[DUNIA Book Club] Review of Jung Moontae’s Hazardous Frame: The Dangers and Possibilities of Framing

By Jo Goeun (Translator, Administrative Specialist)

The first meeting of the DUNIA Book Club was held on February 24, 2026, at the Newstapa Together Center. Eleven participants gathered — people who study or work in journalism or Asian affairs, as well as those who believe the lack of information about Asia is itself unjust. Together we read Jung Moontae’s Hazardous Frame (2017) and shared our thoughts on the basic attitudes the media takes toward Asia.

Hazardous Frame is a collection of columns written by journalist Jung Moontae, who has covered international news for more than twenty years. Originally published in The Hankyoreh between 2013 and 2016, the book critically examines how Korean media reporting on international news often ends up shielding conservative governments, aligning with U.S. perspectives, and objectifying Asia. In particular, Jung identifies several problematic tendencies in the Korean media’s treatment of Asian international news: ▲Relying on foreign media reports without conducting direct reporting. ▲ Uncritically adopting the U.S. perspective. ▲ Excluding Asian news as unimportant or treating Asia merely as an object of observation. ▲ Celebrating only those cases in which Korea receives recognition from the West as signs of progress or national achievement. These problems lead the author to pose questions such as the following:

1. Is it justifiable that Korean media conducts virtually no on-the-ground reporting on major Asian international events such as the “ASEAN Summit”?
2. Is it acceptable for the media to conceal or misreport diplomatic or North Korea–related issues initiated by the government, yet bear no responsibility for doing so?
3. Is ISIS truly the terrorist and the United States truly the champion of justice?
4. Is a Korean winning the Nobel Prize truly a cause for nationwide celebration?

Jung Moontae calls these patterns the “hazardous frame.” Through various international cases, he reveals the implicit value judgments and political positions embedded in the way Korean media reports—or chooses not to report—certain events.

Frame Is Not the Problem, but the Breakthrough

The causes of the problems listed above may include limited reporting resources, a readership perceived as uninterested in Asia, or the lingering Cold War habit of dividing the world into allies and enemies. However, if analyzing these causes serves not to solve the problem but merely to rationalize it, the effort becomes hollow. As long as fairness, objectivity, and neutrality are proclaimed as the core virtues of journalism, the media tends to conceal the fact that it inevitably selects, interprets, and comments on facts from a particular perspective. In modern society, this tendency is not limited to journalism. Scientists, educators, judges, administrators— many groups that make up social institutions often present themselves as humble observers who accurately perceive reality and derive objective laws, or as impartial administrators who faithfully implement established rules. Yet critical theories — from Marxism and feminism to postmodernism — have long pointed out that dominant powers in modern society govern precisely by disguising their own biased ideologies as objective and natural principles of the world or of human nature.

The concept of the “frame,” frequently used in media criticism, emerged precisely to expose such hidden bias in news reporting. For example, when reporting on U.S. military actions in Syria, Iraq, or Iran, Korean media often relies heavily on Anglo-American news sources — politically powerful, historically influential, linguistically accessible, and institutionally dominant. As a result, the narrative structure that positions Iran as the target of invasion from the U.S. perspective is reproduced almost naturally in Korean news. Within this structure, the context of war is presented primarily as an explanation of why the United States had no choice but to carry out the invasion. Despite being the country that inflicted immense violence through war, the United States appears as the rational and just side, while Iran — though invaded — becomes the frightening terrorist camp that could do something dangerous at any time. And this portrayal passes as objective and neutral reporting.

Yet frames themselves are not the problem that must be eliminated; they can instead become the breakthrough. If the real issue is the concealment of biased frames under the guise of objective fact, the solution is not to transcend all frames and reach some pure objectivity. Rather, it lies in actively recognizing the frames from which we operate and analyzing how they influence reporting. Only then can we critically revise existing frames or encounter new ones and appreciate their value.

Is the Media’s Prediction of Readers’ Demand Neutral?

Consider the often-repeated claim that Asian news is difficult to cover because there is no reader demand for it. On the surface, this statement places the media in a passive position, suggesting that it simply reflects the indifference of the public. Yet the statement conceals two active choices made by the media: 1) judging what readers supposedly want, and 2) excluding Asian news accordingly. In today’s media environment — where a single article can be rapidly transformed and shared across numerous platforms — predicting demand for “Asian stories” is far more difficult than in the past. When public attention is so fluid, on what grounds can we assert that “people are not interested in Asia” as if it were an objective fact? In reality, this claim often reflects a personal opinion or a biased assumption rather than empirical certainty. Only when the media recognizes that it is not merely a mirror reflecting a supposedly indifferent public but an active actor adopting and reinforcing the frame that “Asia is not interesting,” can it also begin to change that frame.

Hidden Frames Give Rise to Conspiracy Theories

Media that conceal their frames while claiming superficial objectivity and neutrality also become fertile ground for conspiracy theories. Jung Moontae notes that conspiracy theories have sometimes functioned as a form of resistance against media institutions that monopolized information and abused power — for instance, by justifying the Vietnam War through distorted reporting. Today, in an era where far-right narratives spread rapidly through diverse media platforms, conspiracy theories are often embraced simply because people distrust the media. Yet their fundamental premise remains the same: that the media is hiding something through a biased perspective. Unless the media itself actively becomes a subject of critical reflection and change regarding its own frames, it will continue to provide fertile soil for conspiracy theories.

During the reading discussion, DUNIA journalist Seulki Lee explained that the reason the book was chosen for the club was Jung Moontae’s determination to expand the narrow horizons of Korean journalism — particularly his effort to challenge a media environment that rarely reports directly from Asian sites or does so only fragmentarily. That aspiration resonates closely with the mission of DUNIA. The attempt to build an independent media outlet is also a challenge to construct its own frames for seeing the world. Some of these frames exist even before the founding of the outlet; others gradually emerge through reporting, writing, and interaction with the outside world. If DUNIA’s writers and readers are not merely to criticize the frames of mainstream media but also to examine themselves—asking which actors their reporting identifies with, whom it treats as objects of observation, which events it prioritizes, and which it relegates to the margins—then Hazardous Frame can serve as a meaningful guide along that path.

Jo Goeun has translated numerous works on feminism and queer theory and currently works as a certified translation and administrative specialist.