Reuters, The Diplomat, and Forbes, among others, are reporting that the Chinese version of Twitter, Weibo, is lighting up with rumors that Kim Jong Un, newest leader of North Korea following his father's death two months ago, has been assassinated at the embassy in Beijing. The claim being made is that a group of armed men broke into his residence, killed Un, and were then subsequently killed themselves by his bodyguards. Allegedly there's a huge amount of cars outside the North Korean embassy (alleged photo here) and a user on Reddit says here that he claims to have sources that embassies and military installations in the region are on high alert.

Of course this may all be silly, unsubstantiated rumors, but it does bring up some interesting thoughts. What if the North Korean military, who some are speculating to be behind the alleged attempt, performed a coup? What would that mean for the region (war with South Korea? Chinese intervention?) and for the West? Even if it's completely false, as it probably is, it does highlight some concerns about the region.

Edit: Looks like he's still alive after all, for better or worse.

Well here's how to check. Did a fierce snow storm pause? Did the sky turn red over Mount Paektu? Did the ice on a lake crack loud enough to shake the heavens and the earth? Or maybe since it's Kim Jong-il's son we should just expect light rain to pause, the sky to turn a little pink, and for the ice to crack loud enough that someone notices it.

But poking fun at North Korea's weird little ideas aside, that's gonna make things interesting. Wonder who will be in charge if he's dead? Would it make it more unstable perhaps? Or maybe some positive changes? Though that seems doubtful...

Guess we will have to wait and see. Could just be another case of one user posting random bullshit because EPIC TROLLZ and the whole thing snowballing.

Was Kim Jong Un even in Beijing? A first visit by the new head of state would probably be a bigger news story than this.

No reports of this on the BBC.

Mortai Gravesend:
Well here's how to check. Did a fierce snow storm pause? Did the sky turn red over Mount Paektu? Did the ice on a lake crack loud enough to shake the heavens and the earth? Or maybe since it's Kim Jong-il's son we should just expect light rain to pause, the sky to turn a little pink, and for the ice to crack loud enough that someone notices it.

The internets, good sir, you have won all of it.

Seems pretty unlikely, both because Un would hardly is unlikely to be in Beijing, and because no one capable of undertaking such an assassination really have any interest in killing him.

South Korea and the rest of Asia see him as the best option for stability, and the Kim Jong-X family are useful semi-religious figureheads for the North Korean military to use, around whom all state propaganda and legitimacy have been centered for decades.

Not something to totally rule out. Guess Homefront missed a factor.

It's too bad if he really was killed, maybe he could have done something good for the poor country. He had a western education and all that so maybe he had some more humanist leanings than his father and grandfather (I probably shouldn't use the word 'had' as though he's dead haha). His death would certainly create a bit of a tick in the whole line of succesion thing and government solidarity. It's impossible to say if it's good or bad though, he didn't have enough time as leader to show if he really was insane.

My biggest question (as my biggest question usually tends to be) is why? If he was in fact killed, what was the motivation of the assassins? Were they from a resistance movement of some kind and sought to kill who they percieved as a tyrant in the making before he had a chance to murder himself? Or were they hardliners from within the government himself who viewed him as too progressive and sought to eliminate huim before he challenged their authority? Or something else entirely?

he has/had (depending on the accuracy of the assassination reports) a reputation for being a bit of a playboy more interested in personal pleasure that power brings than actually desiring to run the country. I was expecting him to be nothing more than a figure head but if true, someone might of decided to get rid of him..

and my mind is racing seeing as ive been playing alpha protocol.. who will benefit the most from this turn of events...

I thought it was the other son (the one not made leader of North Korea) who was hanging out in Beijing these days.

nikki191:
he has/had (depending on the accuracy of the assassination reports) a reputation for being a bit of a playboy more interested in personal pleasure that power brings than actually desiring to run the country.

Ditto for this. Wasn't that the other son? The older one?

Amnestic:
I thought it was the other son (the one not made leader of North Korea) who was hanging out in Beijing these days.

nikki191:
he has/had (depending on the accuracy of the assassination reports) a reputation for being a bit of a playboy more interested in personal pleasure that power brings than actually desiring to run the country.

Ditto for this. Wasn't that the other son? The older one?

Yes, it was the older one, that was one of the reasons he was passed up for a more serious looking leader, though since he took over the internet has become flooded with meme about him and food

Imperator_DK:
Seems pretty unlikely, both because Un would hardly is unlikely to be in Beijing, and because no one capable of undertaking such an assassination really have any interest in killing him.

South Korea and the rest of Asia see him as the best option for stability, and the Kim Jong-X family are useful semi-religious figureheads for the North Korean military to use, around whom all state propaganda and legitimacy have been centered for decades.

Could be North Koreans who took him out though, there are many who have fled from North Korea into China, and would likely take him down if given the chance. Assassinations don't require the entire budget of the entire US military; a couple angry people with guns have been enough on several occasions. If they had enough for a bribe, even more so....

Although, I think this is just a hoax. China seems a bit too well controlled, and the Kim Jong-X's historically too paranoid for something like this to happen easily.

Looks like it was a hoax. No real surprise there.

Kind of makes me sad it was a hoax, in a way. The power struggle that would surely have followed would have been fascinating to watch.

GrimTuesday:
Kind of makes me sad it was a hoax, in a way. The power struggle that would surely have followed would have been fascinating to watch.

Yeah, and probably thousands of people would die or have their lives ruined. But hey, it would be entertaining, right!

Don't worry, the anniversary of the Tohoku Earthquake is coming up next month. No doubt between cable TV and the news networks you'll have ample opportunity to be entertained by someone else's misery.

Tree man:

Katatori-kun:

GrimTuesday:
Kind of makes me sad it was a hoax, in a way. The power struggle that would surely have followed would have been fascinating to watch.

Yeah, and probably thousands of people would die or have their lives ruined. But hey, it would be entertaining, right!

Don't worry, the anniversary of the Tohoku Earthquake is coming up next month. No doubt between cable TV and the news networks you'll have ample opportunity to be entertained by someone else's misery.

I think he meant fascinating in a train wreck/visit Auschwitz kind of way rather than the shits and giggles kind.

Still you're right it would be horrific.

I agree that's probably what he meant and I probably over-reacted. But one of the things that makes me absolutely furious is the way our culture turns other people's tragedy into entertainment. The Tohoku earthquake was a perfect example. Real people were struggling to figure out if they were in danger or not, and the western press was all about the spectacle.

Katatori-kun:

Tree man:

Katatori-kun:

Yeah, and probably thousands of people would die or have their lives ruined. But hey, it would be entertaining, right!

Don't worry, the anniversary of the Tohoku Earthquake is coming up next month. No doubt between cable TV and the news networks you'll have ample opportunity to be entertained by someone else's misery.

I think he meant fascinating in a train wreck/visit Auschwitz kind of way rather than the shits and giggles kind.

Still you're right it would be horrific.

I agree that's probably what he meant and I probably over-reacted. But one of the things that makes me absolutely furious is the way our culture turns other people's tragedy into entertainment. The Tohoku earthquake was a perfect example. Real people were struggling to figure out if they were in danger or not, and the western press was all about the spectacle.

I couldn't agree with you more, the way that our media outlets treat shit like this is repulsive, and it needs to change. My comment was more about the political machinations of the different factions who would be vying for power and the outcome of said power struggle. I'm currently working on a degree in political science, and this sort of thing is absolutely fascinating to me in the same way that someone who studies physics would be fascinated by the whole neutrino controversy that has been going on for the past few months.

Katatori-kun:

Tree man:

Katatori-kun:

Yeah, and probably thousands of people would die or have their lives ruined. But hey, it would be entertaining, right!

Don't worry, the anniversary of the Tohoku Earthquake is coming up next month. No doubt between cable TV and the news networks you'll have ample opportunity to be entertained by someone else's misery.

I think he meant fascinating in a train wreck/visit Auschwitz kind of way rather than the shits and giggles kind.

Still you're right it would be horrific.

I agree that's probably what he meant and I probably over-reacted. But one of the things that makes me absolutely furious is the way our culture turns other people's tragedy into entertainment. The Tohoku earthquake was a perfect example. Real people were struggling to figure out if they were in danger or not, and the western press was all about the spectacle.

I think that's not quite entirely the result of cultural biases. I think it's human nature to want to watch tragedy or terrible things, as long as they aren't happening them. It's a way of reassuring ourselves that we're alright, and that people elsewhere have it worse. Probably the basis of human enjoyment of tragic fiction and plays and the like from as far back as ancient Greece, and probably farther.

Well, as no one is obligated to actually watch the channels which are TV's equivalent to the tabloids, I don't see any problem with their existence.

The business of business is business. And there are a lot of people for whom the editorial line that'll sell is less "We're currently trying to relay the moest accurate information available at the time on this recent seismic activity", and more "OMG, they'll probably all meet horrible fates, in what may or may not be the result of Godzilla being tentacle raped by Cthulu!!!"

...and just what right do anyone have to prevent those who want the latter from getting it?

If it so offends you, then change the channel.

Imperator_DK:
If it so offends you, then turn away.

You're missing the point. It's not about offense.

News serves a purpose. Regardless of what you might think from your safe computer chair in your dorm room, real people experience the things that happen on the news, and they need real information in order to make the best judgments for themselves. In crisis situations, they need that information quickly and they need it presented clearly. Twice in my life I have been (fortunately for me) a hair's breadth from natural disasters where people died because they didn't have accurate information when they needed it. Thank goodness I was in the right place at the right time that I never needed to make a split-second decision that my life depended on, but not everyone is so lucky.

Western-style disaster voyeurism interferes with people getting that information because it presents news in a way that is shocking and dramatic, at the expense of accuracy. And you might say, "well, then don't watch it," but the problem is the networks that cater toward simple-minded viewers looking for spectacle to distract them from their empty lives get the ratings and make the money. The reporters that present real news information accurately don't have the resources to cover 'round-the-world events. So it's not a choice between "sick tragedy porn" and "accurate news", it's a choice between "sick tragedy porn" and "nothing". This bullshit has real effects that really impact people, like when a bunch of Americans bought up the supply of potassium iodide pills even though they had absolutely no chance of being exposed to Fukushima radiation, meanwhile people who could have actually benefited from the pills close enough to Dai-Ichi to actually be exposed couldn't get dosage for love nor money.

You're presenting this as a consumer choice, but the fact is treating tragedy as entertainment hurts people. It has real effects on real people who don't deserve to have their difficult lives made worse by westerners who are bored and want something to watch on TV. Like so many other issues of Western consumption, simply indulging in the product affects the lives of people around the world.

Katatori-kun:
...
You're missing the point. It's not about offense.

News serves a purpose. Regardless of what you might think from your safe computer chair in your dorm room, real people experience the things that happen on the news, and they need real information in order to make the best judgments for themselves. In crisis situations, they need that information quickly and they need it presented clearly.

Indeed. And they need it from the people responsible for providing it; Their government.

Japan is a first world society, and one of the most technologically advanced ones at that. Surely they can create an impartial public news station funded by its own separate tax collection, which can then provide this information across all platforms (i.e. akin to the "business" model of the BBC).

If you let your population rely on privately run American media, or any other provider for whom news are nothing but a commercial commodity, all because you'd didn't take the proper measures yourself, then you're pretty much asking it to bend over.

Western-style disaster voyeurism interferes with people getting that information because it presents news in a way that is shocking and dramatic, at the expense of accuracy. And you might say, "well, then don't watch it," but the problem is the networks that cater toward simple-minded viewers looking for spectacle to distract them from their empty lives get the ratings and make the money. The reporters that present real news information accurately don't have the resources to cover 'round-the-world events. So it's not a choice between "sick tragedy porn" and "accurate news", it's a choice between "sick tragedy porn" and "nothing".

When were they entitled to "something" from private companies on the other side of the world?

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be very commendable of these companies to focus on aiding the victims in a crisis situation as best they can, rather than remain focused on generating revenue through sensationalism. But there's no obligation to do so which they can be criticized for failing to meet.

This bullshit has real effects that really impact people, like when a bunch of Americans bought up the supply of potassium iodide pills even though they had absolutely no chance of being exposed to Fukushima radiation, meanwhile people who could have actually benefited from the pills close enough to Dai-Ichi to actually be exposed couldn't get dosage for love nor money.

You're presenting this as a consumer choice, but the fact is treating tragedy as entertainment hurts people. It has real effects on real people who don't deserve to have their difficult lives made worse by westerners who are bored and want something to watch on TV.

Now this is more like it. Their freedom reasonably ends when it causes discernible harm to others.

However, even if we assume that indirectly causing a shortage of medicine through one's coverage changing consumer behaviour is a proven causality, and that it constitutes discernible harm, there's also nothing that can actually be done about it.

There's no practically feasible way of instituting a legal responsibility for causing a shortage of medicine on the other side of the world (which they weren't entitled to be able to buy to begin with). And there's absolutely no way the government could - or should - be allowed to interfere with editorial policies in news coverage.

So unless you can rally civic society to get tabloid channels to clean up their act - i.e. basically kill their entire concept and thus themselves off - then this possible problem has no feasible solution.