcomes of various intramural sports were
reported in detail. But the Dispatch featured little that could
be called journalism. Content was limited to brief an-
nouncements like school, clinic and club schedules. When the
paper ceased publication at the end of October 1943, it did so
without explanation.
For the next four months, Tule Lake (which was then under
martial law) was without an official newspaper. At the end of
February 1944, the WRA Center Information Bulletin ap-
peared for two issues, looking exactly like the old Dispatch.
This was followed by the Newell Star (Newell was the post
office designation of Tule Lake), published weekly from
March 9, 1944, through February 15, 1946. The Star was a
six-page, mimeographed publication which, like its predeces-
sors, featured administrative notices, policy statements and
newsbriefis about camp social activities. Although this week-
ly recitation of announcements did not constitute fiill-bodied
journalism, the newsbriefis in the Star nevertheless revealed
something of the bleak, troubled environment at Tule Lake.
While the Sentinel and Outpost offered stories of local war
heroes and successfully relocated inmates, the Star carried
briefis about inmates who had renounced their U.S. citizen-
ship, Issei who were planning to repatriate, draft resisters,
segregants ("disloyals" from other camps) and men in the
stockade.
'uch disjointed announcements offer the only journalistic
clues to what was happening at Tule Lake. Although Tulean
Dispatch editor Frank Tanabe wrote that "I have . . . a duty to
the people of the entire city which calls for unbiased disper-
sement of news, information and opinion,"69 in fact, none of
the Tule Lake publications offered readers any conaete in-
formation about the events that rocked their community. For
example, during the summer of 1942 alone - before the camp
was designated as the site for "troublemakers" - Tule Lake
experienced two farm worker strikes, two construction crew
strikes, a mess hall strike and several work stoppages."^ None
of these events, nor the grievances of the strikers, was
reported in the Dispatch.
During the crisis over registration, the paper merely
reprinted official - sometimes contradictory - notices that did
little to clarify a difficult and confusing situation. It was the
inmates' persistent collective noncooperation during this
time that stigmatized the camp and led to its designation as
the center for disloyals.'^^ Troubles continued t hr ou^ the
year, leading to a tense three months in late 1943 that cul-
minated in an Army take-over of the camp. In September of
76 Journalism History 15:2-3 Summer/Autumn 1988
1943,6,000 "loyal" Tuleans were shuttled to other camps, and
9,000 "disloyals" from other camps replaced them. In Oc-
tober, when a massive work stoppage threatened the
vegetable harvest, the administration responded by bringing
in "loyal" strikebreakers from other camps to harvest the
crops. In November, a mass rally in front of the administra-
tion building ended in violence and, three days later, the dec-
laration of martial law.72 These events were never reported
in the Dispatch.
'ut the Newell Star did no better. When it began publish-
ing just after the Army returned control of Tule Lake to the
WRA, it offered residents no real information about the tran-
sition. An official announcement proclaimed that WRA
director Dillon Meyer was "satisfied on the gradual return to
normalcy."73 But what had ensued during the previous five
months, why the Army was leaving and what it would mean,
and other vital questions were never discussed. At any rate,
"normalcy" did not return to Tule Lake. In May a sentry shot
and killed a Nisei truck driver; in June a prominent leader of
camp moderates was killed; in July the pro-administration
manager of the cooperative store had his throat slashed.74
Through it all, the Star remained silenL
Conclusions
WRA officials, camp newspaper editors and some of
today's histraians claim that freedom of the press existed
within the internment camps - and it did, in a very restricted
sense: the freedom to publish what the WRA agreed with. It
is undoubtedly true that very little overt censorship took
place. But this was not because the WRA supported or valued
free expression in the camps. In fact, there are many indica-
tions that free expression, when it resulted in divergent
opinions, was not tolerated. For example, three prominent and
vocal members of Heart Mountain's draft resistance move-
ment were sent to the Tule Lake center for "disloyals" even
though their loyalty to the U.S. was not in question.'^^ ^ Tule
Lake, nine months after martial law had been lifted, the ad-
ministration announced that no bulletins, pamphlets or other
mine
written material could be posted or distributed without pre-
The reason there was little overt censorship of the press -
and that editors and administrators could claim freedom - was
because camp journalists wrote nothing that needed censor-
ing. Why should camp officials interfere when journalists
wrote editorials expressing sentiments like the following?
No American cao resist edicts of military necessity and call
himself an American. Military necessity was tbe official
reason for evacuation, and that was our sacrifice and contribu-
tion to national unity and safety,''^
What reascm would there be for censorship when columnists
wrote of their internment that "in some aspects it's been fiin
living the frugal pioneer life"78 or that
Prior to relocatioii, malicious rumors bandied about had led
me to believe that we were being sent to a God-forsaken
country. Bul three weeks here have coovinoed me that this is
God's country. Tbe biggest surprise to me is the weather. It's
just like California.^
Journalists and their readers existed within an environment
devoid of individual freedom and civil liberties. The
newspaper stafEs were handpicked by camp authorities, and
anyone holding views not acceptable to the WRA could easi-
ly be brought into line. When the second editor of the Roh-
wer Outpost expressed anti-relocation sentiments and "mali-
ciousness toward the Caucasians," camp administrators
warned him that unless the tone of the newspaper changed,
he would be removed from his position as editor.^o Errant
editors could find themselves replaced or even relocated to
other camps. But generally, as internment scholar Raymond
Okamura writes, "The inmate writers understood the strict
parameters of their jobs and engaged in a great deal of self-
censorship, "^i Both the leave and preferential treatment
policies enacted by the WRA in the fall of 1942 were strong
incentives to toe the line.82
Journalism History 15:2-3 SummerfAutumn 1988 77
Thus the journalism of the internment camps was very
strictly controlled. Ironically, the camp newspapers did more
than the WRA could have hoped for. Created as a com-
munications tool for camp administrators, the papers became
powerful propagandists in the hands of accommodationist
editors. They supported the war effort and Nisei draft with
patriotic zeal. They omitted or trivialized the real and persist-
ent problems of internment camp living, painting a picture of
camp life that was devoid of both conflict and diversity.
Rather than providing a journalistic forum, they concentrated
on building morale - exhorting their readers to accept their
fete, work hard and look to the future. In the pages of the camp
newspapers - but not in the barracks of the camps themsel-
ves - all inmates were happy (or at least well adjusted) super
patriots who were more than willing to give up their rights to
demonstrate their loyalty.
NOTES
1 . Among the sources that effectively deal with the evacuation, relocation and internment
of Japanese American6 are: Allen H. Bosworth, American's Conoertra/fon Camps (New
York;W. W. Norton, 1 967);The Commission on Wartime Relocation md Intemment of
Civiiians, Personal Justice Denied (Washington, D. C: Govemment Printing Office,
1 982); Roger Daniels, Concentration Camps USA: Japanese Americans andWorld War
II (New Yoric Hoit, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1 971 ); Daniel a Davis, Behind Barbed
Wire: The Imprlsortnert of Japanese Americans During World War II (New York: E. P.
Dutton, 1 982); Richard Drinnon, Keeper at Concentrstion Carnpe: DlOonS. Mayer and
American Racism (Beri<eley: University of California Press, 1 967); Dorothy 9ai ne
Thomas and Richard S. Nishimoto, TheSpoBage (Berkeley and lot Angeles: University
off Callfomia Press, 1 946). There are also a numtwr of firsthand accounts. In the form of
diaries and sitetchboote, produced t>y those who were Interned.
2. The federal govemment established 15 assem biy centers - 1 2 In Califomla and one each
In Washington, Oregon nd Arizona - to temporarily house West Ooast Japanese
Americans while more peni. arient quarters were being built At two race traci<s, Tanforan
(near San FrarKlsco) and Santa AnKa (Los Angeles), evacuees were housed In hastily
converted animal stalls. For details about the assembly centers, see U. S. Department of
War, Final Report, Japanese Evacustlon from the West Coast (New YorK: Amo Press,
1978).
3. Regardless of the official euphemism. President Franitlln D. Roosevelt privately referred
to the centers as "concentrahon camps. " Daniels, Conceriratbn Camps, p. 68. Today,
many historians aiso use this term.
4. The camps were: Manzanar, Tule Laite (California); Glla, Poston (Arizona); MinkJoka
(idaho); Topaz (Utah); Heart Mountain (Wyoming); Granada (Cobrado); Flohwer, Jerome
(Arkansas).
5. For details of self-govemment, see Daniels, Concertration Camps, p. 72.
e. The Inmate security force had iittie authority and no weapons. Military police were the ex-
tBrnal guards. The WRA-appolnted protect director was In charge of Internal police func-
tions. This basic agreement was contained in Memorandum of Understanding as to the
Functions of Military Police at the Rebcatlon Centers and Areas Administered by the
War Ftekxabon Authority, July 3 arnJ July 8, 1 942, reprinted In Thomas and Nishimoto,
The Spoilage, pp. 27-28.
7. Wages were set at $1 2 a month for unskilled workers, $1 9 a month for prc<esslonais and
$1 6amonth for all others. Milton S. Eisenhower, the WRA's first director, privately called
the compensatk>n 'miserabiy low." See Thomas and Nishimoto, TheSpoSage, pp. 33-
34. The average wage In the United States at the time was $1 300 a year or about $1 08
a month.
a War Rek>cation Authority, "War Rekjcation Authority Administrative Manual,' ChaptBr 20,
Part 10, paragraph 6. Aiso see paragraphs 7-A, 7-C, 8 and 8-C.
9. The newspapers were: Manzanar (CA) Free Press, Tule Lake (CA) Tulean Dispatch and
NeweBStar, Glla (AZ) NewCourier, Poston (AZ) Chronicle, Minidoka(ID) Irrigator, Topaz
(UT) Tmes, Heart Mountain (WY) Sertinel, Granada (CO) Pioneer, Rohwer (AFQ Out-
post, Jerome (AR) Tribune.
10. Stevens' primarily descriptive worV suggests that the newspapers at Manzanar, Heart
Mountain, Jerome, Rohwer and Granada operated without much external restraint He
does point to several examples of censorship or self-censorship at a few of the other
papers. John D. Stevens, 'From Behind Bartied Wire: Freedom of the Press in World
War 11 Japanese Center,' Jbumafem Ouarferf)'48 (Sum mer 1 971 ): 27' 87.
1 1 . Jay Freldlander, "Journalism Behind Bartjed Wire, 1 942-42: An Arkansas Relocation
Center Newspaper," JoumaBsm Ouarteriy 62 (Summer 1 965): 243-46, 71 , insists that
the Denson (Jerome) Trixjr)e operated with considerable freedom. Russell Bearden,
"Faise Rumor of Tuesday: Arkansas's Internment of Japanese-Americans," Aritansas
Historical Quarterty 41 (Winter 1 982): 327-39, states that Rohwer's director gave the
camp paper "complete autonomy."
12. See Stevens, "Bartied Wire,," pp. 284-86; Freidlander, "Journalism Behind Barbed Wire,"
pp. 244-45. Also, personal correspondence between camp editors and the author; e. g.
In a May 28, 1 987 letter, former Denson (Jerome) Trixine editor Richajd Itanaga states
that the reports officer "trusted our judgment* and that "we had conskierabie freedom in
the reporting of new*. *
13. All the standard references on internment comment on the physkial layout of the camps
(see note 1 above). More poignant ar the Impressions of the Inmrtes themselves. See
especiaiiy a recent compilation of the sketches, paintings, poetry and diary entries of
intemees: Deborah Gesensway and Mlndy Roseman, Beyond Words: Images from
/VnsrJca'sCcncertralibnCanips (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1 987).
14. Of the standard sources, only Thomas and Nishimoto, TheSpoSage, deais In any depth
with the cultural diversity of the Intwnees. A sockvpolitical field study conducted by a
University of California, Berkeley pn^essor and her graduate students at the bme of
ovacuation and detentk>n, the book is primarily a series of reports by Inmate Informanti.
15. For example, prior to Peari Hartxjr, Issei controlled 1 per cent of California land under
cultivation but produced 1 0 percent of that state's crops. ISanlels, Ccnceftrathn Camps,
p. 7. Their success as truck farmers was even more pronounced. In Callfomia they
produced 30-35 percent of all tnjck crops and had avirtual morrapoly In snap beans,celery
and EtrawtMn-les. See report by Lk:>yd H. Fisher, In U. S. Congress. House. Select
Committee Investigating National Defense Migration. National Defense MIgrstion,
Hearings, 77th Congress, 2nd session (Washington, D. C: Government Printing Office,
1942), pp. 1 1 ,81 5-1 1 ,832.
16. Haifof thelnteme<l(S5e/were50orolder; 17 percent had passed their sixtieth birthday;
only 8 percent were younger than 35. See Thomas and Nishimoto, T7is Spoiage, p. 4.
17. Davis, BehindBarbedWIre, p. 72.
IB. Two-thirds were younger than 20 years of age; less than 3 percent had reached 35. See
T h S l
19. About 20 percent of all Usel 15 yeare of age or older In 1 943 were Kbe/ , according to
an analysis of WRA data conducted by Thomas and Nishimoto, Ibid. , p. 3.
20. Davis, Behind Barbed Wte, pp. 78-80.
21 . For some very powerful personal statements on the subject of aNkatagariMl, Me
Gesensway and Roseman, Beyond Words, ppi 1 5-29.
78 Journalism History 15:2-3 Summer/Autumn 1988
22. AccommodaUonlsts were often memben of or aJDed with the Japanee American
Ctl zen* League, a national organization of Ntsel founded In 1S30 to promota the
acceptance o( Japanese Americans In the U.S. The accommodationlct Vne wa* centra]
to all the camp newspaper*. Specifics, wth citations, follow In the text
23. Danlets, Ccrcertntion Camps, p. 11 a The left opposition Included a wide range of
people, from those wtra quietiy and Insistently pressed cases to the Supreme Court to
Itiose who led active opposition In the camps.
24.lbid.
25. War Relocation Authority, Washington, D. C, 'Administrative Instruction,' no. 8,
supplement no. 4, October 15,1S42, paragraph l-A-1.
28. Stevens, 'Behind Barbed Wire,' mentions the background of some of the editors. In the
news papers themselves, often In opening or farewelledltorials,edltore refer to their own
backgrounds.
27. 'The older and more experierwed newsmen and newswomen who worked on the
Japanese American newspapers prbrto the internment by and large did not wortt on the
camp newspapers - either because they refused to work under such restraints, or
because they were banned by the administration,' according to Internment scholar
RaymorKiOkamuralnalettertotheauthor, Februaiy 5, 1987.
28. WRA, 'Administration Instruction,' no. 27, September 1, 1S42, paragraphs Il-B and Il-C.
29. Ibid., paragraph I-A-&
30.'War Rekxtk}n Administrative Manual,'Chapter 20, Part 10, paragraph e, final revision
Febnja;y8,1945.
31. IbU., paragraph l-B-3.
32. Stevens, 'Bart)ed Wire,' p. 282.
33. The SerHnal was preceded by the Genera/ tnformaSlon Butlettn. a four-page typed and
mimeographed publk:ation. Carrying center announcements and WRA policy notices,
the BuHstln appeared 28 times between August and October 1942 before the regular
newspaper was established.
34. Stevens, 'Barbed Wire,' p. 284.
36. Heart h/kxirtain Sentinel. October 24, 1942, p. 1.
36. HeartMounlatnSentlnet. November 14, 1942, p. 4.
37. Heart Mountain Sentinel. March 25, 1944, p.. 4.
38. Danieis, Concentration Camps, p. 118.
39. Heart MourtalnSerUnel, November 28, 1942, p. 4.
40. Danieis, Concentration Camps, p. 118.
41. Ibid.
42. HearttHounMn Sentinel. November 21, 1942. p. 4.
43. Heart Mountain Sentinel. January 9, 1943, p. 4.
44. For an exceiient description of Heart Mountain's draft resistance movement by the men
who took part In it, see Frank S. Eml, 'Draft Ftesistance aJ Heart Mountain,' Hokubel
Mainfc/i/, September 26, 1986 and September 27, 1986; Klyoshi Okamoto,'One for All,
AllforOne,'Hb<a*e;/Mainc/W, September 30, 1986; Jimmy Omura,'Nlsel America: Know
the Facts,' Hokubel MalncH, October 1, 1986. See aiso, Dougias W. Neison, Heart
Mountain: the History ofanAmetkan Conoentiation Camp (Madison: State Historical
Society of Wisconsin, 1976).
45. HeartMountalnSertlnel. January 22, 1944, p. 1.
46. Danieis, Concentration Can^. pp. 118- 21.
47. Heart Mountain Sentinel. Febfua/y 19, 1944, p. 1.
48. Heart Mountain Sentinel, March 11, 1944, p. 1.
49. Heart Mountain Sentinel. March 18, 1944, p. 4.
50. ibid.
iy. Heart Mountain Sentkiel. July 1,1944, p. 1.
52. Stevens, 'Barbed Wire,' p. 288.
53. From Austin Smith, 'Personal Narrative,' WRA papers, quoted In Stevens, p. 286.
54. Russeli Bearden, ' The Faise Rumor of Tuesday: Arkansas's Internment of
Ja(>anet-fijnei>cam.'Ari(ama Historical Ouartefty*^ (Winter 1982): 335.
55. Stevens, 'Bart>ed Wire,' p. 288.
56. Rohwer Outpost. Oct 24, 1942, p. 1.
57. Ibid., p. 6.
58. These unhappy aspects of camp ife Invariably were reported In oddry positive ways. For
example, the hot water fiasco was treated as a |oke in a column. The lack of education
and health facilities was never discussed; instead the paper sunnily reported that they
would be open sooa No story discussed barracks life without interkv waHs; a brief
announcement stated that wallboard woukj be delivered soon. See Rotwer Outpost,
October28, October31, November21, 1942.
50. The Incident was described by a Rohwer inmate in an unpublished diary hekj by the
Arkansas History Commisskxi and quoted in Bearden, 'False Rumor,' p. 335.
80. Both of these Inckients were reported In the official papers of the reports officer ani
project director housed at the Aifcansas Hlstoiy Commission and quoted in Bearden,
'False Rumor,' p. 338.
81. RohwerOutpo^, January 30, 1943, p. 1.
62. RohmrOutpost. February 8, 1943, p. 1 and February 10, 1943, p^ 1.
S3. FlohwerOutpott. Mwch 6, 1943, p. 1.
84. Rctrwer Outpost. AprI 24, 1943, p. 1.
66. RohwsrOulposf, October 28, 1942, pi 4.
66. Rc^Misr Outpost, October 31, 1942, p. 4.
67. RahMwOuJposf, January 18,1843, p. 4.
68. One of the best sources of information on Tuie LaJte is Thomas arKJ Nishimoto, The
Spoilage.
69. TuleantXspatch. Juiy 29, 1942, p. 1.
70. Details of these and other disturbances can be found Inn Thomas and Nishimoto, The
Spoilage, pp. 40-45.
71. Ibid., pp. 75-76.
72. Ibid., pp. 147-83.
73. NmeltStar. March 23, 1944, p. 1.
74. These and other incidents are detailed by sources inside the camp in Thomas and
Nishimoto, TheSpoiage. pp. 261-82.
75. See Neison, Haart Ma/n(a/n, pp. 148-51 for details.
76. NeMOf/Star, September 28, 1944, p. 1.
77. From an editorial by Bili Hosokawa, Heart Moun(a/nSerHr)s/, January 1,1943, pi 4.
78. Heart MourtalnSertkiel. January 30, 1943, pi 4.
79. Rohwer Outpost. Octotser 24, 1942, p. 6. Rchwer was k>cated in the Arkansas marshiand
near no centers of population.
80. According to the Smith [Reports Officer] - Thomas prt>ject Director] Papers, quoted in
Bearden, False Rurror. pp. 336-38. This maik:k>usness was unnoticeable to the author
during careful readlr)g of ail Outpost issues. No anti-rek>cation sentiments were
otpressed in print
81. ijetter to the author, Febmary 5, 1987.
82. See note 25 in reference to the preferential treatment policy. In October 1942, the WRA
enacted a new leave poiicy, making it possible for many Mas/ to leave the camps and
resume their ilves (but not on the West Coast). Proven k:yaJty was a major criterion for
the ieave. See DatM*. Concentration Camps, p. 110.
Journalism History 15:2-3 Summer/Autumn 1988 79