Newsletter

Today, Korea and Japan are engaged in a fierce diplomatic war over the international appellation of the East Sea. The Korean government has been making efforts to promote the worldwide propagation of the name "East Sea" since both South and North Korea joined the United Nations in 1991. Although there have been countless difficulties and obstructions caused by the Japanese government who claims the appellation, "Sea of Japan," many countries around the world have come to understand Korea's position though efforts of the Korean government and the private sector.

If this is the case, why should we be paying attention to the media at this point? Nowadays, the public is getting the latest news and information from both home and abroad through broadcasting, newspapers and more. And recently, mobile phones have shortened the distance between the public and the press. However, it is imperative that we deal with accurate facts and information in order to prevent the public's tendency to accept the content delivered by the media without any doubt or questioning. For example, if North Korea reports the launch of a missile into the East Sea, and media outlets label the "East Sea" as the "Sea of Japan," the public could misread the news as if North Korea fired a missile at Japan. Therefore, if we figure out how prominent global media companies deal with the news and articles related to Korea, it will be possible to find the problem swiftly and respond effectively.

In recent years, the Dokdo Research Institute has conducted research on the way leading newspapers and broadcasting companies in France, the U.K., the United States, the Commonwealth and French-speaking countries appellate the East Sea, along with these media outlets' decision-making processes. Based on this research, the Institute published this book in order to gather characteristics of the appellations such as status, propagation route, and preference for the name of the East Sea. Now, the Korean government and related organizations have this guide to which to refer when establishing policies related to propagating the name of the East Sea. It has been a great achievement to identify the framework of the appellation from a macro perspective by grasping the information sharing between media in France and French-spoken countries, the U.K., the United States and the Commonwealth. Major results and appellations in each chapter are summarized below.

The 19th and 20th centuries are characterized as a period of unification and standardization. During this time, the government's position was regarded as the most important when choosing the appellation for the East Sea, with the voices of the private sector and the public hardly being represented. However, the 21st century is a time when differences, diversity, and individuality are honored. Thus, a shift is fostered and starts from a name that reflects past imperialism and shifts to a situation that respects the identities and positions of the countries adjacent to the pertinent body of water. Chapter 1 discusses why "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan" should be used simultaneously amid these changes.

Chapter 2 analyzes the appellation of the East Sea used by major media outlets in the U.K., a representative maritime country that has a deep tradition of cartography. Results showed that British media tend to prefer the name, "Sea if Japan" over, "East Sea." These results demonstrated our remaining task of establishing publicity strategies to persuade British media outlets, which are the most conservative, to use the "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan" appellations simultaneously.

Chapter 3 exemplifies the United States as a representative country in leading the formation of global opinions while analyzing how major American media outlets name the East Sea. Although the United States is known to prefer the singular use of the name "Sea of Japan," media outlets are increasingly using "East Sea" together with the "Sea of Japan" lately. In 2014, the Senate of the State of Virginia passed a bill which would require textbooks to write, "East Sea" alongside, "Sea of Japan." This bill is expected to spark an increase in using both appellations simultaneously.

Chapter 4 analyzes the appellation of the East Sea in Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia, India and Singapore. Media outlets from these countries turned out to be influenced more by large news agencies such as the Associated Press, Agence France-Presse (AFP) and Reuters, than their relationships with the American or British governments. It has been confirmed that the appellation is determined largely according to the reporters' discretion and individual tendency rather than policy.

Chapter 5 is organized around France, a typical maritime country with rich traditions of geography and cartography. While the French government sticks to the singular use of the appellation, "Sea of Japan," French media outlets are expressing appellations of this sea freely. For instance, there are various appellations used with regard to the body of water bordered by Korea and Japan, including, "East Sea," "Sea of Japan," their simultaneous use, no notation, "Sea of Korea," or "Sea of Orient."

Chapter 6 analyzes the appellation of the East Sea used by major media outlets in Algeria, Belgium, Luxembourg and Quebec, countries in which French is widely spoken. While media outlets in Algeria and Luxembourg showed unfavorable use of the appellation, "East Sea," those in Belgium and Quebec demonstrated relatively flexible tendencies. French-speaking regions tend to use the appellation used by AFP, thus testifying to the absolute impact and influence that France's big news agencies have on media outlets in French-speaking regions.

Chapter 7 was written with the intention to help readers understand major global media outlets' awareness of the East Sea at just one glance. This chapter maps appellation preferences of media outlets in the U.K., the United States, France, the Commonwealth and French-speaking regions. Research shows that English-speaking Canada views the "East Sea" appellation negatively, while Australia and India view this appellation positively. Singapore also demonstrated favorable views towards the "East Sea" appellation. On the other hand, French-speaking Belgium and Quebec view the "East Sea" appellation positively, while Luxembourg and Algeria are against such appellation. It is interesting to find that the preferences of English-speaking Canada and French-speaking Canada were strikingly different, even within the same country. The tendency to use both appellations simultaneously by both French media outlets and AFP appears to have directly affected French-speaking Canadian media outlets. On the contrary, the Associated Press, which prefers the singular use of the appellation "Sea of Japan," is presumed to have affected media outlets in English-speaking Canada.

In short, we come to a conclusion through this analysis of media outlets in the United States, the U.K., the Commonwealth, France, and French-speaking countries that the appellation of the East Sea can vary greatly depending on language, geographical location, policy and reporters' tendency.

Based on this data, it would be possible to maximize the efficiency of promotion and propagation of the appellation, "East Sea" if customized publicity strategies are established.

It is our hope that the publication of this book will lead to further research in areas that have not yet been studied, such as Spain, Spanish-speaking countries and Arabic-spoken countries. Additionally, under the assumption that reporters' tendencies and volitions can be crucial variables in respect to naming the East Sea, we can expect that if the Korean government and related organizations invite foreign media representatives to visit Korea and provide them with opportunities to visit places in the East Sea, such as Ulleungdo and Dokdo, the use of the appellation, "East Sea," will increase.