Talk:Media coverage of North Korea

Proposed Merger with Kim Chol

I propose Kim Chol be merged into this article. BlueSalix (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Kim Chol was a high ranking military official who deserves his own biography (as he has, albeit in need of expansion), however, you could use the debate over his execution as an example within this article. But there's really no reason to actually merge his article with this one, thus deleting his separate bio. Btw, I think this topic (reporting difficulties) was much needed. Coinmanj (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It's unclear if a Vice-Minister named Kim Chol even actually existed; the only reports on him are in association with his "execution" which seems to be the sole source of his notability. BlueSalix (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There are pictures of him. The DPRK only releases information they deem necessary (they haven't even released the date of birth of Kim Jong-un), and outside of intelligence reports, defectors, and inside sources, the only other source of information comes directly from the DPRK government itself which is notoriously opaque. Beside long-lived DPRK officials or those in top committees, most known biographies of North Korean people are only a few lines or a couple paragraphs - even in academic works. Coinmanj (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Without necessarily agreeing to the validity of this claim, I will accept your more general proposition that Kim merits his own article and shall agree to close the merge nomination. BlueSalix (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Led section

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)

"Official biographies of the Kim family, published by North Korea, also dedicate vast amounts of space to the miraculous accomplishments of their leaders," really seems a bit of a specious claim within the context of this specific entry, which is pretty much entirely devoted to an indexing of sources and experts who disclaim the very existence of such "miraculous biographies;" it would be exceedingly confusing to try to cram that in. That said, if you have RS sources that directly attribute errors in western news reports to North Korean reclusiveness (as opposed to just acknowledging DPRK reclusiveness) then absolutely we should include those. (For the record, I personally believe a valid penultimate theory beyond disinformation and yellow journalism is DPRK reclusiveness. However, what I believe doesn't matter in the absence of RS.)

I also have to reject the idea this entry is "one sided." The topic of the entry is western media errors so it will, naturally, only include information about western media errors. Obviously, if counter-claims as to the existence or severity of such errors are available in RS, they should be inserted and I would absolutely support doing that. What I don't support, however, is the notion that we need to "devil up" the DPRK to present "balance." That's not what balance is; balance is two sides of one topic. If there aren't two sides then we only report one side - we definitely don't craft our own argument to fill-in for the missing side. BlueSalix (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If the topic is "western issues in reporting" then you need to change the name of the article. As is, the article is titled "Issues in reporting on North Korea" which would cover all contributing factors. The source I cited above does explicitly state that North Korea made the decision to close itself off from western ("capitalist") sources, and by doing that they caused, at least in part, the problems facing western journalism. But seriously, either the name of the article needs to be changed or it will have to take a world-wide (both sided approach). And regardless, all articles are to be as neutral as possible and explain the whole picture to provide appropriate context (you've continually asked me to provide more direct context in the cult article). I'm not debating the accuracy of the "issues", but the neutral and world-wide view that all articles are supposed to take. Coinmanj (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I just reviewed the Dae-Sook-Suh book and I don't see where it says any of that, however, it's quite possible I'm misunderstanding your proposed edit. What, exactly, do you think should be added to which you'd reference the Dae-Sook-Suh book? If for no other reason than the aesthetics offered by the rule of threes, I'd be keen for a third "theory." (As for the neutrality of the article, it is neutral. Neutrality doesn't mean we have to present both sides "equally as bad" or "equally as good." It means we have to present both sides accurately. Again, however, if there's something specific you're proposing I'm sure we can come to some kind of agreement [in the apparent absence of any other editors to mediate]. I've spent most of the energy I save-up for firm ideological stands on the Malvinas Islands recently so I'm pretty pliable at the moment.) BlueSalix (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to present the facts, and when they deal with controversial topics they must present both sides as much as there is verifiable information to support the issue. This article's title means that *all* primary problems relating to reporting on North Korea must be covered. Propaganda, difficulty in reporting, etc. have their roots in North Korea's government as much as any anti-DPRK propaganda or yellow journalism. North Korea itself has caused difficulty in reporting, not only because of "external military threats" but because they control all access to information within the country and all official information flowing out. There is no transparency, which is created by the DPRK government and that contributes to "issues in reporting on North Korea." The example from Dae-Sook explicitly says that Kim Il-sung put a halt to international interviews. Again, all major reasons for reporting issues need to be addressed. As it stands, by excluding the DPRK's own contributions to the problem, the article looses its neutrality. Coinmanj (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, if there's something specific you're proposing I'm sure I'd likely agree to its efficacy and appropriateness. But I'm not entirely sure what you're saying at the moment. Is there some specific text you could present for insertion and/or alteration? BlueSalix (talk) 07:10, 28 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)

Who? Tag

I don't see the point of the "who?" tag in the opening sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack Upland, neither do I. "Who" is clearly identified in the body of the article so I'm deleting it. BlueSalix (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Title

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)

Anti-North Korea propaganda, Hoaxes about North Korea, etc. They can be redirects too, anyway. emijrp (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we have to avoid evaluative language (POV). Yes, some stories are propaganda; some stories are hoaxes. Some stories are misunderstandings (unicorns); some stories are lurid rumours (Hyon Song Wol). What unites them is the falseness, the acceptance of these incredible stories at face value by the international media, and the lack of fact-checking.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The title has got longer...--Jack Upland (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Golf

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)

I have just found the probable original source — a report by Eric Ellis in 1994.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Sony Hack

The following text was removed by some self-righteous idiot:

On 24 November 2014, a range of confidential information belonging to Sony Pictures Entertainment was obtained and released by hackers. 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.

An editorial by the Korean Central News Agency on 7 December stated that:

We do not know where in America the SONY Pictures is situated and for what wrongdoings it became the target of the attack nor we feel the need to know about it.

But what we clearly know is that the SONY Pictures is the very one which was going to produce a film abetting a terrorist act while hurting the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK by taking advantage of the hostile policy of the U.S. administration towards the DPRK.

We already called upon the world to turn out in the just struggle to put an end to U.S. imperialism, the chieftain of aggression and the worst human rights abuser that tramples down the universal rights of people to peaceful and stable life and violates the sovereignty of other countries, as well as its followers.

The hacking into the SONY Pictures might be a righteous deed of the supporters and sympathizers with the DPRK in response to its appeal.

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.

Obviously the opponents of censoship don't apply this to themselves.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's another article that could be used as a reference:[2].--Jack Upland (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

And these. Merry Christmas.[3][4][5][6][7][8]--Jack Upland (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Other reports

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.

• Kim Jong Un handing out copies of ‘Mein Kampf’ to senior North Korean officials [9] [10] [11]
• Students required to get Kim Jong-un haircut [12] [13]
• North Korea Bans Women From Riding Bicycles...Again [14]
• World Cup Team Shamed, Reprimanded [15]
• Famine-struck N Koreans 'eating children' [16]

Regards. emijrp (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I feel at some point we will need to organise these reports. We might be able to group them by topic e.g. false reports of executions etc. I guess there's plenty of examples, but this article can't just be a list of examples. We need more secondary sources that synthesise and analyse. I also think that this structure doesn't work well in practice. There is a lot of repetition. To some extent, the issues, causes, and examples could be combined on a thematic basis. For example, one of the causes is cultural ignorance and insensitivity, as exemplified by the unicorn and the mourning stories.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Women can't ride bikes...

• 
  1972
• 
  2008
• 
  2008
• 
  2010
• 
  2012

Regards. emijrp (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hunting down all alleged cases of Western misreporting about NK is a WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:GREATWRONGS problem, and aside from that is essentially an exercise in collecting non-encyclopedic WP:TRIVIA.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Documentaries

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)

I'll try to get to that as it would be an interesting angle. I'm currently trying to remove systemic bias in Operation Dragoon Ride but I will make this #2 on my to-do list, emijrp. BlueSalix (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about bias, not just false or mistaken reports

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)

I don't agree. As I said above, the title is somewhat misleading. The article is about the phenomenon of sensationalist reporting of false stories, such as the execution of Hyon Song-wol. There are a few key secondary sources cited in the article that discuss this issue, but unfortunately there isn't an agreed-on name for this. It is obviously true that you can't believe North Korea's official denials (or the USA's for that matter). And the country is obviously very secretive, as discussed in the article. But this doesn't excuse the practice of reporting every wild rumour or online concoction as fact. On reflection I think the Sony Hack probably shouldn't be included until there is more clarity about what really happened. It does now seem to be a storm in a teacup, which again is characteristic of reporting North Korea. As to Shin, the argument comes from Felix Abt. Abt gives Shin as an example of a defector who has changed his or her story (multiple times, now). Normally such as source would not be considered credible, but because it relates to North Korea he is still considered reliable. I think that probably is bias, but I don't think the title is ideal for this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I also disagree, for all reasons previously stated by Jack Upland. BlueSalix (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Alleged executions

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)

We have documented several in the article. Perhaps we could amalgmate them, but I don't think that would be a good idea. I think the best way is to give the leading examples. I think it's too early to include General Hyon, as the truth has not been confirmed either way.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have tried to deal with the issues of neutrality raised. Is there anything outstanding?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Current title

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)

No, it doesn't. Alleged bias in reporting on North Korea by Western news media meets the requirements much better. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, great, so it becomes even longer and complicated.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Editors who feel that the title does not follow the guideline, please specify why. I did some digging and similar article titles include: Media coverage of Catholic sex abuse cases, Media representation of Hugo Chávez, Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis and Portrayal of ISIL in American media. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Shall they? Look at the title. It's obviously long and less consistent with other related titles about media portrayal or representation or coverage. --George Ho (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This article (rightly or wrongly according to WP policies) has focussed on a certain aspect of that coverage. I don't think the title really captures the topic. (Previously it was "Issues..." rather than "Bias...") Several sources cited in the article identify the phenomenon we are talking about:"The number of outlets reporting a sensational North Korea story can become a stand in for verifying their sourcing, which is often very difficult, leading to many people believing inaccurate stories."..."If any country proves sensationalism beats truth in the social media economy, it’s North Korea."..."The lack of information coming out of North Korea and the interest in negative stories about North Korea has created a situation where even the most absurd of stories – such as North Korea believing in an ancient unicorn lair – have been reported at face value when they almost certainly deserved more thought."..."But when it comes to covering news about the 'Hermit Kingdom' it seems that sometimes the rule book is thrown out the window."--Jack Upland (talk) 06:12, 8 July 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)

Portrayal of North Korea in Western media, perhaps? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd say that. What do you think, Darouet? George Ho (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. It will require the addition of content and reorganization of the article, but will improve it. Important aspects of bias and distortion will still be documented. At the same time, real achievements of western media regarding North Korea, including reporting on poverty, suppression of democratic rights, etc., can be recorded as well. -Darouet (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Jack Upland and Finnusertop, your thoughts? George Ho (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think "Media coverage of North Korea" would be better if we are going in that direction. There are several articles about media bias, however, such as Media bias in the United States and Media bias in South Asia, not that I think bias is the best word to use here. But I think we have changed the subject from the title to the topic. If the topic becomes media coverage, the next step will probably be to say the article is unbalanced towards criticism of the coverage. I think it will be hard to find "real achievements of western media". For instance, Blaine Harden got many plaudits, but now his reportage has been shown to be unreliable. Many articles on poverty or repression feature lurid stories of cannibalism or executions that didn't happen. This article was originally entitled "Issues..." and one of the "issues" in media coverage is the crazy North Korean rumour mill. I wouldn't have a problem if an article on media coverage had a full airing of the issues. But if the content that is here, that is well-sourced and relevant, is downgraded in order for the sake of some counterbalancing content that hasn't been written yet - I would oppose it.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• A lot of it is about South Korea, which hardly counts as "Western media" since it is unlikely that North and South Korean media will see eye to eye on much, given their mutually antagonistic past. If "Western" is included in the title, South Korea would need to be excluded. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

How is it about South Korea? Care to explain? George Ho (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

South Korea obviously reports on North Korea, frequently.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

See Causes, for example. When I say "about South Korea", I mean that the perceived bias originates not with Western media, but with South Korea, a country which has a history of achieving the exceptionally difficult feat of actually exaggerating the craziness of North Korea. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Use Media coverage of North Korea. This comports with other similar articles, as noted above. "Portrayal of North Korea in Western media" still has WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV problems (as does the earlier, more long-winded suggestion "Alleged bias in reporting on North Korea by Western news media"). There's not an encyclopedic difference between Western and non-Western (SK, Hong Kong, Singapore, India, etc.) coverage of NK, or at least we have no RS establishing one. Even if one could be established, it could easily be treated under "Media coverage of North Korea", while, e.g., Muslim media treatment of NK cannot be covered under the current title or the earlier proposed titles, but is equally encyclopedic. This broader title would also better fit information about factors affecting SK, or US or Saudi Arabian or whatever, coverage of NK. Media coverage and national and regional politics are real things existing in the world. A particular portrayal within that media coverage is basically a fiction, a cultural form of straw man, and by itself is not a notable topic. We can find RS about coverage and about what societal forces are behind it, but I'm skeptical there can be found any RS that focus on the portrayal as a thing in and of itself, like a stock character in theatre. An additional problem with both the earlier proposals and the current title is that they perpetuates the false dichotomy between "the West" and [insert whatever culture, religion, or philosophy you want to push a PoV about]. The majority of the world operates on a mixture of what are conveniently over-labeled "Western" ideas and practices, and those of other substrates of culture (sometimes native, often not but adapted from neighboring cultures). And it's not just "Western" societies that are critical of NK's regime, economy, militarism, etc. Meanwhile not all Western sources have something bad to say about NK; Western science and arts journals usually have no such bone to pick. Finally, the current title pre-supposes bias and is attempting to "right a great wrong". Given recent exposure of Pakistani forces essentially WP:OWNing our articles on Pakistan and working them toward the level of pro-Pakistan schoolchild indoctrination pieces, I think it's extremely improbable that other national governments don't also have programs with similar goals. While I won't make any bad faith assumptions about the creation and titling of this article (not every title I've ever suggested has been free of neutrality problems, in hindsight), it's unquestionable that an article title and scope like the current one serves NK's interests far more than those of the WP readership. The earlier suggested renames could still do this to an extent. PS: Articles like Media bias in the United States are the opposite kind of article, being about media coverage from within the area in question, so their titles are not really relevant to this discussion. They're encyclopedic because they can be sourced and identity specific patterns and causes; "everyone is picking on NK" cannot do this, and is a patent exercise in original research, synthesizing unrelated factors into a global conspiracy theory.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not original research or a synthesis. There are a number of sources cited in the "Issues" and "Causes" sections which deal with the phenomenon in general - the "North Korean rumour mill". I quoted from them earlier in this discussion. All the "Examples" cite sources which critique the reports and place them in the context of a larger problem with some media coverage. These sources are generally "Western news media" themselves. The authors are not partisans of NK: Andrei Lankov, for example, is a strong critic. Neither the sources nor the article say that all the "Western" media is biased, nor that "everyone is picking on NK", nor that there is a "global conspiracy". I agree that the use of "Western" is problematic. In fact, a lot of these false reports originate in South Korea (and some in China). But this was not in the original title, and seems to have been added by an editor who was just passing by. It does not indicate an "anti-Western" position of contributors to the article. As someone who has contributed, I assure you I am not a secret agent of the DPRK, and I don't think there is any evidence that other editors are. I don't think the issue of Kim Jong Il's golf score particularly matters to the NK government, nor is a "great wrong". However, I think it is in the interest of readers to inform them that media coverage of NK is plagued with rumours and inaccuracies. These false reports find their way into Wikipedia - for example, the execution of Hyon Song-wol - and it is not a violation of neutrality to identify them as such.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with SMcCandlish above. Someone will always have an issue with the title, no matter what it is. Constantly changing it won't change anything. Media coverage of North Korea is all-embarking, and at the same time the most neutral of the previous suggestions. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Use Media coverage of North Korea per WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:NC #4, as suggested by FoCuSandLeArN & SMcCandlish. Broader scope of article, and use of "alleged" in title contravenes WP:NDESC. Stickee (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with the above suggestion of Media coverage of North Korea, or perhaps Criticism of media coverage of North Korea. The phrases "bias in reporting" and "Western news media" are loaded and the title is far from neutral at present. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Following on

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)

1. I don't think it's a good idea to bring back the term "bias". This was temporarily used in the title of the article and caused controversy. The current text only uses the term "bias" once. Most of our sources do not use the term "bias". I think bias is an issue, but it is only one element. We wouldn't normally call sensationalism or the unreliability of a source (a defector) bias. "Allegations of bias" — who is making the allegations?

2. I don't agree that the content has remained largely unchanged. Back then we had 48 references; now we have 80. The basic structure hasn't changed because no one has introduced a new topic, though some of the existing topics have been significantly developed (e.g., "Restrictions on reporting").

3. Regarding the scope, I think the existing scope of the article is "media coverage". The issues raised in the article are fundamental to media coverage. We have a number of sources that bear that out, for example: What do journalists think about reporting on North Korea?, A General, a ‘Nap’ and an Execution: How the Media Report on North Korea, Why North Korea attracts so much sensational media coverage, The Black Hole of North Korea etc. An article like this is inevitably going to look at problems.

4. I don't think it's a good idea to bracket the sections together. This stops them from evolving into the broader article that you want. For example, "Restrictions on reporting" could become a general section about reporting within North Korea. "Defectors" could become a section about using defectors as sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There being no response, I've now got rid of the dedicated section.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, forgotten to reply. The problem with the word bias was because it was in the title. Specifically, that the previous title's wording presupposed that there is bias, while "allegations" doesn't. The second problem was that an article scope focusing solely on bias was a WP:POVFORK, but now that the scope has expanded, bias is only 1 section of the article.

In regards to the 80 references: That's not necessarily from a change in content, but simply because references have been added without addition of content. Eg [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Stickee (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we at least call it "Criticism of coverage" rather than "Allegations of bias"? Most of the sources do not use the word "bias".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Stickee (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Kumdang-2

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)

In any case, I think we need to stick to examples where we have a source that discusses the false reporting.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Globalise Tag

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)

I don't see much of non-Western coverage in prose. I thought more work is needed. --George Ho (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree; this article is very much centred on Western coverage. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 13:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's that much difference between "Western" and non-"Western" culture these days. The earlier incarnation of this article emphasised "Western" coverage, but that was misleading. I haven't seen a source that makes that distinction.

• Here is the unicorn story from the United Arab Emirates: [26]
• The golf story and much more from India: [27]
• Mein Kampf from Israel: [28]
• The Hyon Song Wol story from Nigeria: [29]
• A false report on the execution of General Ri Yong Gil from Singapore: [30]
• And here is a story about sensationalism from Taiwan (which I have added to the article): [31]
• Similarly, from Aljazeera: [32]

I think this is a global phenomenon.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed most of the references to Western/North American/European coverage from the text, and have removed the "Globalize" tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow! I'm impressed with article improvements. Good job! :) George Ho (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ri Yong-gil

Another resurrection. emijrp (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the scope of this article is or should be "List of media claims about North Korea that have been proven to be false" (Urban legends about drugs and List of common misconceptions about language learning seem to be the only articles on WP with a similar scope). The examples section is already disconnected from the sections above that describe reasons for incomplete, inaccurate, and biased reporting. If anything, only examples that corroborate a specific issue should be kept and integrated into the relevant section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that that this article can't be a list, but I think the examples are a very necessary part of this article. They are prominently discussed in the sources we have such as the articles by Broinowski, Rohrlich, Abrahamian etc. I don't think we will be able to separate the examples by issue. Most of them relate to multiple issues: restrictions on reporting, political conflict, and sensationalism. I accept this article is evolving, but this shouldn't turn into deletion by stealth. This article is important and is backed by solid sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with what you say about most examples pertaining to multiple issues. Perhaps it's best not to make any radical decision as of now, because the article serves its purpose reasonably well as it is. Let's just be mindful of not turning this into a "List of media claims..." that would only attract more and more WP:EXAMPLEFARM. I don't know if Ri Yong-gil brought up by Emijrp should be added - but if it did, that should happen on the virtue of something more than just the fact that his purge was reported and it turned out to be inaccurate. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we've got about enough examples at the moment. There seem to have been a lot of rumour-based reports of generals being executed, and this could be merged into the Kim Chol section. BUT we need a source that connects these reports to media coverage over all. With the examples we have we have sources which cite them as examples of the unreliability of media coverage.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I've found a source that uses the Ri case to discuss unreliable reports in general and put it in the "Political conflict" section.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Which one? emijrp (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It is footnote 20.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

With regard to Finnusertop's suggestion above, I have now integrated the examples into their relevant sections.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

New source

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've now managed to incorporate this into the text.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

That's an excellent overview of the issues. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

AFP

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)

Now included.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: criticisms have been mounted against Western agencies operating in North Korea for giving a semblance of independent coverage but in reality being subordinate to North Korean propaganda standards. I think this point of view could be included. For a good story on this, see "The Associated Press in North Korea: A Potemkin news bureau?" – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be OK to include some of the criticism, but that article was 2014. It would be better to have an assessment of AP several years on. We also have to be wary of professional rivalry. Despite the restrictions, it would be strange if AP, AFP, etc didn't open a bureau in NK if it was commercially viable. I think it would be good to get out of the current format, and have a section on media operating inside North Korea, without it being framed as a criticism of anyone, but including any criticism as appropriate. AP photographer David Guttenfelder has won awards for his photos of NK, but he's not mentioned in this article, and, as it stands, he wouldn't fit in.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

PS I've now inserted Guttenfelder into the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Marijuana

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)

There being no objections, I have remodeled the article to reflect the current state of our knowledge on this issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Fake news

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)

There does not seem to be anything new, different or interesting in this article, except possibly the use of the "fake news" phrase. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 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)

I think this article covers it well enough.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but it isn't linked from Fake news. What I propose is creating a short subsection for SK and link using {{main}} to here. emijrp (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I would be wary about doing that, because it could be very controversial, but there's nothing to stop you doing that.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727023534/http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1054 to http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1054
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20140401170133/http%3A//worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/06/22204337-report-alleging-north-korean-execution-by-hungry-dogs-was-likely-false?lite

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Double standards

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)≥

• Now I understand and as expected you removed it including secondary sources that clarify it. Good job for your work on censorship of facts. "path of prospero" (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Chun Hye Sung (Lim Ji-hyun)

This defector's statements on North Korean state TV 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. 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)

There are two sentences in the article, which are factual. The suggestions that she was kidnapped etc are purely speculative. And judging the truth of her testimony by her appearance is dubious. The sources you have supplied do say that she was living in a one-room apartment in the South, so perhaps she was struggling financially. Double defectors are not unknown.[34] Anyway, this is not an article about "disinformation and propaganda from South Korea"; it is about media coverage of North Korea, and the section is about defectors. This story seems to fit well in that topic. Perhaps, it could even be expanded.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It's speculative, but based on specific details related to her disappearance (in addition to what I mentioned, she left most of her belongings in her apartment and recently enrolled in a school) and the question has been raised by reputable newspapers. This is not about adding that speculation to the section about her, but rather to question if it's appropriate to use her statement on North Korean state media, especially in a topic related to media scrutiny. If we are to take statements made on North Korean state TV at face value, human right abuses in the country do not exist and North Korea is the envy of the world. A one-room apartment in the capital's affluent Gangnam district doesn't indicate financial struggle. I'm aware of the existence of double defectors, but I emphasised on her public, outspoken criticism of North Korea, which surely isn't taken lightly back home no matter how much money she claims they offered her. Tahoma403 (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Even if it is just North Korean propaganda, it is notable enough to include. I have made additions to the text to take note of what you've said, but I don't think there's any basis for removing any mention entirely.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Media coverage in the last year

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)

Yes, I think South Korean media has toned it down.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The bizarre stories are still coming from Britain: [35] Agustín Dall'Alba (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sept. 2018 Inter-Korea Summit Gallery (23) (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Overall assessment

I think especially the section "Overall assessment" should only use scientific sources instead of newspaper articles. --Christian140 (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any to suggest?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)