Why does this story magically no longer become interesting because of a group that helps defected NKs?
There is nothing magic about it. The organization that’s cited isn’t the problem. The problem is the BBC cites that org as proof that this person’s claims are true. But neither that org nor the BBC have said, “we have corroborated Jin-su’s story.” On the contrary, the BBC just admits they didn’t or couldn’t corroborate the story themselves. So in my mind I may as well have read this article on any rando’s blog post, or in the NYT in 2001 under a Judith Miller byline. It lacks credence.
I wouldn’t have had anything to say if BBC said that they reviewed some documents that showed Jin-su’s claim. Maybe a few of the “hundreds” of fake IDs that he used, for example. But instead they just read another testimony from PSCORE. Was that other testimony verified? They don’t bother explaining. So they just use an unverified testimony from PSCORE and pass that off to make the reader believe that that’s good enough in place of actually verifying Jin-su’s testimony!
There is nothing magic about it. The organization that’s cited isn’t the problem. The problem is the BBC cites that org as proof that this person’s claims are true. But neither that org nor the BBC have said, “we have corroborated Jin-su’s story.” On the contrary, the BBC just admits they didn’t or couldn’t corroborate the story themselves. So in my mind I may as well have read this article on any rando’s blog post, or in the NYT in 2001 under a Judith Miller byline. It lacks credence.
I wouldn’t have had anything to say if BBC said that they reviewed some documents that showed Jin-su’s claim. Maybe a few of the “hundreds” of fake IDs that he used, for example. But instead they just read another testimony from PSCORE. Was that other testimony verified? They don’t bother explaining. So they just use an unverified testimony from PSCORE and pass that off to make the reader believe that that’s good enough in place of actually verifying Jin-su’s testimony!