Name : 金娥岚

School : 国际关系学院

Student ID Number : 00724611

Contact : eva1426@yahoo.co.kr                                  Score :

Eval　　uation of The New York Times, coverage on the North Korea Nuclear Crisis

Abstract

Despite professor Gusterson’s criticism about the New York Times coverage on the North Korea nuclear program, there were no big biased content. This article eval　　uates its accuracy through The New York Times’ coverage on two important issue of North Korea nuclear program. One　　 is North Korea’s missile test in 2006, and another is the February 2007 agreement with North Korea. The New York Times, contrast to some criticism, stated both event fairly and specifically, thus, The New York Times cannot be blames for its unfairness.

Key Words

The New York Times; North Korea; Nuclear Weapon; Missile; Media Bias; News Media;   

Introduction

According to Voice of America (VOA) reports (3/15/08), Hugh Gusterson, a professor at the College of Humanities and Social Sciences of George Mason University claimed that mainstream American print media including The New York Times coverage of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has been deeply flawed, which resulted in skewed policy debates and confusion among the public.

Being interested in this issue, thus, I did my research and through this essay, I will eval　　uate how the U.S media sees the North Korea nuclear weapon program and whether the New York Times’ reports were accurate.

Part 1) North Korea’s missile test in 2006

On July 4, 2006, North Korea test-fired missiles over the Sea of Japan. Out of the approximately 60 articles published by The New York Times on this issue from July 4 to July 15, and about thirty of them focused directly on North Korea’s missile test, while the others had indirectly references the missile test. 

Having a remarkable number of reports published on this missile test, this meant that the American print media is certainly concerned with the North Korea nuclear crisis.

To examine whether New York Times was biased, I examined The New York Times coverage on this event and used some basic facts as measuring tools.

First of all, the number of missile launched. According to New York Times report[1], North Korea launched 6 missiles, but other websites[2] reported that the Bush administration made an official statement saying that North Korea test-fired five missiles instead. Furthermore, articles appearing on New York Times on different days stated different number of missiles launched. Some articles stated there were 7 missiles launched sometime, and William J. Broad[3] wrote North Korea launched 10 ‘Taepodong 2’ missiles in his article. Hence, discordance about the number of missiles launched would certainly confuse readers. However, given that it is very controversial issue where most other papers around world are having the same problem, so it couldn’t be blamed for its inaccuracy.

Contrary to Professor Gusterson, New York Times stated other basic facts very accurately. The individual number of long-range and short range missile and short and mid rage missile such as, and official statement t from the Foreign Ministry of North Korea.

Next, I will go on to eval　　uate how New York Times see North Korea’s intent of this missile launched and impact of this launch. Differing from the objective facts stated above, these are mainly subjective views of reports and thus, such reports might be biased. Therefore, I did a more in-depth analysis on this.

New York Times states that North Korea wants one　　-on-one talks with U.S.A. On July 6, New York Times[4] mentioned that North Korea did a test firing while the Americans were celebrating their independence day, and state “whenever Mr. Kim has concluded that he was not getting attention to his demands, he has staged a crisis. His father, Kim IL Sung, did so in 1994, and won an agreement from the Clinton administration that later fell apart.” Bruce Cumings and Meredith Jung-en Woo[5], writing in New York Times, make a deep inquiry with North Korea’s intention and said that “North Korea’s missile brinkmanship is not intended to scare us. Rather, in the ham-handed way that is Pyongyang’s specialty, it is meant to invite Washington to make a deal.” Although, Professor Gusterson claimed that New York Times portrayed North Korea’s behavior as a part of blackmail strategy and hide two other plausible explanations[6], many South Korea’s press as well as China Daily reported in this same way and North Korea’s blackmail theory is the mainstream idea now, thus I do not think onl　　y New York Times do one　　-sided reporting. 

Also, Professor Gusterson pointed out that the American media stated that North Korea seeks nuclear weapons not so much because of rationally calculated national interests but rather as a sort of narcissistic personality disorder that drives the country’s leadership to behave like an attention-seeking child. Thus, for example, the New York Times editorialized[7] that ‘‘maybe North Korea is just jealous of all the attention Iran has been getting as a result of Tehran’s recent nuclear bad behavior, and craves a spotlight of its own.’’ However, upon reading the one　　 whole article, one　　 can easily realize that this sentence is just one　　 of the many possible reasons why North Korea test-fired missiles while this editorial is failed to understand why North Korea launched missiles given that there are no actual benefits. Thus, it cannot be condemned as biased.

Next, I will talk about reports on the impact and reactions of the international communities. New York Times said North Korea’s neighbors condemn missile tests, and, also published reports that Bush will not negotiate with North Korea, and will attempt to play sanctions on North Korea, however Bush still would engage with North Korea through Six-Party talks. New York Times depict China may got angry with North Korea’s act using expression such as “The Chinese warned the North Korea not to fire the missiles; the fact Mr. Kim dismissed that warning is bound to anger China’s leaders.”[8] However, New York Times also mentioned that China rejected Bush’s suggestion to sanction North Korea, and favored less punitive actions. In another article[9], it was stated that South Korea would withhold rice aid but would maintain her basic policy towards North Korea. Furthermore, it was also mentioned that Japan want to strengthen military ties with North Korea, but it is difficult since it will strain Japan’s relations with South Korea and China

Now, let’s see some titles now.

l  Missiles fired by North Korea; Tests Protested

l  Few good Choices in North Korea Standoff

l  North Korea’s Neighbors Condemn Missile Tests, but Differ on What to Do

l  What Does North Korea Want?

l  Failure Can Be Successful

l  U.S Seeks Strong Measures to Warn the North Koreans

l  Bush Says U.S May Have Been Able to Intercept North Korea Missile

l  North Korea Rejects Protests on Missile Firings

These titles are neutral, no one　　-sided titles.

Part2) the February 2007 agreement with North Korea

Another important issue in North Korea Nuclear weapon program is an agreement between North Korea and other participant of Six-nation talks which was reached in a year of 2007. During the 7^th Six-nation talks, The United States and four other nations reached a tentative agreement to provide North Korea with roughly $400 million in fuel oil and aid, in return for the North’s starting to disable its nuclear facilities and allowing nuclear inspectors back into the country, according to American officials who have reviewed the proposed text.

Then, Does New York Times present balanced and accurate reality about this agreement?

Above all, New York Times treats whole event very specifically. <In Shift, Accord on North Korea Seems So To Be Set> which is written by David E Sanger and Jim Yardley on Feb. 13^th reports all over the this settlement including content of tentative agreement, domestic and international reaction so on. Although, there was lack in reports about North Korea’s reaction, but other nation’s (Mainstream newspaper of South Korea and China Daily) newspapers also could not publish.

Attitude of U.S’s on this issue seems very clear. Many New York Times article wrote it in positive way, and even some article account it as victory for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice[10].

For example, New York Times (2/14/2007) said that “It is welcome news that North Korea has agreed to move toward dismantling its nuclear weapons program in exchange for fuel oil and international acceptance — including the hope of eventual recognition by the United States”. Feb 13^th article in New York Times portray it using “the first steps toward disarmament” expression, and quoted chief American negotiator, Christopher R. Hill as saying “We feel it is excellent draft. I don’t think we are the problem.”Although New York Times also refer opposition on this agreement of Hawks[11] in the administration, but it still emphasize teaching and meaning of this agreement. Thus, same article just mentioned above quoted: former top nonproliferation official in the Clinton White House and negotiator with North Korea Gary Samore commended the Bush administration for negotiating an accord with the North, but said: “Unfortunately, it is three years, eight bombs and one　　 nuclear test too late. But better late than never.”

Meanwhile, attitude toward practical using of this agreement of New York Times is very interesting. Article titled <The Lesson of North Korea> (2/18/07) of NY times criticize Bush refuse to speak with dangerous government such as Iran, Syria, and had to negotiate as did with North Korea to solve problems with those nation. Furthermore, Article <Deciding on the enemy worth talking to> by David E Sanger in the New York Times try to find out the solution of Iran by this agreement with North Korea. Starting with “Some in the administration were wondering whether there are lessons here for dealing with Iran” sentence, said that Mr. Bush’s aides worked out this “first step” in one　　-on-one talks in Berlin, while North Korea was still busily producing nuclear fuel to make its next generation of weapons, but Mr. Bush repeated his bottom line on opening talks with Tehran: They must stop enriching uranium first. According to his article, the White House thinks in this way: North Korea’s nuclear program is already “mature,” but Iran, they argue, is different. It has no weapons – at least not yet. But, he wrote “while we’re talking, the clock ticks. And they are years from an actual weapon.” He lastly mentioned that “In the last two years of his administration, he has confronted reality in the coldest corner of East Asia. The question now is whether that foreshadows a similar shift as he confronts the dangers of the hottest corner of the Middle East.”

In summary, New York Times may write a bias article which is disadvantageous to Bush and his administration, but it is hard to find out the sign of incorrect content and distort or one　　-sided report.

Conclusion

On one　　 hand media report is sharp, accurate and objective, on the other hand, media are cozy with the economic and political powers. In Korea (R.O.K), there was conflict between press owner and journalists, due to owner’s elimination of critical article about biggest company in Korea as well as an important advertiser source without notice. And this dilemma between bias and fair is omnipresent and ubiquitous media problem.

According to my examine, New York Times carry on North Korea nuclear program with importance, and do specific reports. In addition, New York Times has many coincidence with newspaper of other nations (Korea and China)’s on this issue, thus it is more reliable dealing with basic information about this issue.

However, some people even say U.S government give wrong information to media, and other country media use U.S’s report, thus South Korea, U.S and China(maybe Japan and Russia too) distort the truth to make disadvantageous world’s public opinion to North Korea. 

I don’t know if it is really true, but at least New York Times do not exaggerate or overstate than other media, and write article in unbalanced to some group.

 References

1. Paranoid, Potbellied Stalinist Gets Nuclear Weapons-How the U.S. Print Media Cover North Korea/ Hugh Gusterson

2. Few good choices in North Korean Standoff/The New York Times/David E. Sanger/July 6,2006

3. Missiles Fired by North Korea; Test Protested/The New York Times/Norimitsu Oni　　shi and David E. Sanger/July 5,2006

4. North Korea’s Neighbors Condemn Missile Tests, but differ on what to do/The New York Times/Norimitsu Oni　　shi and Joseph Kahn/July 6, 2006

5. 崔立如/朝鲜半岛安全问题：中国的作用/现代国际关系 2006年 第9期

6. What does North Korea Want?/The NY times/Bruce Cumings and Meredith Jung-En Woo

7. Flight Lessons Failure Can Be Successful/July 9, 2006/ WILLIAM J. BROAD

8. U.S. Seeks Strong Measures to Warn the North Koreans/ July 6, 2006/ HELENE COOPER and WARREN HOGE

9. Bush Says U.S. May Have Been Able to Intercept North Korean Missile/July 8, 2006/ DAVID E. SANGER

10. North Korea Rejects Protests on Missile Firings/ NORIMITSU ONI　　SHI/ July 7, 2006

11. Four Scenarios, and Not One　　 Ends Happily/ DAVID E. SANGER/July 9, 2006

Others

www.camera.org (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias (Internet encyclopedia)

http://www.aim.org/ (Accuracy in Media organization’s website)

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol15/151_gusterson.pdf (Website where one　　 can download Professor Gusterson’s article)

Notes