North Korea Issues New Threat After Naval Clash

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Body
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

The media shapes the general thinking of people around the world besides influencing their ideologies. A certain pattern that has emerged is whereby the media doctors the information given to the public such that it ends up communicating its own opinion to the public. Ironically, this happens on a large scale in societies that would claim to enjoy democratic rights. Here, governors, senators, presidents, and other politicians are greatly at the mercy of the media to attain and maintain political offices. Tools that are at the disposal of media houses are enormous. (The National 2009)

This may include choosing which news to report, altering information on actual events, fronting headlines in a biased manner among other things. History however is not biased. It is only in the future that we may understand how events happening today shaped the world. We may try to look at the world with keen and discerning eyes independent of media reporting. We may then be surprised to learn how we have been blinded by the media and our cocoons of ignorance that does not give us a true picture of world events. To help us understand this better, I will review a recent event that occurred in Asia where North Korea and South Korea were involved in naval combat. (SANG-HUN 2009)

Body

North Korea and South Korea are in existence as a result of the “cold war” that existed between the U.S and Russia. In fact, forces from both countries were involved in warfare that split Korea into two countries. While North Korea is basically a communist society and country, South Korea is more democratic and an Important ally of the United States. These two countries are always suspicious of each other and have put measures that suggest full combat can occur between the two at any time. While the Northern country is poorer than its counterpart, it has built a formidable military force that could include nuclear weapons. The possibility of the Northern state acquiring nuclear weapons has caused the U. S and its allies to review their foreign policies and accommodate the northern state to guard their security. North Korea claims that it has missiles that can strike any part of the world. (SANG-HUN 2009)

From the New York Times reporting, the headline on this event was, “North Korea Issues New Threat after Naval Clash”. The reporter goes ahead to give details on how the two countries were involved in naval combat and are pointing fingers at each other for firing the first shot. He says that the northern state has threatened to retaliate “mercilessly” and that the southern state will pay dearly for this aggression. He tells us that the two countries have had a ceasefire for seven years. He then concludes by telling us that the north has this time undermined negotiations with the United States. (SANG-HUN 2009)

As much as the reporter has tried to give us accurate information on this event, there are elements of bias in this reporting. The media reporting has labeled North Korea as an aggressive state and a warmonger. The news headline: “North Korea Issues New Threat after Naval Clash” suggests that North Korea is a country that issues continuous threats. It is therefore obvious that the media has an obvious preset mindset about the country. Although my analysis will point more towards South Korea as being the aggressor in this particular case, this has not been pointed out in the reporting. Moreover, I do not think it was necessary to use words like “pay dearly” or “merciless military measures”. It could be better to frame the statements and words used in the reporting in a way that reflects a clearer picture of the situation. Words like the North are greatly displeased by the south actions and are even considering retaliation if the south does not apologize would have been more applicable. One fair question to ask ourselves is the events that should have followed including the U.S media reporting if the roles of the two countries had been reversed. (The National 2009)

The BBC media reported the event under the headline; “US warns over Koreas naval clash.” The report goes ahead to state that the U.S has warned the Northern state against retaliation ahead of the U.S president’s tour in Asia which is expected to focus on North Korea. The reporter is careful to include sources from both countries which have conflicting reports. Each side claims to have had an upper hand during the combat. The reporter tells us about the relationship of the two countries at sea including past conflicts. During all this reporting, the reporter gives us opinions on issues from both sides as they were given to him. I find this to be good reporting that is not leaning on any side. However, this approach may hide some information. This may be actual information that the reporter considers to be biased. (KIM 2009)

A reporter from the National Newspaper in South Korea has reported this event under the headline; “North and South Korean ships exchange fire”. He tells us that North Korea and South Korean ships exchanged fire before the North Korean ship retreated after suffering heavy damage. He reports that there were no South Korean casualties and that it was not clear whether the North had suffered casualties. According to his reporting, it is the North Korean ship that crossed disputed waters attracting warning shots from the south. The North Korean ship then opened fire causing the South Korean counterparts to retaliate before the northern ship retreated to its waters. The reporter goes ahead to tell us that the North has threatened the south with aggression and that it could retaliate. This reporting is obviously biased towards the North. (KIM 2009)

A report from Singapore on the event is almost similar to the one from BBC under a different heading; “North Korea vows to defend itself after sea clash” Like the reporting from BBC, the reporter is careful to give opinions from the two countries considering how the two countries have related in the past. Analyst opinions have been also considered. These analysts have ruled out the possibility of a military escalation between the two countries due to diplomatic approaches of the United States. (The Korean Herald 2009)

It is only people who understand a number of things that can actually get a clearer picture of what really occurred. First, one must understand the historical relationship of the United States, North Korea and South Korea. Secondly, one must understand the changing world politics especially with the emerging economic powerhouse of China and other Asian countries. Thirdly, one also needs to know the leanings of the media houses towards their country’s ideologies on issues in their reporting. (The Korean Herald 2009)

I do not know if we can call it nationalism but most media houses are on a mission to guard the pride of their countries. One can also read a lot into these reports that may be a reflection of true foreign policies from different countries. For example, since South Korea is a great ally of the United States, It will be very difficult for the western media to present it in bad light. The reverse is true and applicable to North Korea which has been displayed in a bad light. What we are being told is how western governments see some countries including the relevance and behavior of these countries instead of getting true facts from the media. It may be described as an exponential cycle that is perpetuated, maintained, and enlarged by the media and the general population that is fed by incorrect information that will influence its behavior. (The Korean Herald 2009)

North Korea has indeed displayed some actions that may according to our current understanding of world issues indicate an element of aggression in the past. This includes launching and testing of missiles that could launch nuclear weapons in various positions around the world including the United States. This could be another factor that would make most people judge or understand others from their past actions. However, regarding this specific example is the controversial question of whether the country (North Korea) has a right like western countries to acquire nuclear arsenal. (KIM 2009)

Being an important ally of the United States, South Koreans have probably infiltrated various spheres of the U. S economy including media houses. This could range from shareholders in these media companies to working personnel. This obviously puts South Korea in a position to influence the western media to its advantage at the expense of North Korea. It could also be like a symbiotic kind of reporting. It is probable that the South Korean media normally strives to put the United States in good light even when the country is morally wrong on some issues that affect the world. The state-controlled North Korean media on the other hand will probably display the U.S in bad light. (The Korean Herald 2009)

The loads of media houses have proved on many occasions to be biased. When an issue occurs, one can almost predict accurately how the event will be reported by different media houses. Some media houses have shown to be historically connected to some ideologies. Media house owners have a great say in this reporting. While they may be forced to report news in ways that attract their customers, their underlying opinions on issues are almost always there. These media owners are likely those kinds of people who take great pride in their countries and are very unlikely to promote media reporting that will reveal the weaknesses of their countries and countries they consider to be their allies. (The National 2009)

If we were to report these events in the future, how differently would we do this considering how these events have shaped our history? I doubt that we would see North Korea as an aggressive country but as a country that was trying to fight for its rights in a world where it had been neglected, labeled and ignored by the western world. Maybe we will then see that the true aggressor in this particular case was the United States which contributed to the splitting of this country into two different states and even perpetuated hate between the two countries through its one-sided foreign policy. This incident where a North Korean sea vessel was attacked by South Koreans is an aftermath of the cold war that existed between Russia and the U. S. While the former U.S.S.R. collapsed, its communism elements are still alive in the current world including North Korea. (KIM 2009)

Conclusion

The media would be doing the world a great favor by feeding it with correct and accurate information that considers future implications. This is arguably the best way of shaping the popular ideologies that could draft policies that promote peace around the world. While the media has a free hand to choose which news it will report and how it will report the news, it needs to know that the consequence information it relays to the public cannot be ignored. In Rwanda, people killed each other partly after being incited by the media. In the U.S, incompetent politicians have been elected after getting media support. In some Arabic countries the media has created Islamic extremists. The power of the media is extremely enormous. It, therefore, needs to be exercised with utmost care.

Works Cited

KIM, KWANGTAE. NKorea vows to defend itself after sea clash. Associated press writer. 2009. Print.

SANG-HUN, CHOE. North Korea Issues New Theat After Naval Clash. 2009. Print.

The Korean Herald. Us warns over Koreas Naval clash. Seoul, South Korea. 2009. Print.

The National. North and South Korean ships exchange.Canada. 2009. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!

North Korea Issues New Threat After Naval Clash

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)