No news sources are entirely unbiased, even when they make an effort to be.

Regardless, we know a lot from NK from multiple sources. The main reason we don't know more is because of how closed that dictatorship is.

Or how closed we are to them? There is no media unbiased about them in the west. But I do know you can travel to NK and see for yourself.

That said, it is easier to know things about Portugal than NK. They are definitely doing something to hide information. I'm just trying to say that any image based on the media from non friendly country is bound to be wrong. No matter how much different sources you have.

> But I do know you can travel to NK and see for yourself.

My understanding is that tourists in North Korea only see what the government of North Korea wants them to see.

Here's one (admittedly potentially biased) source that claims as much:

"Tourist travel to North Korea is only possible as part of a guided tour. Independent travel is not permitted. If you are not prepared to accept severe limitations on your movements, behaviour, and freedom of expression, you should not travel to North Korea." [0]

[0] https://wikitravel.org/en/North_Korea

> But I do know you can travel to NK and see for yourself.

No you cannot. You'll be chaperoned everywhere and only shown things they want you to see.

We are not closed to them. The relationship in terms of how much each country sees inside the other is highly asymmetric here.

you can travel to NK, but you might end up like Otto Warmbier and come home a couple years later braindead. (he stole as a propaganda poster a souvenir, but brain death after a year of brutal torture seems.. extreme.)

you're also not allowed to travel without a guide.

also, given the videos I've seen taken by tourists when they've been able to sneak away from their minders, NK does not look very happy.

There are many different sources of information about what goes on in NK, including people who have escaped from there.

True: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkUMZS-ZegM

There's a difference between "media companies may have conflicts of interest or ideological bents" and "every single proposition ever stated by a journalist is specifically false".

it is true that a lot of mainstream media outlets that people consider "probably biased but overall trustworthy" just regurgitate talking points from the State Department, law enforcement, etc as fact.

One only needs to read the CIA's Wikipedia page or the CIA's own website to understand how embarrassing of a failure of thought and journalism it is to trust these institutions