Posts target South Korean judge with doctored Chinese flag picture
The image appears to show Moon holding a microphone in front of the Chinese flag.
Moon is one of eight sitting justices who will rule on Yoon's impeachment after the president was suspended from power following a botched martial law attempt in December 2024 (archived link).
He has been the target of attacks by the ruling People Power Party and its supporters over his alleged relationship with opposition figures such as Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung (archived link).
The court rebutted the claims, saying Moon's personal relationships would not affect the court's adjudication of Yoon's impeachment trial (archived link).
Similar allegations about Moon's supposed ties to China have spread in other pro-Yoon Facebook groups. Comments indicate several users believed the image was genuine.
"How can such a person be a Constitutional Court judge, he's a traitor," one person wrote.
"This shows Moon Hyung-bae is a communist, no wonder he was appointed by Moon Jae-in," another said, referring to South Korea's previous left-leaning president (archived link).
But the image is doctored.
Keyword search on Google led to the original photo published by South Korean outlet Yonhap news agency on January 2 (archived link).
"Interim Constitutional Court chief justice Moon Hyung-bae delivers a New Year's address at a swearing-in ceremony for Justices Cho Han-chang and Jeong Kye-seon held at the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, Seoul on the morning of the 2nd," the caption says.
The unaltered image shows Moon in front of a South Korean flag.
Other angles captured by Yonhap and News1, another South Korean news organisation, also show the South Korean flag behind Moon (archived links here and here).
Local broadcaster SBS livestreamed his speech on January 2. The South Korean flag appears around two and a half hours into the video (archived link).
AFP previously debunked photos claimed to show a Chinese flag at a protest calling for Yoon's arrest and Chinese spies caught on South Korean soil.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
14 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
S.F. school district to teachers: Your political opinions don't belong in the classroom
Days before the start of classes, San Francisco school leaders reminded teachers that they can't express political opinions during the school day, including in what they say, wear or what they put on their walls. District officials encouraged principals to reinforce those restrictions as educators and staff participated in back-to-school training this week. The guidance follows a divisive battle last school year over accusations of political activism among educators in city schools, particularly in ethnic studies courses. Controversial activities included teachers encouraging students to write letters to Mumia Abu-Jamal, a former Black Panther sentenced to death in 1981 for murdering a Philadelphia police officer, or asking them to participate in anti-Israel protests. In other cases, teachers hung pro-Palestinian posters in classrooms, or described Israel as colonizers committing genocide. While the laws and policies are not new, they have been often ignored or absent from staff training sessions. District officials, last year, gave principals the materials to train staff on bias and personal opinions, but it was unclear how many used them. This year, one veteran teacher said it was the first such training in their career. 'Many teachers have been dangerously misled about their professional freedoms and responsibilities,' the educator said. 'K-12 teachers don't have the same academic freedoms as university instructors. Our students are minor children.' The district's teachers union, which has taken a pro-Palestinian stance and has advocated for teachers who wish to speak out about the war in Gaza, did not immediately return requests for comment about the training. In February, officials from the union wrote in a pro-Palestinian resolution that 'educators who utilized their democratic rights to speak out against the war were repressed or harassed by school authorities.' In recent years, Bay Area schools have seen an uptick in politically motivated instruction and the opinions of staff and educators publicly displayed. That has included student walkouts, bolstered by teachers and their unions, as well as posters and staff clothing reflecting beliefs, including candidates, government policies and the war in Gaza. Accusations of antisemitism, Islamophobia and other forms of harassment in schools have grown specifically since the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel in and the retaliatory bombing of Gaza, with hundreds of official complaints filed at the district, state and federal level. District officials said the most recent training was proactive and not punitive and aimed to help staff navigate complex and sensitive topics in a way that aligns with state law and school board policies. 'If parents or students see something they are concerned about they should contact their principal,' said district spokesperson Laura Dudnick. 'When concerns arise, we follow a clear process for reviewing them that is consistent with labor agreements and Board policy.' State education law requires an education free of harassment and bias and equal access to learning regardless of race, religion, national origin or other protected status. But that has been broadly interpreted across public schools in San Francisco and the Bay Area and, at times, rarely enforced. In the spring, San Francisco Superintendent Maria Su vowed to address the issue following community concerns raised specifically about ethnic studies courses and, more broadly, antisemitic content and harassment amid pro-Palestinian activism. 'Teaching should be about teaching students how to think,' not what to think,' she said in June. Su decided to suspend the district's homegrown ethnic studies curriculum, which critics said was divisive, antisemitic and promoted progressive activism. The board in July purchased an off-the-shelf replacement to be used for the year-long required ethnic studies course for ninth graders. In addition, Su is expected to issue an administrative order regarding the use of supplemental materials used by teachers to ensure they adhere to state and district guidelines. The training materials given to principals also notes that employees cannot solicit students or families to further their ideological persuasions or use district resources, including district email, to communicate or advocate for their political opinions. 'Students should be challenged in their coursework and schools should provide a safe and rigorous experience where they can express their thinking and listen to others,' said school board President Phil Kim. 'Our whole job here as educators is to create the conditions for all of that to take place. 'This is what I come back to: What is our responsibility as educators?' he said. 'It's not about us. It's about the kids.'
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Powerful sister of North Korean leader denies removal of frontline speakers
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — The powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Thursday dismissed South Korean claims that the North is removing some of its loudspeakers along the inter-Korean border, mocking the government in Seoul for clinging to hopes of renewed diplomacy between the war-divided rivals. Kim Yo Jong's statement came after South Korea's military said Saturday it had detected the North removing some of its loudspeakers, days after the South dismantled its own front-line speakers used for anti-North propaganda broadcasts in a bid to ease tensions. Kim reiterated previous North Korean statements that it has no immediate interest in reviving long-stalled negotiations with Washington and Seoul and cited an upcoming joint military exercise between the allies as proof of their continued hostility toward Pyongyang. While saying that North Korea was removing some of its speakers, South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff didn't disclose the sites where it spotted such activity and said it wasn't immediately clear whether the North would take all of them down. During a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, South Korea's new liberal President Lee Jae Myung described the North's alleged steps as a 'reciprocal measure' to South Korea's speaker removals and expressed hope that the Koreas could 'gradually reopen dialogue and communication.' Kim accused Lee's government of misleading the public, saying that the North Koreans 'have never removed loudspeakers installed on the border area and are not willing to remove them.' In recent months, South Korean border residents have complained that North Korean speakers blasted irritating sounds, including howling animals and pounding gongs, in a tit-for-tat response to South Korean propaganda broadcasts. The South Korean military said the North stopped its broadcasts in June after Lee ordered to halt South's broadcasts in his government's first concrete step toward easing tensions between the war-divided rivals. South Korea's military began removing its speakers from border areas last week but didn't specify how they would be stored or whether they could be quickly redeployed if tensions flared again.
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
The Awkward Adolescence of a Media Revolution
There's a quiet revolution in how millions of Americans decide what's real. Trust is slipping away from traditional institutions—media, government, and higher education—and shifting to individual voices online, among them social-media creators. The Reuters Institute reports that this year, for the first time, more Americans will get their news from social and video platforms—including Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and X—than from traditional outlets. According to Pew Research, one in five adults now regularly turns to influencers for news. For anyone who cares about credible information, this is a potentially terrifying prospect. Social media rewards virality, not veracity. Spend five minutes scrolling TikTok or Instagram and you might encounter influencers 'educating' you about a global elite running the world from 'hidden continents' behind an 'ice wall' in Antarctica, or extolling the virtues of zeolite, 'a volcanic binder for mold' that will 'vacuum clean all kinds of toxins' to lift brain fog, prevent cancer, and remove microplastics from testicles. (Link to purchase in bio.) It's an environment perfectly engineered to scale both misinformation and slick grifts. And yet the popular notion that social media is just a dumpster fire of viral lies misses something vital: Millions of people still care about truth. They are seeking facts on social media from credible voices they can trust. They just aren't always sure where to find it or from whom. I know because I interact with these people every day. I was among the first independent journalists to bring news reporting to Instagram; today my outlet, News Not Noise, spans Instagram, YouTube, a podcast, Substack, and other platforms. In my years of directly engaging with an on-platform audience, the question I receive more than any other remains simply, 'Is this true?' I'm here to tell you the truth isn't dead. Thousands of people like me operate online as what I call 'evidence-based creators.' We're journalists and specialists who use expertise, original reporting, and reliable sources to refute misinformation, add context to breaking news, and answer the endless questions flooding our DMs. The topics we cover range from redistricting to medical misinformation, beauty fads to whether that viral health-food trend might actually kill you. The work is an uphill battle. My cohort is not John Oliver–level media personalities with PR teams, production crews, and a research staff to fact-check the punch lines. We are independent voices operating without safety nets. I like to think of us as the digital equivalent of artisanal chefs working in a factory for mass-produced junk food. The very things that make us valuable—our obsession with facts, our commitment to nuance, our hours spent answering audience questions in the apps—put us at a profound disadvantage in the attention economy. What does it take to produce a slick video claiming that beef tallow is nature's Viagra? Fifteen minutes with an iPhone and zero regard for reality. While we're still sourcing assertions and trying to make complex ideas both accurate and engaging, the bullshit factory has already pumped out six more viral falsehoods. Our secret weapon isn't production value or algorithm hacking; it's trust. When I debunk a viral lie, I'm not a faceless institution. I'm the person who's been with my audience while they brush their teeth every morning, the person who's been in their ears during commutes, the person whose face they've studied through hundreds of 90-second windows into complex issues. This isn't an audience of passive consumers. They're hungry for more—more reporting on more topics, more conversations with experts, more explanations that break things down but don't treat an audience like idiots. 'Can the Supreme Court disbar an attorney?' 'Will the military disobey unconstitutional orders?' 'Do I need another measles vaccine as an adult?' All of this leaves evidence-based creators in a strange limbo. We're clearly valued; Substack, for instance, is proving that audiences are willing to stop scrolling and financially support 'verifiers' they trust. But we're still largely disconnected from the resources and collaborative frameworks that could multiply our impact. We're working so hard at the work itself that we have little opportunity to build the scaffolding required to create a durable new model in digital publishing—one that includes tools such as high-powered marketing and growth engines to reach new audiences, editorial oversight to help with difficult judgment calls, and shared research that would prevent each of us from having to build expertise from scratch with every breaking story. I see this obstacle as an opportunity. History shows us that industries facing technological disruption tend not to simply collapse—they transform. Look at what happened to the music industry when Spotify and its streaming cohort crashed the party. In the old days, musicians lived and died by album sales and radio play, with major labels acting as gatekeepers. Then streaming blew the doors off. The revolution was messy. Many artists found themselves with more listeners than ever but paychecks that wouldn't cover a month's worth of ramen. What helped the music industry find its footing wasn't nostalgia for CDs or vinyl. It was new infrastructure: playlist curation that helped listeners find their next obsession, analytics tools that told artists who was actually listening, distribution services that got music onto platforms, and business models that went beyond streaming royalties to include direct-to-fan revenue and merchandising. Artists still face challenges, but now labels are investing heavily in data to understand trends, offering artists different types of deals, and using their marketing muscle to help artists cut through the digital noise. The industry evolved by creating tools that complemented streaming algorithms instead of fighting them—helping artists understand their audiences, not just pray for a decent playlist placement. In our current information ecosystem, we're stuck in the awkward adolescence of a media revolution. The need for innovation couldn't be more urgent. Local newspapers are dying like mall food courts— 2,500-plus have shut down since 2005. Traditional media outlets are under assault by the Trump administration. And AI is flooding us with convincing fake content, making human truth tellers all the more necessary. Conversations about the press and the tech revolution often get stuck on the problems with or the inadequacy of any solution. It's time that changed. So I'll take the leap and propose some imperfect innovations. First, audiences could benefit from an independent, off-platform certification system to help them discern which independent voices adhere to journalistic standards. Not to be all 'Papers, please' about it, but audiences need signals about who's committed to accuracy versus who's just chasing likes. One solution: a nonprofit voluntary opt-in LEED-type certification that awards something like a blue check mark—but vetted far more rigorously—to creators who use agreed-upon trusted sources, check their facts, and reveal when their content is sponsored. I'm aware that any credentialing system risks backlash from those suspicious of 'gatekeeping.' But people shouldn't be disparaged for 'doing their own research' if they aren't offered the tools to tell reality from fiction. Second, evidence-based creators need support. Imagine a fractional-ownership model where like-valued creators buy into a shared professional framework. With an economy of scale, we could collectively share in things such as legal protection and sophisticated audience-development tools designed specifically for evidence-based content. We could sign sponsors who understand the unique value of trusted voices. We could offer bundled subscriptions to help audiences find more of us at once. This could create sustainable revenue streams without compromising integrity. Finally, legacy media, please stop viewing creators as a threat. We don't have to be competitors—we can be the connective tissue between trusted journalism and the platforms where people now consume most of their information. Traditional media outlets can stay relevant in the new digital reality by partnering with us. But first, it'd help if they'd allow for the possibility that what's happening isn't just the death of an old system—it's the messy, complicated birth of a new one. And like a newborn, it needs more than good intentions in order to thrive.
