No, Kim likely didn’t feed his uncle to 120 dogs
WASHINGTON — 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 was first reported Dec. 12 by a minor Hong Kong outlet, was picked up Dec. 24 by a Singaporean newspaper and since late Thursday has been sweeping through nearly every corner of the U.S. media. The only problem is that it’s probably — probably — not true.
It was a surprise last month when South Korean intelligence revealed that Mr. Kim had purged his own 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, which is a high bar for North Korea news.
Crazy-sounding stories happen with some frequency in North Korea, where the government has a well-earned reputation for taking political punishments to medieval extremes. But there are five big reasons this story just does not seem particularly plausible. The fact that the Western media have so widely accepted a story they would reject if it came out of any other country tells us a lot about how North Korea is covered, and how it’s misunderstood.
First and foremost, consider the source. The story originated in a Hong Kong newspaper called Wen Wei Po, which makes the claim without citing a source. Also, a recent study found that, of Hong Kong’s 21 newspapers, Wen Wei Po ranks 19th for credibility.
Second, consider that the rest of the Chinese media have not touched this story in almost a month since its publication.
“This story has hardly been picked up on by Korean media, which is one reason to be suspicious. The other reason to be suspicious is because the rumor surfaced ages ago — but no one paid attention to it.”
— Chad O’Carroll, editor for news site NKNews.org
China’s other media have been sticking to the same story everyone else has: that Jang was killed either by machine gun or antiaircraft guns.
Third, South Korea’s media also have not touched the story. “This story has hardly been picked up on by Korean media, which is one reason to be suspicious,” Chad O’Carroll, who edits the news site NKNews.org, said via email. “The other reason to be suspicious is because the rumor surfaced ages ago — but no one paid attention to it.”
South Korean media are quite plugged into North Korean defector communities, to sources still in the country and, most especially, to South Korea’s intelligence agency. Some outlets can be eager to pick up stories or rumors that portray North Korea in a negative light. But South Korea’s many news outlets, big and small, seem to be treating this story as implausible.
Fourth, the time lapse: This story has been around for almost a month, and it’s not been anywhere near confirmed. That alone is not surprising, but the fact that Asia’s many media circles have not even deigned to acknowledge the report is pretty telling. You might say Asian media are treating it the way U.S. outlets respond when the National Enquirer reports that Hillary Rodham Clinton is ensnared in a sex scandal — by ignoring it.
Fifth, the predominant story of what happened is much more plausible. It’s not as though we’re operating completely in the dark about Jang’s execution. Far more credible outlets with far more credible sourcing have consistently described Jang as having been executed by firing squad; typically, he is said to have been killed by anti-aircraft guns, though sometimes that is rounded down to machine guns.
This is just much more consistent with what we know about North Korea. “He was in a military tribunal, so it seems logical he would be executed by firing squad,” Mr. O’Carroll said.
That South Korea’s better-sourced and more credible media outlets continue to maintain that Jang was executed by firing squad, and not by 120 hungry dogs, as reported by a lone Hong Kong newspaper, should really underscore which version of events is more likely.
But why are so many people — and so many major U.S. media outlets — still willing to treat this implausible story as plausible? This seems to be a problem particular to stories out of North Korea, about which almost any story is treated as broadly credible, no matter how outlandish or thinly sourced. There’s no other country to which we bring such a high degree of gullibility.
We know so little about what really happens inside North Korea, and especially inside its leader’s head, that very little is disprovable. But the things we do know are often so bizarre that just about anything can seem possible.
“I guess editors feel it is more legitimate to publish unverifiable, sensationalist information on North Korea because they can always fall back on the defense: ‘How could we check? North Korea is so closed,’” said Mr. O’Carroll.
Still, the thing about this story and so many others like it from North Korea is that there is a remote chance that it could still be true.
“Bottom line is: unlikely, but I can’t rule it out,” Mr. O’Carroll, whose NKNews site is known for its sober and careful coverage of North Korea, acknowledged. “While this one definitely feels exaggerated, who knows?”