With Fire and Fury

by Rice on September 5, 2017 - 11:14pm

CHOE SANG-HUN and DAVID E. SANGERAUG, on August  28th , 2017, wrote about the missile North Korea sent over Japan. As they explain, earlier this morning, North Korea sent their most provocative missile yet. It is thought North Korea has done this in response to the joint military drills the United States and South Korea have been doing. Furthermore, they point out an even scarier reality with this third missile test that has been done over Japan. The previous two were said to be carrying satellites into orbit. However, this time the North Korean government has released no statement at all.  The authors also explain two major objectives that were realised from this test flight. The first being the terrorising aspect by reaffirming to its neighbors that a “Rogue nation” has nuclear capabilities. Furthermore, the trajectory of the missile was such that it could have easily hit most of the United States allies in Asia. Second of all, the missile was sent from a base in an outlying sector of North Korea, demonstrating to the United States, as Sang-hun and Sangeraug explain, that any threats the US may have manifested about a preemptive strike towards North Korea are all but futile (since there are more nuclear launch sites in many diverse regions of the country).

Personally, this crazy situation just keeps escalating at an impressive speed. One of the things I find important about news like this, is the fact that this information helps us citizens to keep not only our representatives accountable but also to help those that can’t keep there’s in check.  How can we judge the reliability of news? First thing to do, is to check if other reputable sources also convey the same ideas. The second thing you check is, is this factual reporting or opinion reporting. If its factual, can you verify some of these facts. Finally you see if there are biases. We are all bias, to a certain extent and that’s okay. However if the author doesn’t say or if there’s nothing to indicate their declaration of intent of the article, then it’s going to cast some doubt on the whole article. I personally find the NewYork times in this case reliable, for three reasons. The first reason, being the confidence they have aquired from me from previous reliable articles, I trust this authority. The second reason, is this is a factual reporting, not opinion base. Finally I can verify these facts ,via various other news outlets (For example: CNN,TVA,ect). North Korea  has indeed, sent missiles over Japan.




I find it an interesting subject to be discussing because North Korea themselves did not comment on the event, which brings people to question the motives of this country and maybe this action was just a tactic to achieve fear to the Americans that have been making a lot of threats lately to many foreign countries. If this issue is not addressed to could potentially cause trouble for Canada being that we are the neighbors of USA. The next missile is targeted to the US and fired then it could cause damage to Canada. I agree that the New York Times is a highly reliable source, but what makes this article more reliable is that it has Choe Sang-Hun (who was born in South Korea) and David E. Sanger (who was born in the United States) as writers. Sang-Hun attended Stanford University and won the 2000 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting, while Sanger graduated from Harvard College and had been writing for the New York Times for 30 years reporting on this similar issues. These two writers came from prestigious schools and are well-renowned reporters, which makes them extremely reliable. Also, I find the source more reliable because there are two reporters with this fact they can ensure that there will be little to no bias in the article and that they both come from different backgrounds.


Very well-written article, you summarized and explained all the major points mentioned in the original article. I also appreciated the argument that citizens should keep their representatives accountable and also the explanation of how to spot if a source is reliable. The reasoning behind why the sources mentioned are reliable is sound because you explained that the article was based on factual reporting that could be proven by other sources. You could do a follow-up article talking about the thermonuclear bomb North Korea detonated September 4th and various countries’ responses. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/north-korea-nuclear-crisi....
Here’s a link to a reliable source written by a journalist with respectable credentials and work experience. The journal in which the article appeared in dates back to 1986 and have covered hundreds or even thousands of stories. You mentioned that everyone is biased and that’s okay, the Guardian tries to be the least biased possible by posting left-wing and right-wing columns.

That is a great article! I really like how you easily described the situation between the US and North Korea. You chose the right informations to put in your summary article so there were only the most important ones in it. The sources were great and you did a good job finding if we can, yes or no, trust them. However, I would have like if you could explain in more detail the situation and how the tensions began between the US and North Korea.

About the author

Life saving... World peace... attacking style: head on, obviously. People are bias, so tell it. AND I'm a pretty fabulous sniper on MW2.
Keep it true, keep it authentic, keep it to it's roots.