As Max Fisher puts it,
why are so many people – and so many major 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.
An entire planet of mentally retarded people just kept copying the story perpetrated by the Hong Kong tabloid Wen Wei Po (文匯報), claiming that Kim Jong-un’s uncle has not been executed by a firing squad, but rather stripped naked and thrown into a cage, to be killed and eaten by 120 dogs — this allegedly being known as “execution by dogs” (犬决), although never mentioned before in connection to North Korea, or to any other country.
There are several common-sense arguments to be considered, and two articles are summing them up excellently:
- Max Fisher, in The Washington Post, No, Kim Jong Un probably didn’t feed his uncle to 120 hungry dogs (also in The Sydney Morning Herald, Why Kim Jong-un probably didn’t feed his naked uncle to 120 dogs): five (or even six) reasons why this story is most likely fake.
- Mark Memmott, on NPR’s The Two Way blog: Did Kim Jong Un Feed His Uncle To 120 Dogs? Be Skeptical: three more reasons to be skeptical.
But of course, who cares that the said story didn’t become popular in South Korea’s serious newspapers, nor in China’s? Just because a newspaper that’s unreliable even by Hong Kong’s standards is supportive of the People’s Republic of China made it for some “close to the Chinese government” — although neither Xinhua, nor People’s Daily bothered to relay the “dog execution” story.
The planet, as I said, is full of mentally-retarded people.