• newaccountwhodis@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    22 hours ago

    It’s the BBC. 'm assuming they’re talking out their ass.

    The report, which is based on more than 300 interviews with people who escaped from North Korea in the past 10 years,

    Refugees from DPRK have been found exaggerating negatives to garner more sympathy/support

    • Ferrous@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      they’re talking out their ass.

      Yes, which is par for the course.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/why-do-north-korean-defector-testimonies-so-often-fall-apart

      What is behind the inconsistencies?

      Cash payments in return for interviews with North Korean refugees have been standard practice in the field for years.

      Initially, the payment was to cover the cost of meals and local transport, which was approximately $30 in the late 1990s when I first began interviewing in China and South Korea. However, the fees had risen to $200 per hour by the time I attempted to interview people from North Korea in May 2014.

      A government official from the South Korean ministry of unification told me the range of fees could vary wildly, from $50-500 per hour, depending on the quality of information.

      But this practice raises a difficulty: how does the payment change the relation between a researcher and an interviewee, and what effect will it have on the story itself?