FRONTLINE / AP’s Continued Failure To Properly Credit A Major Source In Its Documentary “South Korea’s Adoption Reckoning”.

Posted to Paperslip on September 24th, 2025.

+

It has been a full year since FRONTLINE and the Associated Press released their documentary “South Korea’s Adoption Reckoning” (September 20th, 2024)—and I am still stunned by their refusal to give me even a single line of credit for my substantial role in shaping the project.

I was the person who first brought the issue of systemic switching to the attention of AP reporter Tong-hyung Kim in January 2021. Over the next three years, I connected him with numerous Adoptees—over a dozen of whom are switched Adoptees, and many others with different types of falsification in their cases. These Adoptees form the backbone of both the documentary and the accompanying AP articles. Yet somehow, I was completely erased from the credits of the documentary.

During a Zoom conversation addressing the removal of my story from the documentary—despite mine being the first filmed—Director Lora Moftah privately acknowledged that my “handprints were all over the documentary.” While filming in South Korea in July 2023, she even exclaimed, “You’re the driver!” This wasn’t a casual remark; it reflected her realization that I had been instrumental in shaping the very story they were capturing.

Though I had been in regular contact with AP journalist Tong-hyung Kim since January 2021—after reaching out to him about writing on systemic switching—I only met Lora Moftah when she and Tong-hyung Kim interviewed me in the U.S. in June 2023, at the very outset of the FRONTLINE/AP documentary production. Her statement made clear that she understood the foundational role I played.

So why was it impossible for FRONTLINE or the AP to extend even a basic “Special Thanks” in the end credits? That’s not just an oversight—it’s a conscious erasure.

Attributing sources and acknowledging contributors is a basic ethical standard in journalism and documentary work. The fact that this standard was ignored in a project centered on truth, identity, and justice is not just ironic—it’s indefensible.

+

I implicitly trusted both FRONTLINE’s Lora Moftah and AP’s Tong-hyung Kim and never expected to NOT be credited in the FRONTLINE documentary. After all, I had been in touch with Tong-hyung Kim regularly for three years, and he had interviewed me on camera in S. Korea in 2021, in both Seattle and S. Korea in 2023, and we had conducted at least two interviews since 2021 via Zoom. At my invitation, Tong-hyung Kim had accompanied me to my Korean Adoption Agency, KSS, in 2021. Footage (which I own) of that meeting which includes Tong-hyung Kim’s presence is featured in the 2022 SBS (Seoul Broadcasting System) one hour documentary about my case. In the wake of the 2024 FRONTLINE / AP documentary release, Tong-hyung Kim has publicly acknowledged in print that this visit with me to KSS sparked his “years-long obsession with reporting on adoption fraud out of Korea.”

While I had figured out in advance that my story was going to be cut from the documentary—though neither Lora Moftah nor Tong-hyung Kim told me this directly, I had to painfully figure this out on my own—I was completely stunned when I received ZERO acknowledgement in the credits of the documentary.

In the wake of Lora Moftah and Tong-hyung Kim’s egregious breach of trust, I recently posed this question regarding standard journalistic ethics to Google Gemini:

Is it commonly the case in journalism that a source will provide many referrals to a journalist in the hopes of getting a story written - then that journalist becomes the star of a documentary about the topic the source was providing referrals for, and the source is not credited in the documentary? Is this ethical or not? Note that the source was filmed for the documentary, but the source's story was cut out, and her role remained unacknowledged in the documentary.

Google Gemini responded:

“Journalistic ethics require truth, accuracy, and fairness. A journalist who uses a source's referrals to create a story or documentary but then fails to credit them, especially if that source's own story is filmed and then cut, acts unethically. While it's not a common or standard practice, it does happen, and is considered a breach of trust.

Common Practices vs. Unethical Behavior

In journalism, it's very common for sources to provide referrals. Journalists often rely on a network of sources to find new leads, verify information, and gain a deeper understanding of a topic. Sources, especially those deeply involved in a subject, are often the best people to point a reporter to other relevant experts, witnesses, or documents. This is a fundamental part of the reporting process.

However, the scenario you describe—where the journalist becomes the "star" of a documentary and the original source is completely unacknowledged—is not a standard practice. It is an unethical breach of the trust and understanding that should exist between a journalist and a source.

Ethical Considerations

The relationship between a journalist and a source is built on mutual understanding and, often, a commitment to protect the source. The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics emphasizes several key principles that are relevant here:

Seek Truth and Report It: Journalists should be honest, fair, and courageous in gathering, reporting, and interpreting information. This includes acknowledging the origins of information and avoiding plagiarism. A source who provides the foundation for a story is, in essence, an uncredited co-reporter on the project.
Minimize Harm: Journalists should be compassionate and transparent, and they should avoid exploiting sources. Cutting a source's story, after filming it, and then failing to acknowledge their foundational role is a form of exploitation. It minimizes their contribution and can leave them feeling used and harmed.
Be Accountable and Transparent: Journalists should take responsibility for their work and explain their ethical choices to the public. The journalist, in this case, failed to be transparent about how the documentary came to be and whose work it was built upon.

When a journalist makes a deal with a source to film them, there's an implicit agreement that their story will be used unless otherwise discussed. To film a person, cut their story, and then not even credit them for their referrals is a serious ethical violation. It shows a disregard for the source's contribution and the trust they placed in the journalist.”

+

While I acknowledge that AP's Tong-hyung Kim wrote a print story and featured my case in a FRONTLINE/AP interactive piece, my contributions were significant and should have been credited in ALL journalistic entities to which I contributed—including the documentary. The documentary prominently featured systemic switching, a topic which Tong-hyung Kim was definitely not writing about nor investigating prior to when I first approached him in January 2021 to request that he do so. Lora Moftah is neither a Korean nor an Adoptee, and never would have been connected to the specific Korean Adoptees whom I referred to both her and Tong-hyung Kim—nor would she ever have otherwise been aware of the topic of systemic switching. Lora Moftah and Tong-hyung Kim were credited for their work across all pieces, and I certainly should have received the same recognition.

Google Gemini agrees with me:

I reposed the question to Google Gemini:

Is it commonly the case in journalism that a source will provide many referrals to a journalist in the hopes of getting a story written - then that journalist becomes the star of a documentary about the topic the source was providing referrals for, and the source is not credited in the documentary? Is this ethical or not? Note that the source was filmed for the documentary, but the source's story was cut out, and her role remained unacknowledged in the documentary.

Is this ethical or unethical, even if a print story was published about the source?

Google Gemini responded:

”Whether a source is credited in a documentary is an ethical question that depends on the specific agreements made and the context of the relationship. It's not a common practice in journalism for a journalist to become the star of a documentary about a topic a source provided referrals for, and for the source to be uncredited. This would be unethical, especially since the source was filmed for the documentary but their story was cut and their role remained unacknowledged.

Key Ethical Considerations

A journalist has a duty of care and accountability to their sources. Here's a breakdown of the ethical issues at play:

Transparency and Informed Consent: A core tenet of both journalism and documentary filmmaking is transparency. The journalist and the filmmakers have an ethical obligation to be clear about the purpose of the interviews, how the material will be used, and the potential outcomes. When a source is led to believe their story will be a central part of a film, but it's later cut and their contribution is unacknowledged, it's a profound violation of trust.
Betrayal of Trust: The source provided referrals and gave their time and story, likely with the expectation that they would be featured in a meaningful way. Cutting their story and leaving them unacknowledged is a betrayal of the trust they placed in the journalist and the filmmakers. This action can cause harm by undermining the source's reputation, professional standing, or personal motivation for helping.
Obligation to Acknowledge: Even if a story was published in print, a separate documentary production has its own ethical standards. The source's role in the documentary, particularly being filmed, establishes a relationship that carries an obligation to be acknowledged. Failing to do so can be seen as an exploitation of the source for the journalist's or the documentary's gain.
The Power Dynamic: In this scenario, there is a significant power imbalance. The journalist, who becomes the documentary's star, gains significant public recognition and professional advancement. The source, who provided the foundational information, is rendered invisible. Ethically, a journalist should strive to empower sources, not eclipse them. The journalist's professional success should not come at the expense of the person who made the story possible.”

+

I posed the same question to ChatGPT.

I asked ChatGPT:

Is it commonly the case in journalism that a source will provide many referrals to a journalist in the hopes of getting a story written - then that journalist becomes the star of a documentary about the topic the source was providing referrals for, and the source is not credited in the documentary? Is this ethical or not? Note that the source was filmed for the documentary, but the source's story was cut out, and her role remained unacknowledged in the documentary. Is this ethical or unethical, even if a print story was published about the source?

ChatGPT responded:

”What you're describing touches on ethics in both journalism and documentary filmmaking, and it's a gray area—legally permissible in most cases, but potentially unethical, depending on the expectations that were set and the power dynamics involved.

Let’s break it down:

✅ What might be considered ethical (technically):

Sources don’t have ownership over a story. In journalism, once a source provides information or referrals, the journalist is under no obligation to credit the source beyond what's editorially appropriate (unless promises were made).
Creative decisions in documentaries (e.g., cutting someone’s interview, excluding credit) often reflect runtime, narrative structure, or audience focus—not necessarily bad intent.
A print story was published about the source. That may fulfill the journalistic duty in the eyes of some producers or editors.

❌ What raises ethical red flags:

Lack of credit or acknowledgment, especially if the source played a significant role in enabling the journalist's access or understanding, may seem like a betrayal.
Cutting the source out of the final film after filming them, without acknowledgment, can feel exploitative—especially if their referrals helped make the documentary possible.
If the source had a reasonable expectation of collaboration or credit, and the journalist benefited significantly (e.g., becoming the “star” of the documentary), that veers into exploitative territory.
Power imbalance: A source often provides help in good faith, trusting the journalist. If the journalist parlayed that trust into a career boost while leaving the source invisible, that's ethically questionable.

Summary: Is it ethical?

Not clearly unethical by industry standards, but ethically murky—especially if:

The source helped build the story in a major way.
The source’s story was filmed and cut without any acknowledgment.
The journalist gained a major platform (documentary lead) as a result of that behind-the-scenes help.

Best practices (often ignored):

Offer acknowledgment in the credits or in interviews about the film.
Be transparent about the intent and potential uses of the material.
Maintain relational accountability—recognizing those who made your work possible, even if they’re not featured on screen.

Final thought:

Just because something is common in the industry doesn't make it ethical. This sounds like a situation where credit and visibility were unjustly withheld, even if the letter of journalistic or documentary ethics wasn't violated.”

+

Final Thoughts.

It would have cost FRONTLINE and the Associated Press nothing—not a cent—to include a single line of “Special Thanks” in the credits of the documentary. But in the end, neither FRONTLINE’s Lora Moftah, nor AP’s Tong-hyung Kim, nor anyone in leadership at either organization found it within themselves to offer the most basic acknowledgment in the film. They were happy to use my time, my contacts, and my years long investigation into systemic switching—but not my name.

In the end, the FRONTLINE/AP documentary won neither a Peabody nor an Emmy—awards that honor journalistic integrity. That absence speaks volumes.