Korean Broadcasting Commission Issues Impartiality Report

The Korean Broadcasting Commission (KBC) published a report on how to ensure impartiality and fairness in election-related coverage. The report also raised issues but also TV discussions lacking substance and the hasty reporting of polling results. Authors of the report said, “Media outlets themselves should not produce political messages or modify them to undermine the impartiality of election-related broadcasting.”

Shim Jae-cheol, the GNP lawmaker in the National Assembly’s Culture and Tourism Committee who received the report from the KBC, said, “In the media, broadcasting stations wield the most influence; still, they need to do a lot before they can achieve impartiality.”

Yellow journalism –

The report writes that election coverage is filled with stories that will attract people’s attention, focuses on mudslinging, party politics or regional conflicts, and reports favorably on the ruling party and its presidential hopefuls.

In regard to biased coverage, in particular, news channels spared more time for ruling party presidential hopefuls than those from opposition parties, and tried to convey positive images of them by using better images, background, positions, or other camera techniques, the report said.

When experts (162 people) in the academic circle and the press, and in civic organizations were asked what should be done to aid fair election reporting, most responded (4.85/5) that news channels should stop distorting official remarks by presidential hopefuls, followed by a ban on reporting when information is not accurate (4.75), and establishing independence from internal control (4.66).

Some said that domestic news channels covering elections exercising accuracy, independence, and impartiality was practically impossible as they pursued yellow journalism (21.7 percent) and that they colluded with political organizations (12.5 percent).

TV discussions lacking substance–

The report said that since 1995, when TV discussions were introduced during the Seoul mayoral election period, the discussions did not help constituents make an informed decision, even though those discussions are getting more influential.

Experts said about TV discussions that due to an excessive focus placed on formalities, presidential hopefuls were not allowed to answer in an in-depth manner (4.24), and that due to time constraints, only superficial remarks or talks were made (4.16).

When asked about ways to improve TV discussions, experts said that questions on well-known political platforms or PR messages should be banned (4.41), and that a moderator should stop presidential hopefuls from waging personal attacks (4.31).

The report said, “The current format of press conferences and discussions between presidential hopefuls should give way to holding ‘a press conference for one presidential hopeful’ or a ‘citizen forum.’” In addition, they said that presidential hopefuls refusing to appear on the discussions and partiality issues of moderators or panelists should be resolved.

Permanent review board needed –

The report argued for the need to establish a permanent review board in order to secure the impartiality of broadcasting stations covering elections or using other institutional means. Authors said, “The current review board can only do so much.”

They also cited the BBC as an example of balanced coverage and said, “If it reported about party A and its convention, it would cover stories about party B within a week, striking a balance in reporting on different parties under a set of guidelines.”

kimhs@donga.com