The submitted article is about how western corporate media handled a story about North Korea, not about the North Korean story itself. That NYTimes article is about the North Korean story, not western media's treatment of that story.
AFAIK, HN hasn't has any posts about the disappearance or reappearance. We should probably have one, rather than this.
This particular article is just loud axe grinding and baseless complaining. For instance, it labels the original Bloomberg report "fake news" and a "false story," when it was in fact pretty careful with its words and spent a significant amount of prominent space casting doubt on the report. You can read it yourself here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-30/north-kor....
This blog post is not so much about "how western corporate media handled a story about North Korea" but how Ben Norton of thegrayzone.com feels about the Western media and how he wants us to feel about it too.
> "North Korea Executed Envoy Over Trump-Kim Summit, Chosun Reports"
That Bloomberg headline is itself egregious. Who is Chosun? That Chosun Ilbo is a right wing propaganda tabloid with a reputation for making shit up should have been mentioned in that headline. 'Headlines that seem plausible with details hinting at fabrication in the article' is a bad formula and deserves to be criticized.
In fact, Chosun Ilbo's reputation should have prevented the story from being republished by western media at all.
> 'Headlines that seem plausible with details hinting at fabrication in the article' is a bad formula and deserves to be criticized.
Readers need to read more than headlines, and newspapers shouldn't censor things as if they don't.
> In fact, Chosun Ilbo's reputation should have prevented the story from being republished by western media at all.
No, that's just your opinion, which other people are free to disagree with without being wrong. For instance, I find it perfectly acceptable that the story was initially published with ample reliability disclaimers, then later corrected when new information surfaced.
They should, but they don't. They know that and you know that. Knowing that, it's irresponsible to publish headlines that are misleading when taken in isolation.