I don't know much about the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War 2, but the general concensus seems to be that Michelle Malkin's recent book -- which attempted to defend the internments -- is factually wrong in some/many ways. I don't know about that. However, I can address a question raised by Eric Muller. He claims that the media allowed Ms. Malkin to present her ideas and book, "In Defense of Internment", without rebuttal and he wonders why.
Let's consider a hypothetical. Suppose an author were to publish a book revisiting the pogroms across Germany in November of 1938 that we know as "Kristallnacht." Suppose that author's thesis went something like this: "Yes, German and Austrian Jews certainly and regrettably suffered in the attacks of November 9 and 10, 1938, and in the incarceration of some 26,000 in concentration camps for a period of many weeks that followed. We have seen, time and again, the images of the broken storefront windows and the burning synagogues that the Jewish grievance community and politically correct academics want us to see. We have been led to believe that this was an unprovoked outburst of baseless hatred on the part of the German people. But what Jews and academics do not tell you, and do not want you to know, is that the so-called Kristallnacht had a real cause: A Jew did, in fact, murder the German official Ernst vom Rath in Paris on November 7, 1938, at the German Embassy, and documents from the time show that Josef Goebbels knew this and saw the murder as proof of a larger Jewish threat to the Reich." ...The difference seems clear to me, and it isn't what Mr. Muller suggests. Although he says that "I am also not comparing Kristallnacht to the eviction of Japanese Americans" such a comparison will reveal that the actions of the Nazis against the Jews were far more terrible than the actions of the American government against the Japanese-Americans. This difference in terribleness must play a role how the issue is treated by all parties, and it seems pretty obvious that this difference is almost wholly responsible for how the two events are viewed by history and treated by the media.
So, to return to Timothy Burke's observation: suppose that a mediagenic author were to publish such a work. Would MSNBC, CNBC, Fox, C-SPAN, HBO, and countless radio programs present that work at all? If they did so, would they present it uncritically, and without rebuttal?
Of course they wouldn't. And so the question is: why the difference?