I don't think these ties make him as unpopular as you think. The third link is also from a heavily biased source.
If anything, I'd expect Joong-ang Ilbo to be biased toward Japan.
That’s not how conservatism works. The in-group bias overcomes common alignments on other issues. E.g. Muslims and evangelical Christians agree on a lot of things, but they certainly don’t get along.
One of the historical core tenets of South Korean conservatism is that the Free World(TM) should stand together against the evil of communism, which is going to enslave all of us "any time soon," unless we stay eternally vigilant. And by the Free World(TM), they mean South Korea, America, and Japan.
Banding together and liking the fact that you have to live in the same tent aren't quite the same thing.
The link referred to: https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.as...
Wow, "biased source", what a word!
I think aside from the universal "China is bad" theme, the other theme closely related in Asian political discussion in HN, is that "Japan already did her part for their WWII and imperialism war crimes"...
Unfortunately, no.
Japan has never addressed the issue with any nations that they invaded in WWII. Literally, each and every suffered from Japanese imperialism invasion still have deep and broad hostility towards Japan whenever the topic start to divert to WWII and the era.
I have no idea was it Japan government intentionally doing this inadequate job, or are they simply incompetent on this matter.
But to call this website "heavily biased"... Bravo, this is borderline racism towards the people living in the nations suffered from Japanese invasions.
The Japanese made peace with and paid reparations to the vast majority of (but not all) allied countries, including Korea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Basic_Relations_Betw...
Turns out, people are not stupid.
If the wrongdoers are not sincere, money never suffices. For example, you'll need a court to uphold an apology [1], then what is the substance of the apology anyway?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/20/review-...
Say what you mean.
South korea is very anti-japan, not that I blame them, but its bad enough that I wouldn't trust news from it unless it has proved itsself to be particularly trustworthy.
This goes the other way around too, to this day koreans in japan are mistreated and japan is always putting propaganda especially in relation to disputed areas like dokdo.
from the recent japan olympics we see they are okay with pissing off all their neighbors as well as being two faced regarding these disputes.
korean and japanese news don't act unbiased at all in relation to eachother.
> a korean publication will clearly try their best to portray the events as they see it.
This is true of anyone, anywhere, ever.
> South korea is very anti-japan, not that I blame them, but its bad enough that I wouldn't trust news from it unless it has proved itsself to be particularly trustworthy.
So South Korea has reasons for being not too keen on Japan, which you understand, but you also wouldn't trust them to talk about that? Does anyone with any grievance deserve trust, in your eyes?
Also, your issue is that ... a South Korean newspaper exists, and publishes things?
> korean and japanese news don't act unbiased at all in relation to eachother.
First, why should they? You've just given plenty of reason for each side to be biased. Second, the hidden expectation that people ought to act "unbiased", whatever that means, is trying (and failing) to do a lot of heavy lifting here. It says "I want more ____ before I believe the claim", but you don't say what that is, and I get the impression that nothing would be enough.
All you need to do here is look at the photo.
i.e.
"So Russia has reasons for being not too keen on Ukraine and NATO, which you understand, but you also wouldn't trust them to talk about that? Does anyone with any grievance deserve trust, in your eyes?"
In my view, no, I would not trust or give much positive weight to Russia's opinions on Ukraine and NATO.
Should you trust what Jews write about Nazi? Should you trust what Ukrainians say about Russians soldiers in Bucha or their analysis of Russia?
The rule was never that you can't trust anything a country writes about another country.
Trust in the matter that they’ve grievances with? Not really. It’s already a chore trying to discern biases in media and cross check facts across multiple sources. I don’t think it’s particularly useful to spend time giving much credence to a source that you know is biased. It’s like getting all my news about Joe Biden from Fox News and the Daily Caller. Why waste my time?
Does this automatox mistrust applies to all victims of aggression/imperialism/genocide like Yazidi, Jews, etc?
As in, this logic means that you are determined not to trust victims of something, purely because they are victims and talk about it.
> Does this automatox mistrust applies to all victims of aggression/imperialism/genocide like Yazidi, Jews, etc?
It applies to any party that is making assertions about something where there’s a clear conflict of interest. It is not saying what is being said is false, just that it is not automatically true and requires more scrutiny because it’s from a biased source. I think Ukrainians are victims of a Russian invasion but that does not mean that I think that Ukrainian news sources are particularly reliable with regards to reports on the war. That isn’t asserting that they are lying either, just that those claims require more verification.
> As in, this logic means that you are determined not to trust victims of something, purely because they are victims and talk about it.
Determined to not trust implies that I’m actively going out of my way to think that anything coming out of a victim’s mouth is a lie or deceitful. I’m not saying that at all.