cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1517933
Archived version: https://archive.ph/soqYt
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230816125643/https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/08/15/north-korea-enforces-an-anti-shorts-law-but-its-only-affecting-women
I understand why people are skeptical. The source is Radio Free Asia which is literal US propaganda. I’m not super familiar with their reporting standards though. Even propaganda can have different levels of trustworthiness.
Edit: looks like they editorialize but reporting is largely factual, assuming this source is accurate: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/radio-free-asia/
The only people who dismiss Radio Free Asia are those looking to deny the Uyghur genocide.
I don’t think it should be dismissed but it’s important to keep in mind that its primary goal is to promote the interests of the US government. That doesn’t mean it’s false but what stories they cover and the way they are covered will reflect that agenda.
No shit, but every story covered by any outlet reflects a fucking agenda, that’s the point of propaganda.
That still doesn’t explain the apologist tankie dumpster fire happening in these comments.
Seriously, what does it take in someone’s brain to switch and go “I know, today I’ll make excuses for an evil authoritarian regime!”, and what does it take to then be a level down and make excuses for them?
Not all news is propaganda. But yes, every news outlet has a particular viewpoint they are reporting from. For some that shines through stronger than others. Awareness of what that viewpoint is and what their goals are is an important part of media literacy. I don’t see discussions on that as making excuses for anyone, it’s just useful information.
LOL radio free Asia is LITERALLY a military intelligence operation. What are you fucking talking about? Everyone and their mother should be dismissing RFA for literally everything.
For example, this article written by an operative that uses an anonymous interview as their sole source. Let’s do some basic critical thinking here. How long have women worn shorts in DPRK do you think? How many pairs of shorts exist in the DPRK?
Now, what is the point of sanctions? It’s to create discontent in the masses so they will be more willing to undermine the country’s leadership. What would banning shorts for women, after decades of shorts wearing, do to the level of contentedness of women and the men who support them? It would decrease their contentedness making them more susceptible to US influence. This move would be very much not in keeping with any former moves by the DPRK who is focused entirely on keeping their people content enough to not revolt.
But how do sanctions work? Economic hardship, reduced access to materials and goods. What happens when you ban shorts for half your pop? They all need to obtain more pants and skirts. So now you have an economic pressure to expend more labor and more resources just to deal with a whimsical ban for the purposes of oppressing half your nation?
No. This is a stupid concept at every single level and only raging orientalists who suckle at the teat of Western anti-Asian propaganda would believe it, let alone get angry at people for not believing it immediately