The standoff in South Korea's Press Law revisions

Are the press law revisions justifiable or has President Roh lashed out at the three top newspapers because they reported his administration's scandals and shortcomings? Robin Rhee asks

By Robin Rhee
AsiaMedia Contributing Writer

Saturday, October 8, 2005

South Korea's current government has waged an off-again on-again war against the print media while both domestic and foreign press groups have lodged protests against the government's heavy-handed tactics.

At the beginning of this year, the government passed newly revised laws, which went into effect in July, regulating newspaper companies. Called both regressive and draconian by some, the major opposition Grand National Party (GNP) deemed them "a result of a dictatorial way of thinking." A GNP member of the National Assembly said, "The government's decision aims to divide the press into a group of supporters and a group of opponents."

Relations between the three major newspapers, the Chosun Ilbo, Dong-A Ilbo and the Joong Ang Ilbo, and the democratic presidents have been contentious. These three conservative newspapers have been very critical of their policies and programs. Accusations have been made that these newspapers prospered only because they cooperated with and supported the dictatorial regimes. Former President Kim Dae-jung had sought to limit their influence by using the tax office to carry out audits. That plan failed. Now President Roh Moo-hyun is seeking to limit their influence through the newspaper law revisions.

Under the new laws, the top three newspapers can have a combined market share of no more than 60 percent. A single newspaper can have no more than 30 percent. The three papers' current combined market share is approximately 70 percent. For business corporations, the combined market share cannot exceed 75 percent. Individual corporations, however, can hold a 50 percent share before they are considered a monopoly subject to fair trade laws with the possibility of accompanying penalties and fines. Clearly, business corporations get a better break than newspapers.

The government plans to set up its own law firm to file lawsuits against news outlets in order to encourage public servants to take "proper countermeasures against misreports." (The government has made liberal use of the terms "malicious reports" and "distorted reports" when referring to news coverage.) Tentatively called the Government Law Firm, it is scheduled to open in April, 2006. Of course, the firm will be funded by taxpayers money.

President Roh said in a meeting with political editors, "We intend to counter every critical article that does not present a viable alternative." This seems to be a smoke and mirrors statement that is certainly unclear as to its exact meaning. Taken at face value, every newspaper article that is critical of the government's policies and programs could end up as a court case. This would tie up reporters and newspapers in endless lawsuits that could seriously impact their mission of producing daily papers.

The government "recommends" but does not "mandate" that editorial policy be formed by a committee. Members should include journalists, union workers and readers. One can only imagine what Western nation newspapers would think of such a government recommendation! Not to mention the question that remains: Can the government hold it against newspapers that choose not to follow this recommendation?

The Ministry of Culture, over the next four years, is charged with setting up joint delivery networks for those papers which follow the government's guidelines. These would also serve as conduits for government newsletters and would have a sideline express delivery service. The estimated price tag is $93 million, also funded by taxpayers. In addition, a Newspaper Development Committee, also under Ministry control, would support and subsidize those papers that are approved by the government.

Newspapers are banned from running broadcast companies and wire services. Whether or not this also applies to online publications has not been spelled out.

In August of this year, the Government Information Agency distributed written guidelines to all government agencies that prohibit officials from giving interviews, making comments or cooperating with special requests made by certain news media which "continuously distort facts and maliciously slander government plans."

Criticism of the new press laws has come from both home and abroad. The Korea News Editors' Association said, "Press freedom and the Korean people's rights to know will be violated and the foundation of liberal democracy will be shaken."

When the World Association of Newspapers Congress met in Seoul last summer, incoming president Gavin O'Reilly said the media legislation is "...somewhat incompatible with internationally recognized standards governing the freedom to publish."

In its annual report the Korea Journalists' Club, which has a membership of 400 conservative journalists, rated press freedom in Korea for this year at 54.5 points out of a possible 100, down from last year's 60 points. One can assume this is directly related to the newspaper law revision.

When trying to sort out the basis of these press law revisions, the following points must be considered: The newspapers have been very critical of President Roh's programs and policies. He has seen his approval rating plummet and many of his proposals have gone down to defeat. He is halfway through his five-year term in office and is already approaching lame duck status. In a fit of anger, he said he would gladly cede his power to the Prime Minister and wanted to change the current system of government to a parliamentary one.

Are the press law revisions justifiable or has President Roh lashed out at the three top newspapers because they have reported his administration's scandals and shortcomings?

Several newspapers have asked the Constitutional Court to rule on whether or not the laws violate the "pursuit of happiness, equality and freedom of expression." It has also been suggested that the National Assembly take action to either remove or tone down some of the most offensive revisions. Until a court ruling or legislative action takes place, the effects of the revision of press laws will be a watch and wait standoff.

The views expressed above are those of the author and are not necessarily those of AsiaMedia or the UCLA Asia Institute.

Date Posted: 10/8/2005