South Korean intelligence officials have adopted a skeptical stance when it comes to reports from Ukraine

South Korean intelligence officials have adopted a skeptical stance when it comes to reports from Ukraine. It’s gotten to the point where Korean intelligence officials are telling reporters to hold off on relaying reports about North Korean troops from Ukrainian officials until they receive third-party confirmation, because Ukraine makes “fake news” at the state level. This means we have to carefully consider the source of the information and the intentions behind it.

Archive link

  • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
    7·
    5 days ago

    Seoul is right in the headline.

    And in the article (right at the top, repeatedly) it’s not SK press, it’s SK intelligence agents saying this. The headline wouldn’t say “Seoul” and then have it be a private entity; “Seoul” is a metonym for the SK government. People only conflate individual institutions with the government when it’s China and some Chinese business does something stupid but not illegal.

    • Schlemmy@lemmy.ml
      2·
      5 days ago

      I know. Too much internet, half asleep. My phone should have a lock on me posting silly stuff when I’m that condition.

    • Glitterbomb@lemmy.world
      12·
      5 days ago

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hankyoreh

      In line with the newspaper’s nationalism and aspirations for reunification, its reporting of inter-Korean and East Asian affairs is based on its editorial policy seeking reconciliation, stability and peaceful co-prosperity through dialogue rather than pressure on the government of North Korea.

      This newspaper has a hard on for downplaying north Korean aggression. They want to all be friends.

      I read OPs article twice, and i can’t find any mention of any south Korean intelligence agents specifically. Are these anonymous sources? Is the whole thing made up? Where’s the direct quotes? There’s a whole lot of hand waving and nothing really of substance in this article.

      The authors position really starts to be apparent when you start looking at the rest of their reporting on the same website. You can also see how the author IS fully capable of providing quotes and sources, just I guess not on this latest article.

      https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1163962.html

      https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/1162683.html

      There’s just a few examples. This author makes every possible attempt to downplay North Korean aggression, blaming it on SK or the US every time.

      • Alsephina@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
        3·
        4 days ago

        For a liberal outlet, it’s pretty decent yeah. Doesn’t fall for US propaganda about the DPRK too much.

      • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
        7·
        5 days ago

        This newspaper has a hard on for downplaying north Korean aggression.

        Such a fucking chickenhawk you are. “Aw, these authors want to BUST MASSIVE LOADS all over KOREAN STRONGMEN. They want to be TOPPED by KIM JONG UN!” literally just because they want the peaceful reunification of their nation instead of a war for the US to have effective control of a land border with China.

        This author makes every possible attempt to downplay North Korean aggression, blaming it on SK or the US every time.

        From what you share I see quoting activists and trying to defuse stories that seem very improbable because there is a long history of SK and US media just making shit up about NK and it being gobbled up uncritically. But please, tell me about unicorns and state-mandated haircuts, it’ll be a good use of both our time. The kids eat the rats and the rats eat the kids.

        Edit: Oh, but to answer the main question I missed:

        It’s gotten to the point where Korean intelligence officials are telling reporters to hold off on relaying reports about North Korean troops from Ukrainian officials until they receive third-party confirmation

        Because it’s talking about intelligence officials talking directly to reporters, my feeling is that it’s an anonymous source, though it should definitely have made this clear.