![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I propose Kim Chol be merged into this article. BlueSalix ( talk) 16:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The led section only attributes the difficulty in reporting on North Korea to external military threats. The DPRK itself is also cause for the information vacuum and propagandistic information. On pg. 267-268 of "Kim Il Sung" by Dae-Sook- Suh it says that Kim Il-sung began to refuse interviews by the international press because he didn't want to answer hard-hitting questions and the international community's growing intolerance for his constant self-promotion (including from members of the Non-Aligned Movement). Official biographies of the Kim family, published by North Korea, also dedicate vast amounts of space to the miraculous accomplishments of their leaders, continually revise "history" to fit their own propaganda (inserting activities that never occurred and exaggerating others), and insist on the 100% subservience of the people to the Kim family.
While the DPRK does face external military threats, they also engage in militarily threatening behavior which in turn elicits defensive postures by other nations. And considering the very real and well documented eccentricities and propaganda coming from the government itself, I would suggest the led be altered to encompass all the reasons, not just blaming it on fabrications and western yellow journalism. Yes the examples given are examples of poor journalism, misunderstandings, or are only examples of stories with single unknown sources (which is common among news items world-wide about all kinds of topics), but the North contributes to the problem as well. While referenced, the article as is is somewhat one-sided.
I would be more than happy to provide you with specific references to assist in making the article more even toned. I just wanted to discuss the issue here first before making any changes. Coinmanj ( talk) 00:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I think a "3rd theory" could be difficulty in checking information about North Korea, e.g., in the case of Hyon Song-wol. I think this is indicated by some of the sources already quoted in the article.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the point of the "who?" tag in the opening sentence.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 04:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I know the title has been changed before, but I think the fundamental issue is not bias (though bias is part of it) but the downright falseness of reports. False reporting of North Korea? Misreporting of North Korea? Inaccuracy in reporting North Korea? Can anyone suggest something better?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 11:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
A vandal recently claimed that the golf story was verifiable through an index of the KCNA. It isn't, as confirmed by the site itself [1]. However, this site does gives some details of what the original story was supposed to be, without actually verifying it.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
On 24 November 2014, a range of confidential information belonging to Sony Pictures Entertainment was obtained and released by hackers. [sony-hack 1] [sony-hack 2] Many media outlets reported that it was an action by the North Korean government against the Sony comedy The Interview which depicted an assassination attempt against Kim Jong-un. [sony-hack 3] [sony-hack 4] [sony-hack 5]
An editorial by the Korean Central News Agency on 7 December stated that:
Despite the official denial, on 17 December the release of the film was cancelled amid sensationalist speculation about a terrorist or nuclear attack by North Korea. [sony-hack 7] [sony-hack 8]
Western news media has been publishing biased or false reports about North Korea since many years ago. I will try to add here a list of dubious reports that may be add to the article. When a complete section is not needed or not possible to write, we can create a table for "Other reports" at the end of the article. The table may include these columns: the claim, first newspaper that publish it, alleged source, date, which other mass media republished it, and the analysis of NK experts and/or the response of NK news agency if any.
Regards. emijrp ( talk) 10:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Women can't ride bikes...
Regards. emijrp ( talk) 21:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Can we get a list of "documentaries" about DPRK that repeat the typical (and other new) hoaxes? It can be useful to compile other falsehoods. In Spanish I remember "Amarás al líder sobre todas las cosas", that Cao de Benos replied in his blog. -- emijrp ( talk) 21:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is supposed to be about anti-DPRK bias by Western media, not just examples of things that turned out to be wrong or misunderstood. The Sony hack for example: the reason why people looked to North Korea was because the hack used methods that had been used by North Korea before, and then you had the FBI report saying it was North Korea. Those are legitimate reasons to suspect the DPRK, not merely bias or "we hate the North so let's smear them". And official denials by the country are hardly trust worthy or proof that the West was wrong (just look at their nuclear program & kidnappings which the country denied for years before finally admitting to them).
For something to be included it needs to be a proven example of bias.
As for the defectors section, the part about Shin Dong-hyuk doesn't seem to be an issue of bias by the West at all. Shin lied about certain things, that isn't the fault of the book's author. I think it should be removed. Coinmanj ( talk) 02:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Time to create a list of false rumours/hoaxes about executions in North Korea? There are several cases. emijrp ( talk) 11:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I have tried to deal with the issues of neutrality raised. Is there anything outstanding?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does this title follow WP:article titles? If not, what is your suggested title? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
What about, Western media bias on North Korea, or Cases of western media bias on North Korea, or even Alleged western media bias on North Korea ? Orange Mike, are you sure that "alleged" would be required here? It's not clear to me there's any dispute on most of the examples given. - Darouet ( talk) 23:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Jack Upland and Finnusertop, your thoughts? George Ho ( talk) 01:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
So it's been a while from this RfC, but very little has actually been actioned regarding it. The permalink from the article at that time shows the content and structure of the page have largely remained unchanged. However the above consensus had decided that the scope of the article should increase. Since bias is now only 1 aspect of media coverage, it's now put in a dedicated section, rather than just being the whole page. Eventually, it will need to be cut down. I'll eventually also have a go at updating the lead to reflect that. Stickee (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article referenced does it say that Kim Jong Un actually created the drug (the title uses his name as a metonyme for North Korea). Also, the claims that the drug cures AIDS, cancer, etc., come from the drug's website, as is indicated in the article.
Drmab ( talk) 16:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the "Globalise" tag is a bit harsh as we cite sources from South Korea, Japan, Singapore, China, and Russia - though we could, of course, do better.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 12:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow! I'm impressed with article improvements. Good job! :) George Ho ( talk) 06:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Another resurrection. emijrp ( talk) 19:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Jack Upland: Which one? emijrp ( talk) 14:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I have found this new source which backs up a lot of the current content of the article. I can't find a way to add it in without it being redundant, but I thought I would note it down given accusations above that this article is "original research". No, many people have pointed out the problem of unreliable reporting of North Korea.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand that the AFP is setting up a bureau in Pyongyang, but I guess we should wait till it happens before including it in the article.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should have legal marijuana as an example. I don't think the question is decided, as the main article Cannabis in North Korea itself indicates. And I think there is a consensus that we should limit the examples to a few classic examples that illustrate the points made in the article. The marijuana issue illustrates the fact that it is difficult to get the facts about the DPRK, but I don't think it illustrates bias or sensationalism...-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Uriminzokkiri have accused the US and South Korea of producing fake news to attack North Korea. [33] I'm not sure there's any point in putting this in the article as it seems to be a case of "They would say that, wouldn't they?"-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Jack Upland: I think that the Fake news article needs a subsection for North Korea, probably named "South Korea", as many of the fabricated news against NK come from SK agencies. -- emijrp ( talk) 14:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Media coverage of North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Acroterion applies double standard about sources, he denies FAIR article due to being primary source while there are other sources in this article that are solely primary without secondary while he asks secondary for FAIRs article which 1. Pointless to ask what doesn't exist 2. Again, double standard.
Those are the facts, i'l restore them and block me like others with their double standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chernobog95 ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
He is not applying double standards to anything, there is a policy that clearly states what he/she is talking about. In the case of the information you are trying to insert, a primary source is not enough; a secondary source is required for clarification on the subject. Kirliator ( talk) 01:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)≥
This defector's statements on North Korean state TV [1] seems like a poor choice to highlight disinformation and propaganda from South Korea, especially since the opposite is more likely to be true; that she was pressured into fabricating stories detrimental to South Korea after returning to the North. Circumstances surrounding her disappearance from the South suggest she may have been forcefully taken or pressured to return. [2] [3] [4] [5] It would seem unlikely for a public, outspoken critic of North Korea to voluntarily return home without risking consequences and many of her statements on North Korean TV seem questionable. For instance, it seems improbable that someone who regularly appeared on two different TV shows and had her own fan club was "struggling to make ends meet". Also, despite saying life in South Korea was miserable, she privately expressed joy to friends and colleagues, even telling fans her latest birthday before her return was "possibly the happiest one of my life". Anyone comparing her appearances in South and North Korean TV can tell when she expressed genuine feelings and when she was reading scripts under duress. I strongly recommended the section about her is removed from this page. Tahoma403 ( talk) 04:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
References
I noticed that in the last year or so, while North Korea–South Korea relations are improving a bit and Korean Summits are taking place, there weren't sensationalist news about North Korea (you know, the silly news about somebody being eaten alive by dogs, etc). Anybody noticed this change in media coverage? emijrp ( talk) 14:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I think especially the section "Overall assessment" should only use scientific sources instead of newspaper articles. -- Christian140 ( talk) 12:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I propose Kim Chol be merged into this article. BlueSalix ( talk) 16:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The led section only attributes the difficulty in reporting on North Korea to external military threats. The DPRK itself is also cause for the information vacuum and propagandistic information. On pg. 267-268 of "Kim Il Sung" by Dae-Sook- Suh it says that Kim Il-sung began to refuse interviews by the international press because he didn't want to answer hard-hitting questions and the international community's growing intolerance for his constant self-promotion (including from members of the Non-Aligned Movement). Official biographies of the Kim family, published by North Korea, also dedicate vast amounts of space to the miraculous accomplishments of their leaders, continually revise "history" to fit their own propaganda (inserting activities that never occurred and exaggerating others), and insist on the 100% subservience of the people to the Kim family.
While the DPRK does face external military threats, they also engage in militarily threatening behavior which in turn elicits defensive postures by other nations. And considering the very real and well documented eccentricities and propaganda coming from the government itself, I would suggest the led be altered to encompass all the reasons, not just blaming it on fabrications and western yellow journalism. Yes the examples given are examples of poor journalism, misunderstandings, or are only examples of stories with single unknown sources (which is common among news items world-wide about all kinds of topics), but the North contributes to the problem as well. While referenced, the article as is is somewhat one-sided.
I would be more than happy to provide you with specific references to assist in making the article more even toned. I just wanted to discuss the issue here first before making any changes. Coinmanj ( talk) 00:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I think a "3rd theory" could be difficulty in checking information about North Korea, e.g., in the case of Hyon Song-wol. I think this is indicated by some of the sources already quoted in the article.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the point of the "who?" tag in the opening sentence.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 04:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I know the title has been changed before, but I think the fundamental issue is not bias (though bias is part of it) but the downright falseness of reports. False reporting of North Korea? Misreporting of North Korea? Inaccuracy in reporting North Korea? Can anyone suggest something better?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 11:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
A vandal recently claimed that the golf story was verifiable through an index of the KCNA. It isn't, as confirmed by the site itself [1]. However, this site does gives some details of what the original story was supposed to be, without actually verifying it.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
On 24 November 2014, a range of confidential information belonging to Sony Pictures Entertainment was obtained and released by hackers. [sony-hack 1] [sony-hack 2] Many media outlets reported that it was an action by the North Korean government against the Sony comedy The Interview which depicted an assassination attempt against Kim Jong-un. [sony-hack 3] [sony-hack 4] [sony-hack 5]
An editorial by the Korean Central News Agency on 7 December stated that:
Despite the official denial, on 17 December the release of the film was cancelled amid sensationalist speculation about a terrorist or nuclear attack by North Korea. [sony-hack 7] [sony-hack 8]
Western news media has been publishing biased or false reports about North Korea since many years ago. I will try to add here a list of dubious reports that may be add to the article. When a complete section is not needed or not possible to write, we can create a table for "Other reports" at the end of the article. The table may include these columns: the claim, first newspaper that publish it, alleged source, date, which other mass media republished it, and the analysis of NK experts and/or the response of NK news agency if any.
Regards. emijrp ( talk) 10:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Women can't ride bikes...
Regards. emijrp ( talk) 21:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Can we get a list of "documentaries" about DPRK that repeat the typical (and other new) hoaxes? It can be useful to compile other falsehoods. In Spanish I remember "Amarás al líder sobre todas las cosas", that Cao de Benos replied in his blog. -- emijrp ( talk) 21:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This article is supposed to be about anti-DPRK bias by Western media, not just examples of things that turned out to be wrong or misunderstood. The Sony hack for example: the reason why people looked to North Korea was because the hack used methods that had been used by North Korea before, and then you had the FBI report saying it was North Korea. Those are legitimate reasons to suspect the DPRK, not merely bias or "we hate the North so let's smear them". And official denials by the country are hardly trust worthy or proof that the West was wrong (just look at their nuclear program & kidnappings which the country denied for years before finally admitting to them).
For something to be included it needs to be a proven example of bias.
As for the defectors section, the part about Shin Dong-hyuk doesn't seem to be an issue of bias by the West at all. Shin lied about certain things, that isn't the fault of the book's author. I think it should be removed. Coinmanj ( talk) 02:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Time to create a list of false rumours/hoaxes about executions in North Korea? There are several cases. emijrp ( talk) 11:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I have tried to deal with the issues of neutrality raised. Is there anything outstanding?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does this title follow WP:article titles? If not, what is your suggested title? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
What about, Western media bias on North Korea, or Cases of western media bias on North Korea, or even Alleged western media bias on North Korea ? Orange Mike, are you sure that "alleged" would be required here? It's not clear to me there's any dispute on most of the examples given. - Darouet ( talk) 23:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Jack Upland and Finnusertop, your thoughts? George Ho ( talk) 01:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
So it's been a while from this RfC, but very little has actually been actioned regarding it. The permalink from the article at that time shows the content and structure of the page have largely remained unchanged. However the above consensus had decided that the scope of the article should increase. Since bias is now only 1 aspect of media coverage, it's now put in a dedicated section, rather than just being the whole page. Eventually, it will need to be cut down. I'll eventually also have a go at updating the lead to reflect that. Stickee (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article referenced does it say that Kim Jong Un actually created the drug (the title uses his name as a metonyme for North Korea). Also, the claims that the drug cures AIDS, cancer, etc., come from the drug's website, as is indicated in the article.
Drmab ( talk) 16:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the "Globalise" tag is a bit harsh as we cite sources from South Korea, Japan, Singapore, China, and Russia - though we could, of course, do better.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 12:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow! I'm impressed with article improvements. Good job! :) George Ho ( talk) 06:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Another resurrection. emijrp ( talk) 19:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Jack Upland: Which one? emijrp ( talk) 14:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I have found this new source which backs up a lot of the current content of the article. I can't find a way to add it in without it being redundant, but I thought I would note it down given accusations above that this article is "original research". No, many people have pointed out the problem of unreliable reporting of North Korea.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand that the AFP is setting up a bureau in Pyongyang, but I guess we should wait till it happens before including it in the article.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should have legal marijuana as an example. I don't think the question is decided, as the main article Cannabis in North Korea itself indicates. And I think there is a consensus that we should limit the examples to a few classic examples that illustrate the points made in the article. The marijuana issue illustrates the fact that it is difficult to get the facts about the DPRK, but I don't think it illustrates bias or sensationalism...-- Jack Upland ( talk) 08:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Uriminzokkiri have accused the US and South Korea of producing fake news to attack North Korea. [33] I'm not sure there's any point in putting this in the article as it seems to be a case of "They would say that, wouldn't they?"-- Jack Upland ( talk) 03:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Jack Upland: I think that the Fake news article needs a subsection for North Korea, probably named "South Korea", as many of the fabricated news against NK come from SK agencies. -- emijrp ( talk) 14:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Media coverage of North Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Acroterion applies double standard about sources, he denies FAIR article due to being primary source while there are other sources in this article that are solely primary without secondary while he asks secondary for FAIRs article which 1. Pointless to ask what doesn't exist 2. Again, double standard.
Those are the facts, i'l restore them and block me like others with their double standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chernobog95 ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
He is not applying double standards to anything, there is a policy that clearly states what he/she is talking about. In the case of the information you are trying to insert, a primary source is not enough; a secondary source is required for clarification on the subject. Kirliator ( talk) 01:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)≥
This defector's statements on North Korean state TV [1] seems like a poor choice to highlight disinformation and propaganda from South Korea, especially since the opposite is more likely to be true; that she was pressured into fabricating stories detrimental to South Korea after returning to the North. Circumstances surrounding her disappearance from the South suggest she may have been forcefully taken or pressured to return. [2] [3] [4] [5] It would seem unlikely for a public, outspoken critic of North Korea to voluntarily return home without risking consequences and many of her statements on North Korean TV seem questionable. For instance, it seems improbable that someone who regularly appeared on two different TV shows and had her own fan club was "struggling to make ends meet". Also, despite saying life in South Korea was miserable, she privately expressed joy to friends and colleagues, even telling fans her latest birthday before her return was "possibly the happiest one of my life". Anyone comparing her appearances in South and North Korean TV can tell when she expressed genuine feelings and when she was reading scripts under duress. I strongly recommended the section about her is removed from this page. Tahoma403 ( talk) 04:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
References
I noticed that in the last year or so, while North Korea–South Korea relations are improving a bit and Korean Summits are taking place, there weren't sensationalist news about North Korea (you know, the silly news about somebody being eaten alive by dogs, etc). Anybody noticed this change in media coverage? emijrp ( talk) 14:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I think especially the section "Overall assessment" should only use scientific sources instead of newspaper articles. -- Christian140 ( talk) 12:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)