My brother has a " crazy" theory that the Chinese government is actually behind all of the recent acts of agression on the part of the North Korean government. He doesn't think the North Koreans could have pulled off those cyber attacks, and it was actually the Chinese government itself who did it. And now we find out that these women may have been drug across the border to create an international incident.
He thinks everything they are doing (either in cahoots with the North Koreans or using them as a foil) is an elaborate ruse to draw attention from...well he doesn't know what. Granted, my brother enjoys his wacky tobakky and reads Robert Ludlum so he might just be paranoid.
Knowing very well the dangers of being in rock throwing range of the NK border, they put themselves at risk anyway. There is no point to be proven, as we all know how f*d up the NK regime is, so why risk it? It is just stupid. Blaming the guide? While I do have compassion for their plight and possible life imprisonment that, fortunately, did not play out that way, I think they put themselves at risk. Like the guide was some sort of sabotage-seeker in the pockets of the NK regime? um, ok.
@maggiethecat: Of course they put themselves at risk - they are journalists. They were investigating a story. By your logic, there would be no journalists in any war zones or near any country that is known to be hostile to journalists (which is many).
Are the journalists that have been kidnapped in Iraq "stupid" for taking the risk??
@maggiethecat: journalism is a risky business. We need journalists to take risks to ensure that the public understands what is going on. Knowing very well the dangers of going to Iraq, journalists go anyway. Knowing very well the dangers of going to Afghanistan, journalists go anyway. Knowing very well the dangers of...the list in infinite. Freedom of the Press is a human right, but we have to fight for it everyday.
@mama_t: It occurs to me that the journalists at National Geographic (whose story, "Escaping North Korea," ran in February 2009, before the recent escapades) managed to get the job done in depth without allowing themselves, the escapees, or the escapees' helpers to get captured. How is that?
@The Lone Scout: So journalists who are killed, kidnapped or captured doing their jobs only have themselves to blame? Not the people who kill or kidnap them? Just making sure I understand your argument.
@maggiethecat: They were doing an investigative report not "proving a point" that N. Korea is fucked up. Yes, I already knew that about NK but what I didn't know about was the plight of North Korean defectors in China.
I also don't think they're trying to "blame" anyone, they're simply giving an honest account of what happened.
@sewradical: A journalist who is killed, kidnapped or capture in the midst of a battlezone, or occupied territory, while covering war and conflict are one thing. But in the context of this story, which was not about things inside NK, but outside, as refugees in China, did not require these two journalists to put themselves in this kind of danger, or to expose themselves to the situation that ultimately caused their capture.
The Lone Scout's point is that there is 1. a choice that was made by the journalists that put themselves at risk, and to their credit they acknowledge that, and 2. a way to report on these kinds of stories WITHOUT putting yourself in such a dangerous situation.
Risk and Journalism are not synonyms. There have been hundres of reporters who have exposed horrific, mind-blowing regimes without traveling inside those territories and putting themselves directly in danger.
@stoprobbers: You're right that there is a difference between an occupied territory/war-zone and this situation. This situation is unique. All reporting situations are unique. I might even agree that they put themselves in a riskier situation than was necessary. However, I do disagree that there is a way to report on these types of stories without putting yourself in some danger. I also think that in this case, their actions are far less notable than those of the NK government. I do think that this LoneScout's wording places his/her comment squarely in the "blame the victim" category. LoneScout uses the word "allow."
If I drunk and am walking down a dark alley in a short skirt and I am assaulted, did I allow myself to get raped? I think there is a parallel here.
@sewradical: This, a million times. We seriously can't just stop covering news that's risky.
And I'm sorry, @maggiethe cat, but I don't consider it "stupid" to cover how fucked up the North Korea regime is. It's one of the most secretive societies in the world today, and also a pretty sizeable threat to our allies in Asia. We really do rely on this type of ground reporting to gather reliable facts about the regime, and IMO it's pretty lazy and lousy to write off any news coverage of an area most Americans actually know damn little about.
@stoprobbers: "There have been hundres of reporters who have exposed horrific, mind-blowing regimes without traveling inside those territories and putting themselves directly in danger."
Then they got lucky. Or they took risks you don't know about. Some stories can't be told unless you actually go there. You can get close by talking to people who have escaped from terrible regimes but sometimes journalists need to be the people on the ground telling those of us who will never go there exactly what it's like. I'd say the same is even more true for photojournalists. For them, it's even more imperative that they be there to document the atrocities they see.
Yes, they put themselves in danger. They're aware of that. But they measure the risk to themselves (and to their families and friends) against the idea that the truth is absolute and terrible stories need to be told. That's a journalist's job, sometimes at the expense of personal safety. And in some cases, life. It's a tough decision and msot of us wouldn't do it. But I have to admire the ones who do. It speaks to the ultimately noble nature of journalism: To tell the stories of those who can't speak for themselves.
@willwriteforfood: Did you notice that Gawker segregated their work into two postings for this topic (and for Sara Jessica Parker and American Apparel)? Two bad it's requiring some fancy footwork for us to keep up the discussion on both Gawker and Jezebel.
The true victims in North Korea are the general population who are subject to physical and mental abuse (or destruction) by their government. I'm not going to recode the links in this comment (they're present in my previous rants), but I'll point out again that National Geographic already did this story in a way such that the journalists didn't become the story.
Ling and Lee took a calculated risk, as journalists often do, but sorely miscalculated (or were pushed into the miscalculation by their capitalist running dog bosses). Also, the circumstances of their imprisonment are still uncomfirmed; were they indeed hosted in an official guest house? [Pausing while I savor the opportunity to use a semicolon. Okay; done. Whoops! There I go again.]
Look, amateurism and privilege are considered fair targets at Gawker, and I am just trying to execise gun control by hitting the targets at which I aim.
@sewradical: There might be a parallel, but not in the way that you intended.
The world is a dangerous place. I always blame the evil ones. But I know that they are there. And I am realistic and experienced enough to try and avoid putting myself in their way.
By the way, your rape analogy was a low blow, intellectually and gut-wise. I didn't wish any ill on Ling or Lee, and I didn't send them over there knowing about their lack of experience. Ring up their bosses and ask them why they sent them down that dark alley.
@The Lone Scout: The Nat' Geographic journalist repeatedly emphasized the risky nature of his project. He was at risk, as were his guides, the refugees, and the under-ground railroad of volunteers.
It was made clear that a N. Korean or Chinese spy could be anywhere.
It was also made clear that anyone who gave their real identities was further endangering themselves. Thus the pseudonyms and masks over parts of peoples' faces.
I think basically it comes down to Nat'l Geographic having a lot of influence, money, and connections. And the journalist having good luck.
One also wonders if the NG story led to more of a crackdown on the border, resulting in the cases like Ling and Lee.
Its dangerous. Increasingly so, perhaps. And I really commend the journalists and all the people who are risking their lives to help refugees and political prisoners in N. Korea, China, and the many other places in the world suffering turmoil and oppression.
@The Lone Scout: You know that the 'evil ones' are there probably because someone has reported on them.
Yes, Lee and Ling made a bad decision by following the guard, but throwing your hands up and saying, 'Well, evil people will do evil things. Too bad for you," is condoning that kind of evil behaviour, not trying to bring awareness of it in order for it to end.
Also your logic that because others have avoided capture that they must have been inexperienced or unrealistic rings false, and does have parallels to rape-victimisation. When people are exploited and violently taken advantage of, it's not, in any way, the fault of the victim, not matter the choices they made. Short of calling out 'Yoo-hoo! Come over here and capture me!' Ling and Lee couldn't have done anything to 'deserve' to be captured.
@fluxus flucker: Many good points. The National Geographic team was probably better prepared, as you wrote, maybe even more experienced--so maybe Current threw Ling and Lee to the wolves? Maybe there was some luck involved, but it sounds like the NG made its own luck as much as possible before crossing the river. I commend them for the wrenching story and photos that they produced.
@JerkoftheMonth: It's not Disneyland out there. PRNK is not only different, but dangerous. Do I misunderstand you when you write that "Ling and Lee couldn't have done anything to 'deserve' to be captured"? They most certainly and knowingly violated the border of a sovereign nation, one known to be extremely aggressive.
Lee was raised in ROK before coming to university in California and should know more than most Americans about the dangers. And anyone can read about the violent incidents and volatile border situation that exists at the Joint Security Area.
I don't get it. Are you suggesting that someone should be able to enter PRNK without permission in a known area of escape and not be punished? It's going to take a lot more than moral indignation to change PRNK. Like regime change?
@The Lone Scout: I agree. How people throw in these heavy loaded words and act as though the commenter they are replying to stated them or implied them is very scary.
@maggiethecat: I believe that's a possibility--perhaps Current did not or could not provide the same advance work and reliable contacts that National Geographic did for its journalists.
@maggiethecat: Frankly, I am beginning to think that some of the commenters are guilty of the same cultural ignorance that they would find in an Ugly American tourist from a "flyover" state wondering why everyone doesn't speak English when they visit a foreign land. (It's almost as if Ling and Lee had a right to sneak into PRNK unemcumbered.)
I am also growing more confused as to why there is such opposition to considering the apparent amateurishness of the Ling-Lee affair, particularly considering the risks they were taking (or were force to take by Current). And maybe I am not picking up all of the cultural angles.
@bluebears: True. Wishful thinking. When I've suggested 'maybe she was kidnapped across the border' it's been met with 'she still should not have been so far away for so long.' UGH.
@h_bee: Yeah. For some reason I was talking about this with my pharmacist, and he said women shouldn't travel for work because "they are the more important parent for a young child." I told him I disagreed, and gave a big long explanation. Maybe I swayed him, maybe I didn't. But I'm astounded by how prevalent that attitude is.
Hillary, that is awesome.
That is also the same laugh tech support agents use when they use their Mute buttons on their phones.
Not that I would know this.
@bluebears: Not to worry. It happens a lot less with legitimate problems, because those are interesting.
It happens more during calls like this: "Hi, do I need to turn the printer off at night?" "Well, no, unless you want to save power, there's no technical reason you need to." "OK, then YOU need to call my cubemate RIGHT NOW because SHE turns off the printer EVERY NIGHT and then I come in in the morning and I cannot print and I have to go turn it on and it is SUCH A HASSLE. So YOU are going to call her and tell her this." *mute button* *Hillary laughter*
It's like that.
@bluebears: I feel sure they are not laughing at me when I tell them I have an electromagnetic field that makes all electronics go insane and commit hari-kari, and wonder if there is some sort of de-magnetizing therapy they know about that I could undergo.
I'm glad she can laugh at mention of John Bolton's name. Invoking his name just makes me feel like punching him in the face. Or grabbing hold of one handle of his mustache and ripping it off like a band-aid.
Obviously I don't have a career ahead of me in international diplomacy.
@willwriteforfood: I totally know what you mean. Every time something like this happens I realize that the world is better off for me not being in politics because I would be all like this: [icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com]
I am sooo happy these two women were freed...don't get me wrong. It just seems strange that nobody talks about how they got into that position in the first place that kinda bothers me. Did they indeed commit a crime by crossing that infamous border illegally? Lets hear some more on the facts that led up to their imprisonment.
@paintedangel: apparently they were only near the china - north korea border with no intentions of crossing and north korean guards picked them up. can't exactly remember the source but if i can find it again, i will post a link for you!
09/02/09
He thinks everything they are doing (either in cahoots with the North Koreans or using them as a foil) is an elaborate ruse to draw attention from...well he doesn't know what. Granted, my brother enjoys his wacky tobakky and reads Robert Ludlum so he might just be paranoid.
09/03/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Are the journalists that have been kidnapped in Iraq "stupid" for taking the risk??
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
I also don't think they're trying to "blame" anyone, they're simply giving an honest account of what happened.
09/02/09
The Lone Scout's point is that there is 1. a choice that was made by the journalists that put themselves at risk, and to their credit they acknowledge that, and 2. a way to report on these kinds of stories WITHOUT putting yourself in such a dangerous situation.
Risk and Journalism are not synonyms. There have been hundres of reporters who have exposed horrific, mind-blowing regimes without traveling inside those territories and putting themselves directly in danger.
09/02/09
If I drunk and am walking down a dark alley in a short skirt and I am assaulted, did I allow myself to get raped? I think there is a parallel here.
09/02/09
And I'm sorry, @maggiethe cat, but I don't consider it "stupid" to cover how fucked up the North Korea regime is. It's one of the most secretive societies in the world today, and also a pretty sizeable threat to our allies in Asia. We really do rely on this type of ground reporting to gather reliable facts about the regime, and IMO it's pretty lazy and lousy to write off any news coverage of an area most Americans actually know damn little about.
09/02/09
Then they got lucky. Or they took risks you don't know about. Some stories can't be told unless you actually go there. You can get close by talking to people who have escaped from terrible regimes but sometimes journalists need to be the people on the ground telling those of us who will never go there exactly what it's like. I'd say the same is even more true for photojournalists. For them, it's even more imperative that they be there to document the atrocities they see.
Yes, they put themselves in danger. They're aware of that. But they measure the risk to themselves (and to their families and friends) against the idea that the truth is absolute and terrible stories need to be told. That's a journalist's job, sometimes at the expense of personal safety. And in some cases, life. It's a tough decision and msot of us wouldn't do it. But I have to admire the ones who do. It speaks to the ultimately noble nature of journalism: To tell the stories of those who can't speak for themselves.
09/02/09
The true victims in North Korea are the general population who are subject to physical and mental abuse (or destruction) by their government. I'm not going to recode the links in this comment (they're present in my previous rants), but I'll point out again that National Geographic already did this story in a way such that the journalists didn't become the story.
Ling and Lee took a calculated risk, as journalists often do, but sorely miscalculated (or were pushed into the miscalculation by their capitalist running dog bosses). Also, the circumstances of their imprisonment are still uncomfirmed; were they indeed hosted in an official guest house? [Pausing while I savor the opportunity to use a semicolon. Okay; done. Whoops! There I go again.]
Look, amateurism and privilege are considered fair targets at Gawker, and I am just trying to execise gun control by hitting the targets at which I aim.
09/02/09
The world is a dangerous place. I always blame the evil ones. But I know that they are there. And I am realistic and experienced enough to try and avoid putting myself in their way.
By the way, your rape analogy was a low blow, intellectually and gut-wise. I didn't wish any ill on Ling or Lee, and I didn't send them over there knowing about their lack of experience. Ring up their bosses and ask them why they sent them down that dark alley.
09/02/09
It was made clear that a N. Korean or Chinese spy could be anywhere.
It was also made clear that anyone who gave their real identities was further endangering themselves. Thus the pseudonyms and masks over parts of peoples' faces.
I think basically it comes down to Nat'l Geographic having a lot of influence, money, and connections. And the journalist having good luck.
One also wonders if the NG story led to more of a crackdown on the border, resulting in the cases like Ling and Lee.
Its dangerous. Increasingly so, perhaps. And I really commend the journalists and all the people who are risking their lives to help refugees and political prisoners in N. Korea, China, and the many other places in the world suffering turmoil and oppression.
09/02/09
Yes, Lee and Ling made a bad decision by following the guard, but throwing your hands up and saying, 'Well, evil people will do evil things. Too bad for you," is condoning that kind of evil behaviour, not trying to bring awareness of it in order for it to end.
Also your logic that because others have avoided capture that they must have been inexperienced or unrealistic rings false, and does have parallels to rape-victimisation. When people are exploited and violently taken advantage of, it's not, in any way, the fault of the victim, not matter the choices they made. Short of calling out 'Yoo-hoo! Come over here and capture me!' Ling and Lee couldn't have done anything to 'deserve' to be captured.
09/02/09
09/02/09
Lee was raised in ROK before coming to university in California and should know more than most Americans about the dangers. And anyone can read about the violent incidents and volatile border situation that exists at the Joint Security Area.
I don't get it. Are you suggesting that someone should be able to enter PRNK without permission in a known area of escape and not be punished? It's going to take a lot more than moral indignation to change PRNK. Like regime change?
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
I am also growing more confused as to why there is such opposition to considering the apparent amateurishness of the Ling-Lee affair, particularly considering the risks they were taking (or were force to take by Current). And maybe I am not picking up all of the cultural angles.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
That is also the same laugh tech support agents use when they use their Mute buttons on their phones.
Not that I would know this.
08/07/09
08/07/09
It happens more during calls like this: "Hi, do I need to turn the printer off at night?" "Well, no, unless you want to save power, there's no technical reason you need to." "OK, then YOU need to call my cubemate RIGHT NOW because SHE turns off the printer EVERY NIGHT and then I come in in the morning and I cannot print and I have to go turn it on and it is SUCH A HASSLE. So YOU are going to call her and tell her this." *mute button* *Hillary laughter*
It's like that.
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/08/09
08/08/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
I'm sure they had this picture in the background for her to look at.
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/07/09
Obviously I don't have a career ahead of me in international diplomacy.
08/07/09
08/07/09
08/05/09
08/05/09