Suspicious motive of press code

The press ordinance the government is hastening to introduce next month is anachronistic. It is beyond comprehension that amid an overall move toward deregulation, only the mass media is to be placed under tightened regulations.

Despite its pretensions to promote fairness, the draft press ordinance, prepared by the Fair Trade Commission, appears to be an attempt to control the sale, advertising and in-house transactions of newspaper organizations. Once the ordinance goes into effect, free competition among the media and the right of readers to choose their favorite newspapers are bound to suffer.

Allowing a distribution agent to sell more than one newspaper to which the agent is committed virtually clears the way for the joint sale of several newspapers, undermining the individuality of the particular newspaper. Most of all, the consequent subservience of a newspaper firm to its distribution arm is likely to undermine freedom of the press. The government would be in a position to regulate distribution channels at will and the latter would be able to suspend, with the connivance of government, the sale of a certain newspapers. It might infringe upon the long experience and accumulated know-how of newspapers which have built up their own sales networks.

The proposed directive may represent a wish to prevent big newspapers with monopolistic market advantages from unduly raising the prices of newspapers and advertisements. If so, that runs counter to the principles of free competition and market economy. Then, a mandatory allocation of ads could be possible. The ordinance that professes to curb unfair trade might well work to hinder normal, fair competition.

These circumstances lead us to question the government`s real intention in sticking to the directive. We can hardly dispel our misgivings that the government may be seeking to tie the hands of the press by means of an inquiry into their taxes, fair trade practices, the operation of their branch offices and agents nationwide and the bank accounts of reporters.

We can only wonder if the government means to tame the press by drastically weakening the organizational structures and influence of certain newspapers that have fallen out of favor with the powers that be. Experts pointed out that any attempt to enact a separate stipulation or special decree to relieve monopolistic influence on the press is against Article 37 of the Constitution, which bans superfluous prohibitions. Therefore, the government is advised to withdraw the plan, which is not only unconstitutional but hardly reflects the opinions of the newspaper community.

A series of the latest government policies, including the promotion of the questionable press code, give enough cause for concern that they overemphasize equal opportunity at the expense of capability and spontaneity, which are central to the market economy.