[Reporter’s Notebook] Ruling Party Pushes Ahead with Media Arbitration Act Despite Criticism

[Asia Economy Reporter Oh Ju-yeon] 2014. After writing an article about workplace power abuse, I was reported. Following defamation claims to the Press Arbitration Commission and criminal complaints, a civil lawsuit for 30 million won was also filed. I was even asked to disclose my sources. Although it ended in a victory, what if the current ruling party's proposed amendment to the Press Arbitration Act had been in effect then? I would have had to consider the possibility of punitive damages up to five times the amount when conducting interviews and writing articles. Bearing the risk of being sued for defamation for 150 million won, could I have freely investigated power abuse issues?

Photo by Oh Ju-yeon

The amendment to the Press Arbitration Act, which the Democratic Party of Korea announced it would push through in August, includes a 'punitive damages system.' Even though the Justice Party opposed it, the Democratic Party appeared to back down by announcing a revised bill on the 12th, but upon closer inspection, harmful provisions still remain.

First, the revision stating that 'high-ranking public officials, elected officials, and executives of large corporations will be excluded from claims for punitive damages' could be circumvented by family members, relatives, or company associates abusing the system indirectly. Also, the clause that 'the person claiming damage must clearly be the subject of presumed intentional or gross negligence to eliminate ambiguity in the burden of proof' has been criticized because ordinary citizens would find it difficult to bear the burden of proof. Ultimately, political and economic powers will likely exploit this, and when they request sources for fact-checking articles, journalists may have to comply not based on journalistic ethics but according to the 'law,' raising concerns that investigative activities could be stifled. Although the provision for 'the right to request blocking of access,' which can cause stigmatization effects, is said to have its display clause deleted, it remains unclear whether the 'right to request blocking of access' itself will be maintained, requiring a clear explanation.

Despite these controversies, the Democratic Party insists on passing the Press Arbitration Act in the August National Assembly session. The rush to pass it has sparked criticism in the political sphere ahead of the March presidential election next year. The more contentious the bill, the longer it should take to reach sufficient consensus to avoid problems. We hope the bill will not become a patchwork law subject to changes depending on the ruling party's preferences.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.