An analysis of the last three years of coverage of North Korea in the Australian media shows a tendency in Australian coverage to uncritically reproduce certain metaphors that linguistically frame North Korea in ways that imply North Korea is dangerous and provocative; irrational; secretive; impoverished and totalitarian. This frameacts to delegitimize, marginalise and demonise North Korea and close offpossibilitiesfor moreconstructiveengagement. In the event of tensions, such awidespreadgroup think around North Korea could mean such tensions could quickly and dramatically escalate.

This analysis of media coverage about North Korea appearing in three major Australian media outlets,The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald(SMH) and transcripts of theAustralian Broadcasting Corporation(ABC) over the 3-year period from 1 January 2010 to 31December 2012 shows thatNorth Korea is rarely referred to as a country or its rulers as a government.. Theanalysisalsoreveals anumber of dominant metaphors: North Korea as a military threat (conflict metaphor); North Korea as unpredictable, irrational and ruthless (psychopathology metaphor); North Korea as isolated and secretive (pariah metaphor); North Korea as a cruel dystopia (Orwellian metaphor); North Korea as impoverished (basket case metaphor).

Suchmetaphors play an influential role in shaping public perceptions. In their largely uncritical reproduction of metaphors that linguistically frame North Korea, the Australian media reinforces a negative, often adversarial orientation towards North Korea.Without a change to the North Korean frame, resourced and evidence-based intervention is more likely to fail due to donor disengagement. We also run the risk of dehumanising the North Korean people and, in the event of conflict, humanitarian imperatives are more easily pushed aside in favour of the option to send in the drones with civilian deaths recast as collateral damage.

Metaphors

Conflict metaphor:By far, the most common conflict metaphor across the three news outlets used was nuclear, which appeared more than any other conflict metaphor

Psychology metaphor:A common theme in the media is that North Korea suffers from some sort of pathological narcissistic disorder, with portrayals of North Korea as seeking attention or as exploiting the threat of nuclear retaliation to extricate more aid. While the extent of North Koreas nuclear capability is not categorically known, its nuclear capacity is consistently assumed, with references to a possible nuclear holocaust with some reports making the claim (which is highly unlikely) that a North Korean nuclear warhead carrying a rocket could reach Australia.

Pariah metaphor:Numerous references to the pariah metaphor were found in the sample. The word secret or secretive was the most common, other common words included hermit, dark and closed.

Economic basket case metaphor:The samplealso contained a number of root metaphors relating to North Korea as a basket case. Foodor lack ofwas most commonly discussed.

Orwellian metaphor:A common theme was that North Korea is some kind of dystopia. The most commonly found term was dictator.

So North Korea is depicted as anisolatedandbackwardcountry run by a tyrant withcomically eccentric, excessive tastes. His regime consistently lies and cheats and is driven by a childish narcissismthat North Korea suffers from some sort of pathological narcissistic disorder, with portrayals of North Korea as seeking attention or as exploiting the threat of nuclear retaliation to extricate more aid. This is not a balanced consideration of North Korean motives and insteadservesto make us moreoblivious to that countrys point of view.A failure to understandNorth Korea’sinterestshas serious implications for how Australia (andher allies)responds to North Korea.

The theoretical and empirical evidence is that interest-based approaches tointernationalconflict management are the most effective.The ample body of international relations literature on conflict resolution also supports the propition that integrative or collaborative approaches to conflict management have better outcomes than competitive approaches. The literature proposes that the key to long-term conflict transformation is recognizing others interests and concerns as valid.But by reinforcing a negative, often adversarial orientation towards North Korea, the media effectively demonises all of North Korea’s interests, closes off thepossibilityof engagement- It effectively obscures our ability to see more creative, positive conflict management possibilities.

Despite the importance of presenting informed coverage, due to a widespread lack of knowledge on North Korea, the Australian news media continues to offer fragments of (mis)understanding to the general public. It is from discourse in the media that thewider public picks up vital cues about how their individual interests and the groups they are concerned with might be affected by North Korea, and what the national interest might be.Thetext and images onNorth Koreaemphasize the Otherness of the enemy whichis fundamental to wartime discourses becauseit cancreate the preconditions necessary for military action. The effect is to lockNorth Koreaand the civilised West into a mutually antagonistic relationship that precludes any solution other than the enemy being eliminated either through conversion or destruction

The Australian media would be substantially enlivened by more stories illustrating actual individual and community life to give a human face to North Korea and offer the Australian public a less singular, monotonous depiction of a country so often written about, with such a limited lexicon. Such journalism would alter the way we view North Korea and ameliorate the tendency to see it as an adversarial, irrational, rogue state populated by brainwashed citizens devoted to the cult of the Kims.It also should seek to better capture some of the complexities, and differences of opinion that make the North Korean problem so difficult to resolve, rather than making it still harder to solve bydemonisingcoverage which effectively rules North Korea out as a legitimate negotiating partner.

Without a timely change to the North Korean frame, resourced and evidence-based intervention is more likely to fail due to donor disengagement. We also run the risk of dehumanising the North Korean people and, in the event of conflict, human shields could easily be recast as collateral damage. In such a scenario, humanitarian imperatives are more easily cast aside in favour of the option to send in the drones.

DrBronwenDaltonis the Coordinator of the Not-For Profit and Community Management Program at the University of Technology, Sydney