[Editorial] President Roh’s Bizarre View of the Press

President Roh’s remarks that, “I feel that opposition to the plans to build a new capital is a campaign to unseat me,” and that, “The leading opponents are newspaper companies which have their huge corporate headquarters in front of the government office compound” contain a considerable deal of fallacies.

Dong-A Ilbo and other newspapers did not lead the opposition to the plans. In editorials and other articles, we have criticized the ramshackle implementation of the transfer of the capital, a grandiose, once-in-a-century project, and demanded prudence and national consensus for it.

Almost every daily newspaper found President Roh’s identification of opposition to the plans as a campaign to unseat him to be inappropriate. Previously, about 130 opinion leaders, some progressive, demanded the reconsideration of the plans. How can he explain their demand? They don’t have huge buildings in front of the government compound.

The remarks reveal the president’s twisted view on the press. If he regards critiquing the political power and the government, the role the press should play, as an attempt by newspapers with huge buildings to safeguard their vested interest, the future for this country will be indeed grim. Freedom of the press and the process of building public opinion in the free market of ideas will vanish.

To add insult to injury, an official told Dong-A Ilbo and Chosun Ilbo at a press briefing to stop the binge of curse [while indicating their critical posturing toward the plans]. This is an absurd remark. Does the Presidential Office hold the role of the press, critiquing and monitoring the power and policy as the binge of curse?

It is deplorable to continuously see a president’s divisiveness, distrust, and moves to invoke social divisions. It is to the point that he is dividing the press into those who have huge buildings in front of the government complex and those who do not. This is even miserable. How can this government claim to be the people’s participation government as its official slogan indicates with such a narrow-minded view on the press?