Not commenting on the article itself, but in general Joong-ang Ilbo is right in the center of conservative, pro-chaebol, pro-trade political section. It's owned by members of Samsung's royal family.
If anything, I'd expect Joong-ang Ilbo to be biased toward Japan.
> but in general Joong-ang Ilbo is right in the center of conservative… If anything, I'd expect Joong-ang Ilbo to be biased toward Japan.
That’s not how conservatism works. The in-group bias overcomes common alignments on other issues. E.g. Muslims and evangelical Christians agree on a lot of things, but they certainly don’t get along.
In general, you're right, but the difference is that evangelical Christians normally don't go around telling how Muslims are their brothers in the holy fight against the evil of atheism.
One of the historical core tenets of South Korean conservatism is that the Free World(TM) should stand together against the evil of communism, which is going to enslave all of us "any time soon," unless we stay eternally vigilant. And by the Free World(TM), they mean South Korea, America, and Japan.
I think aside from the universal "China is bad" theme, the other theme closely related in Asian political discussion in HN, is that "Japan already did her part for their WWII and imperialism war crimes"...
Unfortunately, no.
Japan has never addressed the issue with any nations that they invaded in WWII. Literally, each and every suffered from Japanese imperialism invasion still have deep and broad hostility towards Japan whenever the topic start to divert to WWII and the era.
I have no idea was it Japan government intentionally doing this inadequate job, or are they simply incompetent on this matter.
But to call this website "heavily biased"... Bravo, this is borderline racism towards the people living in the nations suffered from Japanese invasions.
Yeah, and you wonder why paying money to the descendent people raped/killed/mutilated/{and many other horrendous anti-human barbarism brutality} [0] is not enough to get peace.
Turns out, people are not stupid.
If the wrongdoers are not sincere, money never suffices.
For example, you'll need a court to uphold an apology [1], then what is the substance of the apology anyway?
he means its obviously biased, a korean publication will clearly try their best to portray the events as they see it.
South korea is very anti-japan, not that I blame them, but its bad enough that I wouldn't trust news from it unless it has proved itsself to be particularly trustworthy.
This goes the other way around too, to this day koreans in japan are mistreated and japan is always putting propaganda especially in relation to disputed areas like dokdo.
from the recent japan olympics we see they are okay with pissing off all their neighbors as well as being two faced regarding these disputes.
korean and japanese news don't act unbiased at all in relation to eachother.
Assuming this is what they meant by "biased", it doesn't actually say anything.
> a korean publication will clearly try their best to portray the events as they see it.
This is true of anyone, anywhere, ever.
> South korea is very anti-japan, not that I blame them, but its bad enough that I wouldn't trust news from it unless it has proved itsself to be particularly trustworthy.
So South Korea has reasons for being not too keen on Japan, which you understand, but you also wouldn't trust them to talk about that? Does anyone with any grievance deserve trust, in your eyes?
Also, your issue is that ... a South Korean newspaper exists, and publishes things?
> korean and japanese news don't act unbiased at all in relation to eachother.
First, why should they? You've just given plenty of reason for each side to be biased. Second, the hidden expectation that people ought to act "unbiased", whatever that means, is trying (and failing) to do a lot of heavy lifting here. It says "I want more ____ before I believe the claim", but you don't say what that is, and I get the impression that nothing would be enough.
Should I trust the Russian press on the topic of Ukraine or NATO?
i.e.
"So Russia has reasons for being not too keen on Ukraine and NATO, which you understand, but you also wouldn't trust them to talk about that? Does anyone with any grievance deserve trust, in your eyes?"
In my view, no, I would not trust or give much positive weight to Russia's opinions on Ukraine and NATO.
I think the expression he opted not to use is that SK-Japan relationship is toxic. There is a misunderstanding that SK and Japan are in good terms as strategic partners with similarly developed societies, more like a divorced couple after couple 911 calls and court visits.
> So South Korea has reasons for being not too keen on Japan, which you understand, but you also wouldn't trust them to talk about that? Does anyone with any grievance deserve trust, in your eyes?
Trust in the matter that they’ve grievances with? Not really. It’s already a chore trying to discern biases in media and cross check facts across multiple sources. I don’t think it’s particularly useful to spend time giving much credence to a source that you know is biased. It’s like getting all my news about Joe Biden from Fox News and the Daily Caller. Why waste my time?
Trust is earned; it should not be given freely. As I’ve already said, it’s already a gigantic burden to try to corroborate claims and distill biases from all media, so there’s little reason to spend time doing so from sources I already know are biased, especially if there are other sources available.
> Does this automatox mistrust applies to all victims of aggression/imperialism/genocide like Yazidi, Jews, etc?
It applies to any party that is making assertions about something where there’s a clear conflict of interest. It is not saying what is being said is false, just that it is not automatically true and requires more scrutiny because it’s from a biased source. I think Ukrainians are victims of a Russian invasion but that does not mean that I think that Ukrainian news sources are particularly reliable with regards to reports on the war. That isn’t asserting that they are lying either, just that those claims require more verification.
> As in, this logic means that you are determined not to trust victims of something, purely because they are victims and talk about it.
Determined to not trust implies that I’m actively going out of my way to think that anything coming out of a victim’s mouth is a lie or deceitful. I’m not saying that at all.
So it's purely that the source is Korean, and nothing specific about the source or its reputation. No need for all the verbiage. The paper can't be trusted due to the nationality of the people who publish it.
If anything, I'd expect Joong-ang Ilbo to be biased toward Japan.