Ji Chang Wook’s agency & SBS show comment on his selca with Madame Lin

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!

Close

Article: [Official] Ji Chang Wook reps, "No relation to Madame Lin... She asked for a photo as a fan"

Source: Sports Choson via Naver

1. [+13442, -504] Hey, it's true that you're a club rat, though?

2. [+6956, -286] Expected outcome: Strong legal action -> Truth revealed -> Retirement (kicked out)

3. [+3249, -57] Usually, 'Unanswered Questions' is strict enough to blur out dogs ㅋㅋ

4. [+2404, -86] They even blurred out Ronaldo... um...

5. [+2315, -45] 'Unanswered Questions' was so shocking yesterday but it's not on Naver's main page? YG's second biggest shareholder Naver?

6. [+1218, -80] He's not denying that it's him.

7. [+1190, -66] The agency's statement 5 days later: "We could only trust Ji Chang Wook's own words. Today we will terminate Ji Chang Wook's contract. We ask the fans for understanding. We claim that our agency has nothing to do with Ji Chang Wook's controversy."

8. [+1126, -49] Why is this not a top search and where are the articles ㅋㅋ Hey, I used to be your fan and I know you're a rat at Arena Club ㅋㅋㅋㅋ Your best friends are the same, just like you ㅋㅋㅋ

9. [+1083, -16] Zico is staying quiet. I'm sure there's something about him, too.

10. [+953, -20] 'Unanswered Question' isn't a show to reveal his face by mistake. It's a TV program on social issues that's sensitive enough to blur out Ronaldo's face who doesn't even know hangul...

-

Article: 'Unanswered Questions' reps, "Ji Chang Wook's picture was used to describe Madame Lin... The controversy is unfortunate"

Source: Spotv News via Nate

1. [+2139, -43] I'm sure the show revealed his face on purpose because they have evidence to back up their claim. The show isn't stupid.

2. [+1928, -29] If Ji Chang Wook is innocent, he should be suing the show.

3. [+1508, -232] Ji Chang Wook's Instagram is terrorized. They should apologize him directly. If the show actually intended this, I'll get goosebumps.

4. [+282, -8] I think the show gave us a hint. I'm sure they'll use this statement in a later episode and say, "Ji-ssi's reps complained to us staff. However..."

5. [+275, -2] Chang Wook-ah, if you're innocent, you just have to sue the show ㅋㅋ And if the show gets sued, they'll provide more information ㅋㅋㅋㅋ

6. [+258, -2] The show could be sued for this, it's not like they don't know. They had prepared for this episode for 3 months. I'm sure they checked it many times.

7. [+244, -3] Choi Jonghoon denied at first, too.

8. [+236, -5] They didn't blur out his face on purpose. Do you think the show is stupid?

9. [+188, -4] I don't think the show aired his face without a thought on a sensitive topic like this. If the show actually revealed his face for nothing, Ji Chang Wook has the right to be upset and the show should apologize. But everybody denies at first and says they're not related to the controversy.

10. [+171, -3] When there was an article on Ji Chang Wook going on a vacation with Lee Jonghyun and Choi Tae Joon, I commented and said birds of a feather are hanging out together. I got so many downvotes ㅋㅋㅋㅋ They were birds of a feather indeed.

  • Rating:
  • Views:90 views
  • Tags: -
  • Categories: News

Comments

Write a comment

*