Talk:Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation

Bias in the write up of PD Notebook beef import coverage

Currently, the section Munhwa_Broadcasting_Corporation#PD_Notebook_and_allegations_of_unethical_journalism contains languages that suggest PD Notebook's coverage "incit[ed] three months of massive protests in Seoul." It also seems to cite only source materials that cast negative light on the program, and no attempts are made to present information in defense of the PD Notebook's producers nor the legal documents released by the prosecution and the court. The section also contains too much over-emotional words such as "provocative," "incite," "massive," "outraged."--Supergloom (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand what you mean, and it might look that way if you aren't familiar with the issue, but ...

PD Notebook is indeed a highly sensationalist and "provocative" program. This doesn't mean that they don't sometimes get things right, as they did with the disgraced scientist Hwang Woo-suk. PD Notebook is, however, more akin to a Korean version of Geraldo Rivera than 60 Minutes, and like Rivera, it pursues shock value and melodrama over measured reporting (one of its recent broadcasts was called "Searching out the New Japanese traitors"). You can watch some footage yourself online, and even if you don't understand Korean, you will surely be able to pick up on the sensationalist horror movie music and editing.

No legal documents have been released by the court because MBC has refused to comply with any summons and there is no effective sub poena system here. The prosecution has disclosed private emails from one of the producers which it claims implies malicious intent, I'll try to put up a citation later, but nothing else has been released.

The protests were indisputably "massive," with maybe a hundred thousand or more protesters, you can check the photographs here to guess at the size. I think they qualify as "massive."

As far as "incite" goes, it says that "PD notebook were accused of inciting," not "PD Notebook incited." Since this is a claim already made by the prosecution and many others, I think it is not in se disputable. Whether or not they "incited" is the disputed issue, and why the prosecution is involved.

The translator was indeed "outraged," and went to the press claiming that PD Notebook was shifting the blame for the show's problems onto her.

As far as only casting negative light on the program, it is fairly difficult to speak in defense of the program's claims, i.e. that American beef will cause mad cow disease, simply because there are no patients confirmed to have contracted or died from mad cow disease as a result of eating American beef. Since there isn't any strong evidence for this claim, it is more akin to pseudoscience than science, and simply isn't defensible. Likewise, for the spurious claim that Koreans have a unique genetic heritage that makes them specially vulnerable to mad cow disease, the false claim that Americans do not eat beef over 30 months old, and the many mistranslations which were far more inflammatory than anything in this article. There is little to be said in defense of PD Notebook here because nearly every claim presented has been refuted as unscientific or untrue. The Washington Post has described the program as "thinly sourced," and its claims as "scientifically refuted," and I consider the Washington Post to be a fairly respectable organization that checks its facts.

What can be defended, however, is PD Notebook's right to free speech, and whether it is justifiable for the government to prosecute journalists ever, even if they propagate demonstrably false information. The article tries to address that a little by mentioning the free speech issue, but you are correct in that it should be given more weight. News sources might be somewhat reluctant to rush to the defense of a known liar.

Thanks for your comments. Jayzames (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A bulk of the sources criticizing PD Notebook comes from the big three conservative newspapers. How about a more diverse range of sources? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words to avoid recommends that editors stay away from words such as incite, maintain, cite, claim, deny, supposed, and alleged. I don't know who wrote the section regarding PD Notebook, but these are the words that have appeared in the section frequently. The bias that these words paint is clear. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What happened to that section? It may have slanted... but it shouldn't have been deleted completely. I wonder if the new "controversies" section will disappear also? 175.195.33.114 (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Whoops. Forgot to login. Darkpoet (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Neutral Point of View issue with broadcasting articles.

Hi,

I've noticed that the Broadcasting Station articles (like MBC in this case) has many controversial events written, which is mostly un-neutral (written in a way that goes against the broadcasting station itself in most cases). Also, some of the details (like 19+ Profanity issues, Kim Jonghyun getting a "gift", etc.) should be omitted altogether as it does not belong on an Encyclopedia. Please explain why these "Controversies" are needed in the article.

Thanks.

Tibbydibby (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the controversy section of this article is not well-written, in more ways that you mention. However, misbehavior by a major broadcasting agency, one of the major sources of news for an entire country, is definitely notable and to omit it would effectively be censorship.

The first section about the anti-foreigner segment is actually quite POV in favor of the station; as it's written, it implies that the broadcast made valid statements. I saw that broadcast when it aired, and it was pure tabloid xenophobic racism. It alleged a lot of things; it said nothing factual at all. So that section should probably stay but needs to be rewritten to be less POV in favor of the station. I'm pretty sure there are secondary sources on this issue.

Propagation of racial hatred and stereotypes is also notable, I think, though it's so pervasive in all aspects of Korean life that this is hardly a drop in the bucket. Still, these things are starting to get noticed in Korea by Koreans and make it into the news sometimes. There may be sources other than the broadcast itself for this.

"Stealing" fangifts and such is not really a controversy, and I agree that some of these things get added because a fan is mad that their favorite group didn't win on a music show or whatever. Like with all articles, editors must evaluate each entry on a per-item basis.

However, the biggest problem by far with this is the complete omission of major, widely-reported protests against MBC in Korea. That was way more notable than all of this other stuff. So overall, the fact that some of these controversies shouldn't be here does not mean controversies themselves should not be listed. Criticism of the major media in Korea is a huge issue there and is central to larger ideas of freedom in the country. Koreans talk about this stuff on a daily basis; not about Shinee fangift theft but about censorship, bias, stereotyping, government interference, and all-around unreliability of their own media, including (especially!) MBC, SBS, and KBS. So the section is very vital, IMO. However I absolutely see and appreciate your concern of the section's current state. Shinyang-i (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I think to start, you can add the notable controversies but it make sure it relates to MBC itself (like SBS controversies go to SBS and KBS controversies go to KBS) before you add. But we need more editors to contribute to discussion. Tibbydibby (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Shinyang-i: I also forgot to mention - Check the date and add it accordingly. I prefer the controversies to be organized by date of occurrence.Tibbydibby (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• MBC Sangam Center.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Silikonz💬 22:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation → MBC (South Korea) – Unlike SBS or KBS which are at least sometimes (though infrequently) referred to by their full names, MBC is pretty much never referred to as "Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation" in secondary sources Freedom4U (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Personally, I'm not entirely sure that only the fact of short usage would be enough to justify the change, but at the same time it makes sense per norm. However, I'm opposing for the sake of Korean terrestrial broadcasters naming aesthetics. If we could just change it to MBC, I wouldn't object, as it would be as relevant to the page as the BBC article is. MBC (South Korea) should exist only as redirecting to make it easier for English Wikipedia readers find the page. Bominsky (talk) Bominsky (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  Your reasoning makes sense, I'll retract my request. Damn all these media companies with the same names. Freedom4U (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Translation Instructions

I thought the translations instructions that appear when clicking "show" on the note that better translation is need were unintentionally hilarious and otherwise bad.

All the instructions relate to how to use an automated translator such as Google Translate and seem to ignore the possibility that someone fluent in both Korea and English might do the translation without the poor quality help of such a tool.

I hope the implication was accidental; if it was intentional that is even worse. Clearly a native speaker of both languages would make a better authority for any translation. (Sorry, I'm not one of them, but, obviously, they're out there.) 98.110.243.10 (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)