1) > I felt the media had been failing to properly explain the dynamics
Agreed, and while I appreciate your effort to do so, I think you've missed the mark, actually venturing into adding more of the same. In many respects, despite similarly flawed coverage, I think certain international news agencies have done a much better job at explaining some of the dynamics (which I'll get to in # 2).
You say NK was/is a threat. I'd ask you, just as I've asked current & former diplomats, scholars et al., from the U.S., Japan and S.K., "To whom and/or what?" The answers received have varied very little and have never focused on the people in S.K. In fact, many have been pretty dismissive about the people.
2) > They gain through aggressive posturing, not things actually coming to blows.
Right, and this actually supports my point that they aren't really a threat as is presented by the U.S. and some other foreign media outlets. All the public talk has been about the nuclear threat DPRK poses, but they don't because they literally gain nothing from using whatever it is that they have. In fact, using offensive measures ensures, at a minimum that the regime falls, and at a maximum near total annihilation of the country. Which brings me to # 3.
3) Point 1: The U.S. split the country randomly split the country in two after WW II. I mention this since many Americans don't seem to know that. I've actually seen people presented w/ evidence of that vehemently deny it. Again, the international press, in varying degrees does a better job here by at least mentioning that.
Point 2: For as much as Americans go on an on about dictators and free markets, they again fail to understand that the first gov't of the ROK (S.K) was a dictatorship and it killed a lot of South Koreans. Second, while SK today has a market economy, it's not exactly free ---> chaebol.
Point 3: > * disagree with your comments on their Russia/China views.*
Understandable, but here's the nuance. Years ago, it was reported here in the states the one of the driving forces behind the nuclear program was the persistent fear among the regime leadership that it would be overpowered by its patrons, mainly China. That doesn't get too much coverage today, but it's a legitimate concern. It's the same sort of concern that countries around the world have about U.S., or any other populous country or military power. It's also the similar concern that India and Pakistan have about each other and their neighbors (and btw, how did those two countries come to be?).
> If they were to demonize Russia/China, that would hurt the only economic lifelines keeping things afloat.
Agree, but that doesn't mean that like being dependent, and it also doesn't mean that they couldn't have / can't reach out to the U.S. or Europe to for support and to balance things out. It's not as though the the latter do don't do business with and support "non-democratic" regimes. And as you probably know, the DPRK does/did steady business w/ Europe.
Point 4: > the US sided with the south in the Korean war...
True, and during the war, the Americans obliterated the North, targeting civilian populations during air raids and killing something like 20% of the population. Additionally, Truman had to pull General MacArthur (IIRC) because he kept threatening /trying to nuke NK. This is not info coming from foreign sources, this is stuff that is discussed openly (but not often taught) in the U.S.
So, have past and present DPRK regimes employed propaganda to keep people in line , foment fear, etc.,? Sure. But is all of what they're saying unfounded? No, absolutely not. And it's the media's and politicians' unwillingness to actually acknowledge those sorts of things that diminishes their credibility here (and on other issues).
4) Point 1: > But I was referring to the path of how it came to that point, not the aftermath.
As the old saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Yes, the means are important, but the outcome even more so.
Point 2: > And there are of course other examples where the same kind of path lead to positive outcomes.
Great, hopefully you'll cite them and define "positive outcomes" in the future.
In all, I think media and politicians do viewer/citizens a great disservice by choosing to provide commentary and propaganda over just basic facts. Another notable one being that generally when polling agencies conduct surveys in the countries allied w/the U.S. the respondents often rank the U.S. as one of the top threats to peace and safety. Folks like Kim rise to the top cyclically, but the U.S.'s place is quite consistent. That should give Americans some pause and might actually help them in their preparation.
Again, I thank you for sharing your perspective and wish you all the best.