Viral story about execution in North Korea lacks credibility
Friday's viral Internet story claims that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had his uncle executed last month by stripping him naked and feeding him to 120 hungry dogs. The story since late Thursday has been sweeping through nearly every corner of the American media. The only problem: It's probably not true.
It was a surprise last month when South Korean intelligence revealed that Kim had purged his uncle, Jang Song Thaek, which North Korea confirmed a couple of days later with a long screed in its state media. The highly public nature of the purge, which ended with Pyongyang announcing Jang's execution, was totally unprecedented and legitimately shocking, a high bar for North Korea news.
There are five reasons that this story just does not seem particularly plausible:
• Consider the source. The story originated in a Hong Kong newspaper called Wen Wei Po, which makes the claim without citing a source. Out of Hong Kong's 21 newspapers, Wen Wei Po ranks 19th for credibility.
• The rest of the Chinese media have not touched this story in the almost-month since it came out.
• South Korea's media have not touched the story. Some of those outlets can be eager to pick up stories or rumors that portray North Korea in a negative light.
• The time lapse: This story has been around for almost a month, and it's not been anywhere near confirmed.
• The predominant story of what happened is much more plausible. Far more credible outlets with far more credible sourcing have consistently described Jang as having been executed by a firing squad.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.