You’re not addressing the fact that BBC admits they didn’t/couldn’t substantiate his claims, which apparently is no problem for your own journalistic standards.
They are reporting on what he told them. Would you expect a news outlet to be able to somehow verify the testimony of a prisoner of war before reporting on it?
The title and article both make it clear that they are reporting his story.
Additionally, the rest of the article - including the ones before and after your quote - discusses numerous cases of other similar scenarios.
Would you expect a news outlet to be able to somehow verify the testimony of a prisoner of war before reporting on it?
“If the circumstance were different would you expect something different?” is what you are asking me. The interviewee isn’t a POW, but a defector. And not an escapee, because according to the article he was already sent abroad, so it’s not like he fled with merely the clothes on his back and a story to tell. So I would presume he would have a bit more evidence to share with the BBC than just a story, just as many of the people responding to me seem to presume that because it’s been reported by the BBC it’s prima facie undeniably true.
ml and their daydream of a perfect NK is hilarious to see in the wild.
You can have healthy skepticism without jumping to the other end of the spectrum of DPRK stan.
Normal people can, yes, but .ml isn’t full of normal people. There’s a good reason for the instance’s stereotype.
You’re not addressing the fact that BBC admits they didn’t/couldn’t substantiate his claims, which apparently is no problem for your own journalistic standards.
They are reporting on what he told them. Would you expect a news outlet to be able to somehow verify the testimony of a prisoner of war before reporting on it?
The title and article both make it clear that they are reporting his story.
Additionally, the rest of the article - including the ones before and after your quote - discusses numerous cases of other similar scenarios.
“If the circumstance were different would you expect something different?” is what you are asking me. The interviewee isn’t a POW, but a defector. And not an escapee, because according to the article he was already sent abroad, so it’s not like he fled with merely the clothes on his back and a story to tell. So I would presume he would have a bit more evidence to share with the BBC than just a story, just as many of the people responding to me seem to presume that because it’s been reported by the BBC it’s prima facie undeniably true.
Why would i address that?
Was i ordered to adress anything other than what I’ve already commented on?
Have I been compelled to address it?
Do i believe in any way that NK isn’t unfortunately a shithole fascist dictatorship of a country?
Do i feel bad for you for wanting to think NK is a theme park sunday stroll paradise?
No.
You’re tedious and annoying.
If tedious and annoying means you can’t handle reality, yes, yes I am.