Hypocrisy- Exposing Shoddy Monopoly Media Analysis
13, 2016 "Information
- The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)
conducted another nuclear test on Friday, 9
Barack Obama stated:
clear, the United States does not, and never
will, accept North Korea as a nuclear state...
Today's nuclear test, a flagrant violation of
multiple UN Security Council Resolutions, makes
clear North Korea's disregard for international
norms and standards for behavior and
demonstrates it has no interest in being a
responsible member of the international
Obama's statement in mind, consider the answer to
these relevant questions:
the DPRK attacked another country? Can the same
be said about the Republic of Korea (ROK)?
every member of the United Nations not have the
right to self defense under article
51 of the United Nations Charter?
the US refrain from attacking other countries?
the aggressions launched against Iraq, Libya,
and Syria show a regard for international norms
the US genuinely demonstrated an interested in
being a responsible member of the international
the US adhered to article
VI of the NPT a binding commitment for
disarmament by the nuclear-weapon states?
Iraq, Libya, and Syria have been attacked if
they had been nuclear-weapon states?
Monopoly Media "Analysis" as Disinformation
state/corporate media in the West give a balanced
reporting on the DPRK? Or independent
the level of "analysis"
by Saa Petricic of Canadian state media, the CBC.
Petricic's "analysis": "Appeals, inducements or
threats [against the DPRK] ... nothing seems to have
ignorant of, or even worse, fails to mention that in
1994 the US and DPRK signed the Agreed
Framework, whereby the DPRK would freeze
operation and construction of nuclear reactors
allegedly part of a covert nuclear weapons program
in exchange for two proliferation-resistant nuclear
power reactors. The US was to supply the DPRK with
fuel oil pending construction of the reactors.
Bush II regime undermined
this agreement brokered by the Bill Clinton
regime. So much for that inducement.
Petricic: "Not even some of the toughest sanctions
the UN Security Council has applied against any
country, implemented in March. Those were meant to
severely limit trade with North Korea, and choke off
the money and supplies Pyongyang needs to continue
its nuclear program."
an Atlantic article titled "Why
Is the U.S. Withholding Food Aid From Starving North
Korea?," Morton Abramowitz questioned the
morality behind US sanctions against the DPRK: "The
American policy, meant to punish the regime, is
worsening a humanitarian crisis." If there is any
verisimilitude to the idiom you catch more flies
with honey than vinegar then the US strategy is
highly dubious, immoral, and at cross purposes.
are commonly considered an act
of war. The DPRK views the
sanctions to be an act of war. Noam Chomsky criticized sanctions
against Iraq as "murderous" and "devastating" akin
to a WMD. Hence, by placing the DPRK under
sanctions, the US had orchestrated a state of war.
But that is hardly surprising since the US has refused to
entertain a peace or non-hostility pact with the
one contradiction within Petricic's article. He
Korea says its aim is to become a nuclear power,
one with the means to threaten the United States
with weapons powerful enough to wreak havoc,
small enough to shoot overseas on the tip of a
with what follows later in article:
North Korean people are "always ready to
retaliate against the enemies," it said on state
TV after Friday's blast. "It is part of
practical countermeasures to the racket of
threat and sanctions against [North Korea]
kicked up by the U.S.-led hostile forces who
have gone desperate."
analyze! In quotation one, "North Korea says...,"
but there is no spokesperson cited, no source, no
link, no footnote. How is one to verify or refute
such a statement? It is shoddy journalism. Petricic
shreds his own analysis by the quotation in case
two. Here North Korean state TV is provided as a
source. Now compare what Petricic states in
quotation one "its aim is ... the means
to threaten the United States with weapons powerful
enough to wreak havoc" to quotation two "ready
to retaliate against the enemies." [italics added]
In the unsourced quotation the DPRK is presented
as threatening; in the sourced quotation the DPRK is
presented as defensive, i.e., "ready to retaliate."
There is a world of difference between the two
quotations, but that has seemed to elude Petricic's
asserts, "And, it [the DPRK] continues to threaten
the United States and South Korea."
How is it
that Petricic determines and defines a threat? One
might imagine that the DPRK has client states
bordering the US where DPRK forces and missiles are
stationed. No? Presumably, according to Petricic's
logic, the mere possession of nuclear weapons and
ballistic missile capability is considered a threat
by the world military superpower and its militarily occupied
subaltern. How then should the DPRK feel
considering a peace pact has been rebuffed, that
of US nukes were sought during the US war on
Korea and that the nukes remained stationed in the
Republic of Korea until 1991, that 28,500 US troops
are still stationed in the south, and that the US-ROK
engage in annual war games (ramped
up in 2016)? Why is all this pertinent history
and information undiscussed in the CBC "analysis"?
even found a Chinese source to cite: Xiaohe Cheng,
the deputy director of Renmin University's Centre
for China's International Strategic studies in
Beijing who is quoted:
think the decision makers in Pyongyang have to
think hard before they make further nuclear and
missile provocations. China's tolerance of
DPRK's bad behaviours is limited," he says.
push China too hard."
That same advice ought to be viewed from all angles.
It is not forgotten in China, and should not be
forgotten in the US, what happened when the US
pushed toward the Yalu River in its war crimes
galore, scorched earth campaign in Korea from
1950-1953 [See Korean Truth Commission, Report on
U.S. Crimes in Korea: 1945-2001 (New York: 2001)].
solution is perforating the bubble of media
disinformation and pursuing peace, all parties
entering into a binding peace treaty, withdrawal of
US forces from the south of Korea, and an end to
sanctions against the north of Korea.
Petersen is a former co-editor of Dissident Voice.