There has been a lot of interesting reaction to that ridiculous article in the L.A. Times about North Korea.

In a post called Drums beating on the right, Kevin Roderick of L.A. Observed complains that the author of the piece, Barbara Demick, is simply a media bogeywoman. Roderick says that the controversy is “forming up as another anti-media crusade where failing to hew to an ideological view of journalism will be all that matters.” Roderick reprints the controversial article in its entirety, and argues that Demick should be judged on the 200+ articles that she has written about North Korea.

I think that the focus should be on judging Demick’s piece. Learning about Demick and her other work is interesting and instructive, as it tells us something about where she comes from. But regardless of her other work, her recent piece interviewing a man from North Korea was woefully lacking in critical context.

The cardinal sin of Demick’s piece was allowing the man she interviewed to portray himself — unchallenged — as a “businessman with close ties to the government.” Nonsense. The only realistic conclusion is that the man is a North Korean government official.

But don’t take my word for it. Take Demick’s. In an e-mail to an L.A. Times reader (reprinted on Hugh Hewitt’s site), Demick acknowledges what she never said in the article — that the interviewee was a North Korean government official:

I found it fascinating to hear how a North Korean official tried to rationalize his country, and thought my readers should hear what I heard.

Why didn’t we hear this in the article?!?! As Hewitt angrily observes in an aside:

Oh? The article said he was a businessman with ties to the government. Most folks with experience in this area are convinced he’s an intelligence agent who worked you like a rookie at his first camp.

Exactly.

From what I’ve seen, Demick’s other work indicates that this lack of context is no accident.

In her e-mail reprinted on Hewitt’s blog, Demick says: “I have probably written more than anyone in the last three years about human rights abuses in North Korea.” I don’t know whether this is true, but there is no doubt that Demick has written about allegations of atrocities by the North Korean government. Power Line links to one example, titled Forum focuses on North Korea’s rights abuses.

But Power Line also links to another piece by Demick — one that is more recent and more revealing. The piece is titled The Hidden Stories of North Korea (.pdf file). Written in the Fall of 2004, this opinion piece, written in the first person, is more revealing of Demick’s opinions and thought processes than any of her news articles could be.

Demick argues that North Korea is not as bad as many think: “Nothing is too horrific to be ascribed to North Korea, much of it probably true, but exaggerated.” Demick says that “it is often hard to substantiate the claims of defectors” because “they have a powerful incentive to embellish.” She then makes this amazing statement:

Another problem is that defectors are not really representative of the North Korean population. As with any other refugee population, they tend to be the people who were most disenchanted with life in their home country.

What in the world is Demick talking about? If Demick is truly a faithful chronicler of human rights abuses in North Korea, she must know that the people who are “most disenchanted” with life in North Korea are the political prisoners who are being tortured and cannot escape.

But Demick apparently does not accept that such widespread persecution is taking place. Instead, Demick puts more faith in the claims of people who still live in North Korea — ignoring the fact that such people cannot express truthful opinions without being persecuted:

A resource less frequently tapped by journalists is the tiny expatriate community living in Pyongyang. These are mostly aid workers, U.N. employees, and diplomats. Although their movements are restricted in North Korea, they do actually live in the country and interact daily with North Korean colleagues. I try to interview as many of the aid officials coming through Seoul as possible. They tend to present a more positive and less caricatured portrait of North Korea than outsiders. If I were to generalize, I would say they describe not an “axis of evil,” but a flawed country trying to cope with a failed ideology and economy, desperately seeking a place for itself in the world.

Of course, if they say anything too far out of line and then return to North Korea (where they live and work), they and their families might be thrown into forced labor camps and tortured to death. Small wonder they present a more positive image of North Korea.

Demick’s recent opinion piece says to me that the lack of context in her interview with the North Korean official results directly from her view that North Korea is simply a “flawed country” — as opposed to the truly despotic regime that most of us understand it to be. I take Ms. Demick at her word that she did not intend her recent piece to be read as a puff piece for the North Korean government. However, it sure comes across that way.

Demick is rationalizing when she claims to readers that she found “truly repellent” the claims of the man she described in her piece as a “businessman” whom she found “affable.” Demick should take a step back — avoiding a reflexive dismissal of the criticisms of her piece as politically motivated — and read the piece out loud, listening to how it sounds. Maybe then she’ll understand why many of us are so upset.