Even little ones like the CNN reporter in the obvious drunk Rodman interview. The interviewer said that "North Korea hasn't released any charges" and "they won't tell us why he is being held" which isn't factually correct. The reported charges which never were a secret were planning to overthrow the government. Rodman knowing this a little too loudly then intended whispered "I got him" but he was too drunk to debunk the point head-on he went with "do you have any idea what he's done?". Whether he is actually guilty is another matter but someone actually wanting to and planing to overthrow NK's regime wouldn't surprise me considering what little of the evidence reported was he smuggled anti-North Korea propaganda. My point there was Rodman received criticism implying that Bae may actually be guilty but the only one I know of that pointed the CNN reporter's error was someone very familiar with North Korea who was asked to commented on because of his knowledge of what it takes to visit the country. For example, visitors have to pay their own way so most trips feature sponsors "Paddy Power" for Rodman and a lot of them hide their involvement for obvious reasons or release a "honor contracts we already agreed to" statement when criticism mounts.
Based on the facts available, there is a whole lot I don't know about North Korea. But consider the timing of Rodman's friendship. If you notice on the VICE episode was banners, parades, and constant reminders of North Korea celebrating the launch of the third Nuclear test. This was also the same time of the Bae conviction where they also released statements indicating they refuse to and had no plans to. Basically Dennis Rodman suddenly experienced a surprisingly level of contact for a leader & country noted for its isolation when Bill Richardson and Jimmy Carter reached dead ends. Things changed to where they even backed off the nuclear showmanship. If they suddenly feel pressure is very possible but to me they seem very safe from the US as they have very inconsistent relationships with human rights violators and war with North Korea seems like something the US would prefer to avoid.
The reason why I emphasized what I did in my post is that VICE could not think of any other way into the country except a 90s Bulls player, I do wish a different Bull agreed to before Rodman but considering his reported fandom, it speaks to the issue considering that it worked.
One other thing that would help and I think did which I wouldn't recommend. Rodman is so non-judgmental to the point that what matters what Jung-Un does is on a personal level. The other stuff he dismisses as politics and he does have a point in the US doing much of the same things -- http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/04/20/299318/us-backs-allies-human-rights-abuses/ North Korea takes it to a whole 'nother level.
I mean the propaganda and show, do they really believe anyone falls for it? I mean, you figure they do it because they don't want anyone to know what they do but it isn't a secret to the international media and the show is usually the first thing mentioned about North Korea. It actually comes across as very creepy.
Back to Rodman, he did make a point that I didn't consider that the reasons he is the way who he is has a lot to do with his father and grandfather which made me wonder how most of us would turn out in that family. Probably dead if not "the Marshall".
I do want to make sure to point out there is a whole lot I don't know such as what happens with Dennis Rodman right off the plane, what he means by "he wants to change". Dennis Rodman could tell us more than just about Kim Jung-Un than most Americans but the problem is Dennis Rodman. Like how is he not scared as hell to go over there but when you consider how often he has had public backlash in this country, probably the experience.
I'm not making my point about Rodman very well but more to my knowledge (or lack of very little what we do know) of North Korea which is fascinating. There is a whole lot of mystery but I do credit Rodman with opening the door of diplomatic relations but acknowledge he is probably being used (even if he wasn't, they will report whatever they want to in North Korea--such as Rodman being moved to tears, everyone is moved to tears that meets Kim--but has little affect if any on international media) in the same possibility Bae is being used.
When it comes to basic facts, all TMZ did here was simply report what Rodman said which is the same thing Time did (I'm sure using the TMZ story as the main source). If they lied about Rodman said (there certainly is an editorial slant to the story but not in Rodman's favor) so I'm careful not to make assumptions here, I'm not buying into myths though at-the-same time, there isn't a lot of hard evidence to say definitely one way or the other.
= new reply since forum marked as read
