[Editorial] Media Reform against Democracy

The day before yesterday, the Korean Bar Association adopted a resolution condemning the government’s move to block news coverage by journalists under the name of an advanced media support system. The KBA resolution pointed out that the government unilaterally went ahead with the advanced “media reform” plan, which is highly likely to violate the public’s right to know, without any due process despite opposition from most Koreans and the media. A word from the president turned into a Prime Minister’s directive to infringe upon the freedom of speech guaranteed in our constitution. This goes against the rule of law. In this sense, the resolution is welcoming news. KBA chairman Lee Jin-kang also said that the government has been against democracy and against the rule of law.

The anachronistic media suppression of the lame-duck government is met with criticism and opposition within and without. Even in the National Assembly, the three main parties: the United New Democratic Party, the Grand National Party, and the Democratic Party oppose all in one voice the incumbent administration’s measure to close the press rooms. Accusations also come from citizens and media groups all around the world advocating freedom of speech. The International Press Institute said in an official letter to President Roh Moo-hyun that the organization is deeply concerned that the Korean government could seriously undermine freedom of speech.

Point men at the vanguard of the media oppression, however, are turning deaf ears to the criticism and pushing for a measure which is bound to be ridiculed by the world in a matter of months. In particular, the fact that the Korean Overseas Information Service (KOIS) amended the Prime Minister’s directive for media support standards three times indicates how hastily the media bill is being introduced.

The first clause of the eleventh article in the media bill states that news coverage on public officials should be done in consultation with policy promotion agencies, which can be abused to control any news report on public servants. Even though the KOIS put the expression of “in principal” in the clause to water down the meaning, its original intent does not change. The clause provided an excuse for public officials to dodge interviews or cooperation with journalists. It is pretty much obvious that the public’s right to know will be violated.

If the government believes it can resolve the conflict by changing a few lines of the Prime Minister’s directive, it should give it a second thought. Immediate withdrawal of the media bill is the only solution.