"Thats my internationally recognised bit of international waters!" The annoying thing is though, by countries in Asia complaining about China flying in their ADIZ they legitimise China's claims with their man made islands.
They need to stop complaining and if the jets ever cross into your actual territory you shoot them down.
The truth that people aren't willing to listen to is that that SKorea and Japan aren't more pragmatic or less revanchist over certain territories than China; they're just less successful.
Japanese/Korean security cooperation commonly falls apart because both sides are literally too nationalistic to not piss the other off at the first possible opportunity. (Though I believe Japan to generally be more at fault than Korea for obvious reasons)
You're entirely right, but the systemic small dog syndrome will lead these countries to make mistakes over and over again.
BBC has officially slipped below yellow journalism. Even tabloids who milk on those ADIZ fake outrage stories know that ADIZ is not airspace LMAO
The third paragraph states:
Some countries delineate air identification defence zones, wherein they require foreign planes to identify themselves. These are not part of sovereign airspaces under international law.
They know that it is not airspace. The writer has given a very even handed account. The editor / sub-editor has sensationalised the headline.
It was implied that the BBC does not know the difference between ADIZ and airspace, which was objectively incorrect and what I was drawing attention to. I didn't mention the standard of the BBC?
We didn't say "[the journalist] slipped below yellow journalism", rather "BBC slipped".
Yes, I'll attach my own (reddit) name with [u]glymao (changing the symbols to not actually ping him), and the many who expressed agreement with him, in accusing the BBC of "below yellow journalism". That should be enough to properly use "we".
It was implied that the BBC does not know the difference between ADIZ and airspace
To be fair, your statement is not wrong on the surface level.
Anyways, I went back and took a deeper look at the exchange between you two.
The real implication (by [u]glymao) is the awareness by the outlet that their readers would not know the difference, and would be easily baited into clicking on the article or (far more commonly) repeating sensationalized ragebait without even reading past the headline.
Yes, of course the BBC should know the difference (and at least the writer does, despite obeying orders--or taking orders--to write this piece despite knowing).
But the tabloids know as well, and publish anyways. And the BBC is now in the same boat as them.
Not really, because unless you are glymao's sock puppet then you didn't say "[the BBC] slipped below yellow journalism" at all. But if that is also your opinion then fair enough.
The real implication (by [u]glymao) is the awareness by the outlet that their readers would not know the difference, and would be easily baited into clicking on the article or (far more commonly) repeating sensationalized ragebait without even reading past the headline
I am curious how you inferred any comment about the awareness of the readership from:
BBC has officially slipped below yellow journalism. Even tabloids who milk on those ADIZ fake outrage stories know that ADIZ is not airspace LMAO
Also, from your "deeper look" at our exchange, you should have observed that I simply corrected the implication that the BBC does not know the difference between airspace and ADIZ because it's clarified in the article itself.
Yes, of course the BBC should know the difference (and at least the writer does, despite obeying orders--or taking orders--to write this piece despite knowing).
The writer explicitly points out the difference in the article, so I'm not sure what orders you think they were following in writing the article?
But the tabloids know as well, and publish anyways. And the BBC is now in the same boat as them.
I have not disputed that a sensationalist headline is unbecoming of the BBC, you can keep reiterating that point and I can keep agreeing with you but that seems a bit pointless.
Yes "BBC is yellow 'journalism' rag" is 100% my opinion too.
Readership (non)awareness is implied in general, not from any statement in this thread.
The deeper implication is that the story is not really newsworthy to anyone who recognizes this distinction between airspace and "airspace". That the journalist wrote it at all means he also likely knew he was participating in clickbait journalism (willingly or following orders).
But it does seem like we are in general agreement, yes.
Frequently? In pretty much all cases it was the same thing with the "identification zone". The corridors to Kaliningrad and St. Petes is rather narrow, so this is unavailable
Russia does not recognise South Korea's air defence zone, describing it as "unilaterally" established and saying it should therefore not create any legal obligations for other countries.
As much as I don't support Russia's attempts at regional sabre rattling, they're quite unambiguously right here. It's not airspace and they can only create legal obstacles for flights intending to enter their actually recognised airspace.
So the headline's misleading as no flights have actually entered SKorean Airspace:
Seoul said it sent up fighter jets to "take tactical measures in preparation for any emergencies" after seven Russian and two Chinese military aircraft "briefly entered" the zone on Tuesday, but noted they "did not violate" South Korea's airspace.
South Korea protests at Chinese and Russian warplanes in its airspace
Literally 2nd paragraph in the article:
Seoul said it sent up fighter jets to "take tactical measures in preparation for any emergencies" after seven Russian and two Chinese military aircraft "briefly entered" the zone on Tuesday, but noted they "did not violate" South Korea's airspace.
Just your average craptacular kindergarten grade Western propaganda that will be gobbled by the average brainwashed Westerner.
Screams western propaganda about everything, but points out that the article was correct. These goofy bots and shill come out in literally any and every article about Russia. So predictable.
If you're in the UK, you can also try writing to your MP.
This is definitely not acceptable behavior. It's sad that we're seeing this more and more from formerly reputable publications like the BBC and NYT.
Best case scenario this was rage bait to get views by the writer/slipped through editorial cracks. Worst case scenario this is an editorial decision to not change the title and they "have an agenda" to push a narrative.
SK is getting way less patient with this stuff, wouldn’t be shocked if SK ramps defense spending even more or tightens trilateral cooperation with Japan and the US. Feels like the kind of trend traders quietly price in months before headlines catch up
The only one with an ADIZ as egregious is Taiwan, whose ADIZ extends far into mainland China. It actually covers FIVE TIMES MORE land in mainland China than its own lands!
When you draw your ADIZ like that, YOU are the one looking for trouble.
Beijing and Moscow love doing these little airspace flirtations whenever they want headlines or bargaining leverage. South Korea protests, issues a statement, jets scramble, and everyone goes home pretending they won something
Cool, except there was no airspace violation. ADIZs aren’t national airspace, they’re just unilaterally designated areas with no legal meaning.
For example, “Taiwan” has an ADIZ that actually covers part of Fujian. A Chinese plane flying over Chinese territory can simultaneously cross the ADIZ of “Taiwan”.
These air defence zones aren't actually that countries territory, they were flying over international waters.
This is super bog standard for the Russians everywhere and I assume for China in the south China Sea and other Asian waters.
BBC has officially slipped below yellow journalism. Even tabloids who milk on those ADIZ fake outrage stories know that ADIZ is not airspace LMAO
This is like a crazy neighbour across the street calling the sidewalk, the road, AND my front yard as "her property".
"Thats my internationally recognised bit of international waters!" The annoying thing is though, by countries in Asia complaining about China flying in their ADIZ they legitimise China's claims with their man made islands.
They need to stop complaining and if the jets ever cross into your actual territory you shoot them down.
The truth that people aren't willing to listen to is that that SKorea and Japan aren't more pragmatic or less revanchist over certain territories than China; they're just less successful.
Japanese/Korean security cooperation commonly falls apart because both sides are literally too nationalistic to not piss the other off at the first possible opportunity. (Though I believe Japan to generally be more at fault than Korea for obvious reasons)
You're entirely right, but the systemic small dog syndrome will lead these countries to make mistakes over and over again.
The third paragraph states:
They know that it is not airspace. The writer has given a very even handed account. The editor / sub-editor has sensationalised the headline.
That's the point? The writer knows about it but the BBC editors made it fake news
The writer is also part of the BBC, though and clearly knows the difference between airspace and ADIZ.
In journalism the editor is ultimately responsible for what the outlet publishes.
I agree. But they still know the difference, even if the editor has chosen to sensationalise it.
We didn't say "[the journalist] slipped below yellow journalism", rather "BBC slipped".
If I produce a nice product and my boss proceeds to take a giant shit on it before distributing it, our company is distributing a shitty product.
It was implied that the BBC does not know the difference between ADIZ and airspace, which was objectively incorrect and what I was drawing attention to. I didn't mention the standard of the BBC?
We?
Yes, I'll attach my own (reddit) name with [u]glymao (changing the symbols to not actually ping him), and the many who expressed agreement with him, in accusing the BBC of "below yellow journalism". That should be enough to properly use "we".
To be fair, your statement is not wrong on the surface level.
Anyways, I went back and took a deeper look at the exchange between you two.
The real implication (by [u]glymao) is the awareness by the outlet that their readers would not know the difference, and would be easily baited into clicking on the article or (far more commonly) repeating sensationalized ragebait without even reading past the headline.
Yes, of course the BBC should know the difference (and at least the writer does, despite obeying orders--or taking orders--to write this piece despite knowing).
But the tabloids know as well, and publish anyways. And the BBC is now in the same boat as them.
Not really, because unless you are glymao's sock puppet then you didn't say "[the BBC] slipped below yellow journalism" at all. But if that is also your opinion then fair enough.
I am curious how you inferred any comment about the awareness of the readership from:
Also, from your "deeper look" at our exchange, you should have observed that I simply corrected the implication that the BBC does not know the difference between airspace and ADIZ because it's clarified in the article itself.
The writer explicitly points out the difference in the article, so I'm not sure what orders you think they were following in writing the article?
I have not disputed that a sensationalist headline is unbecoming of the BBC, you can keep reiterating that point and I can keep agreeing with you but that seems a bit pointless.
Yes "BBC is yellow 'journalism' rag" is 100% my opinion too.
Readership (non)awareness is implied in general, not from any statement in this thread.
The deeper implication is that the story is not really newsworthy to anyone who recognizes this distinction between airspace and "airspace". That the journalist wrote it at all means he also likely knew he was participating in clickbait journalism (willingly or following orders).
But it does seem like we are in general agreement, yes.
There was one recently where BIG BAD CHINESE locked their radar onto japanese F-15.
Totally not something literally everybody does because it gives you best information about a target
It's tame for Russia. In the Baltics they actually violate airspace, frequently.
Frequently? In pretty much all cases it was the same thing with the "identification zone". The corridors to Kaliningrad and St. Petes is rather narrow, so this is unavailable
Except all the cases they didn't. I don't know how many actual airspace violations do you need by a hostile power until you consider them frequent...
It's supper bog standard for the U.S . and friends as well.
The South China Sea has another name? Something that pisses them off?
Apparently the Philippines call it the West Philippine Sea. I bet that annoys them 🤣
As much as I don't support Russia's attempts at regional sabre rattling, they're quite unambiguously right here. It's not airspace and they can only create legal obstacles for flights intending to enter their actually recognised airspace.
So the headline's misleading as no flights have actually entered SKorean Airspace:
Headline:
Literally 2nd paragraph in the article:
Just your average craptacular kindergarten grade Western propaganda that will be gobbled by the average brainwashed Westerner.
Screams western propaganda about everything, but points out that the article was correct. These goofy bots and shill come out in literally any and every article about Russia. So predictable.
This is why you don't just read the headlines.
Is not there exclusive economic zone.
It's what they describe as a identification zone. Which China and Russia doesn't recognise
They shouldn't, and it doesn't matter anyway. South Korea is not a legitimate country.
Found the North Korean
Edit: typo
"founder" the person without an ounce of historical knowledge on Korea.
I won't point out the BBC's BS sins again, but I'm glad to see most of yall have called it out.
They do have formal complaints channels to deal with these and I would recommend you guys to submit a complaint:
https://www.bbc.com/news/55077304
If you're in the UK, you can also try writing to your MP.
This is definitely not acceptable behavior. It's sad that we're seeing this more and more from formerly reputable publications like the BBC and NYT.
Best case scenario this was rage bait to get views by the writer/slipped through editorial cracks. Worst case scenario this is an editorial decision to not change the title and they "have an agenda" to push a narrative.
It's the editor/ sub editor that creates the headline, very rarely would it be done by the author of the article itself.
SK is getting way less patient with this stuff, wouldn’t be shocked if SK ramps defense spending even more or tightens trilateral cooperation with Japan and the US. Feels like the kind of trend traders quietly price in months before headlines catch up
SK air defense zone literally includes half of NK.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/JADIZ_and_CADIZ_and_KADIZ_in_East_China_Sea.jpg/960px-JADIZ_and_CADIZ_and_KADIZ_in_East_China_Sea.jpg
The only one with an ADIZ as egregious is Taiwan, whose ADIZ extends far into mainland China. It actually covers FIVE TIMES MORE land in mainland China than its own lands!
When you draw your ADIZ like that, YOU are the one looking for trouble.
Taiwan claims the whole mainland as their own as well. Funny if you ask me. 😅
You do know that SK is going into 3 front war if they are not suck it up, don't you?
Oh, look, how cute, South Korea is rattling its pinches fingers sabre.
Seoul’s tolerance meter is empty
Beijing and Moscow love doing these little airspace flirtations whenever they want headlines or bargaining leverage. South Korea protests, issues a statement, jets scramble, and everyone goes home pretending they won something
Cool, except there was no airspace violation. ADIZs aren’t national airspace, they’re just unilaterally designated areas with no legal meaning.
For example, “Taiwan” has an ADIZ that actually covers part of Fujian. A Chinese plane flying over Chinese territory can simultaneously cross the ADIZ of “Taiwan”.
Freedom of navigation in international airspace baby!