[The Los Angeles TImes Again...] I don't understand Barbara Demick...

In a piece, entitled, "Doubts surface on North Korea's role in ship sinking,"Barbara Demick and John M. Glionna write:

But challenges to the official version of events are coming from an unlikely place: within South Korea.

Armed with dossiers of their own scientific studies and bolstered by conspiracy theories, critics dispute the findings announced May 20 by South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, which pointed a finger at Pyongyang.

Now, mind you, I haven't read any of Barbara Demick's award winning book, Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea, which I do plan to someday. But, I just don't understand her. Why on earth would someone who won multiple awards for writing about North Korean lives seemingly push forth the agenda of the South Korean left?

Is she doing this because at heart she really believes that reporting the "scientific evidence" -- that seemingly originate from only South Korea by the way -- that casts blame on sinking of the Cheonan elsewhere is fairer reporting? Or, simply, to spread misinformation? It's a news article and not an editorial. Or, as is more likely, is she doing this to deliberately to push forth the agenda of the South Korea left?

When I had earlier criticized an article she had written, I didn't know she was a reporter for the Los Angeles Times. As someone suggested I write more of my personal experiences on this blog rather than on "dry and boring topics that would be best left for experts," I thought it would be a neat exercise to dissect an editorial by an award winning author. In the process, I thought it to be tantalizingly strange that a reporter for Los Angeles Times, who wrote an award winning book on the lives of ordinary North Koreans, would push forth the agenda of the South Korean left.

So, now, I am left puzzled by her reporting. If she writes a book that attracts attention to a topic that most people would like to avoid reading --lives of ordinary North Koreans than why would she push forth an agenda whose main aim is to prolong the current North Korean regime and in the process hurt the lives of ordinary North Koreans.

It really is puzzling. And, no, I do not believe that the reporting of deliberately false stories or articles with an agenda leads to a more open mind. For evidence of this look, one needs to look no further than at what the ballot initiative or direct democracy has brought to the otherwise golden state of California.

[Correction] Rebuking Barbara Demick's Deliberately Dishonest Los Angeles Times Editorial *edit1*

edit: 06/15/2010, 8:32am
I earlier offered a scathing rebuke of Barbara Demick's piece in the Los Angeles Times, "Sinking of ship provides welcome distraction for North Korea" as both an exercise to show first how often articles -- particularly editorials -- on North Korea are usually just gibberish and, then, to show how useful blogs can be in picking apart these editorials. I picked that editorial in particular as, well, the author is an award winning author of two books and as she is the Beijing Bureau Chief of the Los Angeles Times.

When I first read that article, it appeared as it was just gibberish. But, upon re-reading the article, it appears she's just slamming the policies of the South Korean right very deliberately. So, whereas I earlier wrote:

While I have nothing against the book -- which I have yet to read and of which I have heard nothing but praise, the author here makes a sweeping and rather incorrect generalization that either borders on naivete or very lazy and perhaps even dishonest journalism. I'd like to believe it's out of naivete.


Upon re-reading the editorial, the article definitely has not only a dangerously dishonest, but a very deliberate twist to it. Anyways, it's these lines made me feel this way:

In an assessment released last week based on intelligence reports, the Washington-based International Strategic Studies Assn. concluded, "Kim Jong Il was so far winning the Cheonan incident he had instigated."

The big loser has been South Korea's conservative ruling party, which was trounced in local elections Thursday. The Grand National Party had hoped that outrage over the Cheonan would boost its popularity; instead the electorate appeared to be more concerned that President Lee Myung-bak was exploiting the incident with his hard-line stand toward North Korea. Results of an investigation of the sinking were not released until May 20, two weeks before the election.

Kang Won-taek, a professor of political science at Soongsil University, said people "thought the government was going back to the old days of using fear for authoritarianism and not democracy."

That's just the standard platform of the South Korean left. I was at first a bit misled by the title. Anyways, it's an even more dangerous editorial after re-reading it and with her credentials:

The editorial suggests that average North Koreans are hurting --  the title of the editorial is "Sinking of ship provides welcome distraction for North Korea" and that Kim Jong Il is winning. What makes this article more dangerous after re-reading it is that she won an award for writing a book as an investigative reporter on the human rights situation in North Korea -- after writing a book about the human rights situation in the Balkans. So, in effect, she is in effect implying that the current right of center ruling party in South Korea is responsible for the suffering of average North Koreans, allowing the North Korean leadership to take advantage of the situation, and sacrificing South Korea's best interests (as Kim Jong Il is "winning"). And, moreover, the South Korean government is doing all this to further their own political interests, which is pretty much an outright lie if you consider what is going on in South Korea...

Anyways, here's the link to the updated post.

Also, South Korea's ruling GNP right of center political party suffered losses in many parts of the country in largely mayoral races -- not inclusive of Seoul I believe, but why on earth is there an article like this in the Los Angeles Times? I mean, if it were it in Hankyoreh-rubbish I would understand, but it's pretty clear that South Korea -- by internationalizing the issue -- singlehandley strengthened the US-South Korea Alliance, US-Japan Alliance, and Japan-South Korea ties. Furthermore, China has become enraged at North Korea and Kim Jong Il "winning" would mean a successful succession which I doubt that this incident has furthered. I'm not sure if the author is deliberately doing this, but it looks pretty damn deliberate and while she may be an investigative reportor of human rights situations in the more exotic places in the world, I wonder why she would deliberately dive into South Korean politics and what the regular Los Angeles Times reader would pick up froom this article...

[Correcting Gibberish from the Los Angeles Times Again] Re: Sinking of ship provides welcome distraction for North Korea *update3*

Edit: For clarity and readability...
Edit 3: Overlooked the political agenda of the article

I wrote before that blogs are useful for dissecting editorials -- particularly terrible editorials -- and that most editorials on North Korea can be summed up in a couple sentences. Well, this is one of them and a particularly dangerous one as the author has a couple award winning books with a deliberate political agenda. A welcome distraction?! How on earth can we know it's a welcome distraction... But, it's worse than that... Let's take a look...

Barbara Demick, author of the award winning book, Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea and current Beijing Bureau Chief of the Los Angeles Times writes:

"This will distract people from their troubles," said Cho Myong-chol, a Pyongyang-born economist and son of a former North Korean minister. Cho, who now lives in Seoul, doesn't believe that Kim was intimately involved in the attack.

"It is more likely that a local naval commander did it, but there could be some short-term benefit," Cho said. "In the long run, of course, it will only make their problems worse."

In an assessment released last week based on intelligence reports, the Washington-based International Strategic Studies Assn. concluded, "Kim Jong Il was so far winning the Cheonan incident he had instigated."

The big loser has been South Korea's conservative ruling party, which was trounced in local elections Thursday. The Grand National Party had hoped that outrage over the Cheonan would boost its popularity; instead the electorate appeared to be more concerned that President Lee Myung-bak was exploiting the incident with his hard-line stand toward North Korea. Results of an investigation of the sinking were not released until May 20, two weeks before the election.

Let me begin...this editorial is taking the position that like in the past, a North Korean provocation has been used to the country's advantage -- some how without the knowledge of Kim Jong Il. They have done They have been successful by diverting domestic attention away from their economic plight and also by affecting local elections in South Korea....

The editorial suggests that average North Koreans are hurting -- the title of the editorial is "Sinking of ship provides welcome distraction for North Korea" and that Kim Jong Il is winning. What makes this article more dangerous after re-reading it is that she won an award for writing a book as an investigative reporter on the human rights situation in North Korea -- after writing a book about the human rights situation in the Balkans. So, in effect, she is in effect implying that the current right of center ruling party in South Korea is responsible for the suffering of average North Koreans, allowing the North Korean leadership to take advantage of the situation, and sacrificing South Korea's best interests (as Kim Jong Il is "winning"). And, moreover, the South Korean government is doing all this to further their own political interests, which is pretty much an outright lie if you consider what is going on in South Korea...

This is flat wrong. And, North Korea will receive no further aid. China is also furious at North Korea. And, let's not forget that the author mentions a report that says  "Kim Jong Il is winning the incident that he instigated," but --  in the same editorial -- refers to conclusions from an economist who says its probably the work of a "local naval commander." From the inherent contradiction here in sources, this should serve to show that the author is basically picking and choosing which sources to cite to backup her "argument".

While I have nothing against the book -- which I have yet to read and of which I have heard nothing but praise, the author here makes a sweeping and rather incorrect generalization that either borders on naivete or very lazy and perhaps even dishonest journalism. I'd like to believe it's out of naivete. Let's begin by looking at how it should read:

First of all, Cho Myong-Chol like many other North Koreans are quick to pass blame on anybody, but Kim Jong Il. (This view is even prevalent among North Korean defectors and is very similar to revisionist looks at the role of the Japanese Emperor during World War II.) And, this economist apparently believes North Koreans will somehow forget about hunger and hyperinflation -- which may be the single biggest threat to the stability of the DPRK regime with markets in North Korea playing a larger role now in the DPRK economy just by speaking of going to war again. The currency reform fiasco has well at least led to a governmental apology, the alleged execution of the individual that was apparently in charge of the currency reforms, and, well, actual backtracking on the reforms. Moreover, recent studies suggest North Koreans blame their economic plight on not the United States or Japan or global factors, but failed DPRK policies and to an extent China. (Blaming China is from one of the K-blogs linked from my blog; I'm sorry I cant remember the exact post, but the report of a North Korean speaker saying something along the lines of "I understand why the US & South Korea won't help us, but aren't the Chinese our allies...") 

But, moreover, I find it highly improbable in a country where if you look at some of the press releases of past six-party talks and transcripts of interviews of those involved in the six-party talks, where all aspects of the North Korean negotiation agenda tactics is handed are -- to the frustration of other parties at the six-talks -- were handed down directly from Pyongyang, that this could have happened without Kim Jong Il's approval. Now, with that said, I am not the only one who believes the sinking of the Cheonan was done without the approval from Kim Jong Il and there are many North Korean experts, such as Andrei Lankov, who feel the same way. (Also, the study cited in the editorial itself.) Now, just by reading this article in the Los Angeles Times, it makes it look as Cho Myong-Chol knows or that there is some type of agreement in that a local commander ordered the attacks without Kim Jong Il's knowledge... But, most importantly, when discussing North Korea -- nobody can actually know for sure and this view is actually a minority view among North Korean observers, experts, and the like...

Second, the author writes "the big loser is the GNP" -- the ruling, right of center political party in South Korea. Again, this is a sweeping generalization and it overlooks who is actually the big loser here -- China and, by extension, North Korea. I think while there is some sense in South Korea that Lee Myung Bak has used this for his political gain, which may be true, the Cheonan fiasco basically forced North Korea and China into a corner. I would not think too much about how the "GNP was trounced." North Korea will get hit by some symbolic slap on the wrist, but they will not get any further aid and I find it highly improbable that this will result in North Korea actually getting more aid from South Korea. In fact, if anything it looks like North Korea will get back only some of the aid South Korea took away as a result of the fiasco.

The incident has also solidified the US-ROK alliance, US-Japan alliance, and also encouraged better ties between South Korea and Japan -- all of which, is not in the interests of China. Furthermore, it has created an uproar against China for her two-Korea policy and basically makes the giant country look hostage -- which it pretty much is -- to North Korea and also made China's six-party talks a farce. I bet many minds in China are weighing the continuing costs of supporting the regime -- which I'm fairly sure China is currently doing with great hesitation and only at the bare minimum level to avert a DPRK regime collapse.

Again, we have no idea that North Koreans actually believe they are about to go to war with South Korea, but the editorial makes it sound like it's a fact. And, what's worse is that the author is not only spreading misinformation on a topic she seems to poorly understand, but that the editorial doesn't even seem to actually put forward an agenda or a real argument. It's just gibberish dishonest.

Add:
Also, South Korea's ruling GNP right of center political party suffered losses in many parts of the country in largely mayoral races -- not inclusive of Seoul I believe, but why on earth is there an article like this in the Los Angeles Times? I mean, if it were it in Hankyoreh-rubbish I would understand, but it's pretty clear that South Korea -- by internationalizing the issue -- singlehandley strengthened the US-South Korea Alliance, US-Japan Alliance, and Japan-South Korea ties. Furthermore, China has become enraged at North Korea and Kim Jong Il "winning" would mean a successful succession which I doubt that this incident has furthered. I'm not sure if the author is deliberately doing this, but it looks pretty damn deliberate and while she may be an investigative reportor of human rights situations in the more exotic places in the world, I wonder why she would deliberately dive in South Korean politics.  

DeCal Update, Fires in Los Angeles

The DeCal page is now up.

More information will be posted on this blog, yes, I do indeed plan on podcasting all the classes. The page can be found here.

On a personal note, the fires that are blazing through Los Angeles have been on my mind a lot over the past two days. It wouldn't have been possible to anticipate how wide the fire has spread, but my mother's house is in one of the mandatory evacuation zones as of 2 am Sunday morning and until now 1am Monday morning. And, my hometown of La Crescenta is one of those neighborhoods that are threatened by the fire. I came across this piece of work here in the Los Angeles Times, a publication that I have been critical of in the past:

At its southwestern flank, the fire is spreading actively in the foothills above
the 210 Freeway, from Altadena to Little Tujunga. Officials said they had four
control objectives for the day:
-- Keep the fire west of Mt. Wilson Road
-- Keep it south of Highway 14.
-- Keep it east of Interstate 5.
-- Keep it north of both Foothill Boulevard and Altadena Drive (Firefighters predict another difficult day as they battle blaze on multiple fronts Los Angeles Times)

I mean, I don't know if the situation is that desparate, though it looks pretty bad or if its a typo or if its probably the least ambitious goal I've ever seen. Though I fear I am treading on hallowed ground here by criticizng the firefighting effort, that statement right there should and probably would induce panic in a lot of people -- I believe it is an extreme case of irreponsible journalism.

If I were to criticize all four of those statements together, it would sound even worse as that's a huge stretch of land right there, but if just all the houses above Foothill Boulevard were lost, then that's half of La Crescenta and La Canada-Flintridge, not to mention the neighboring suburbs of Tujunga, Sunland, and Altadena. Twelve thousand homes as one publication put it. My family has lived there for more than two decades now and I've never seen this before nor have I seen such a lackluster goal before.

The Los Angeles Times does provide an "interactive map."