[Yes and No] There Is No Shame in Rejecting the Media Arbitration Act...

The Press Cannot Deny Responsibility for Creating the Need for Media Reform
Yet Saying 'No Means No' Is Also the Fate of the Press
News Consumption Patterns and Portal Distribution Monopoly Must Be Addressed Together

Throughout my career as a journalist, I have criticized many groups: judges, prosecutors, lawyers, professors, teachers, doctors, pharmacists, and even the highest authorities. Whenever reforms were attempted to change their professional powers, those in power resisted, claiming it was their legal right. However, the media dismissed this by stating that such rights were only temporarily entrusted by society out of necessity and were never meant to be permanently attached to any specific profession.

Those with professions that significantly impact others' lives work not only for personal gain but also with ethics and a sense of mission. Therefore, they often oppose new systems by arguing that these would negatively affect their professional ethics or sense of responsibility. For example, pharmacists argued that allowing painkillers to be sold in convenience stores would threaten patient safety, and as experts, they could not overlook this. However, it is difficult to sharply separate the concern for profit loss from the professional mission of protecting patient safety. Yet, when many experts testify that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, when there are alternative ways to prevent anticipated side effects, and when a journalist’s conscience points in that direction, I believed it was the media’s duty to criticize the self-interest of interest groups and shape public opinion to achieve reform.

A law aimed at reforming the uncontrolled power group of the media is about to pass through the National Assembly. As a journalist who is a party to this social issue, it is quite difficult to maintain an objective stance and attitude. The Media Arbitration Act will bring both benefits and harms to society. However, as a journalist, I cannot help but lean toward the view that the side effects of this bill?damaging press freedom and causing a crisis in democracy?will be greater.

But with what sense of shame could I claim this? Is it not undeniable that the need for media reform was created by the media itself? Of course, there may be unfair aspects. Many of the problems the Media Arbitration Act seeks to resolve were actually created through collusion between the media and civil society. Readers who believe that “true media” is the media that tells them what they want to hear (the opposite being fake news), and media aligned with such factional logic, have interacted like a chicken-and-egg relationship.

Another axis is the problem of extreme commercialism and low-quality media, for which the monopolistic portals bear great responsibility. Nevertheless, the media chose its own path without resisting the environment, so there is no one to blame. For proper media reform, attention must also be paid to media consumption patterns and the issue of distribution monopolies, but above all, it cannot be denied that media reform must be premised on the media’s own change.

Regardless of faction or inclination, all media outlets are putting their lives on the line to block the passage of the bill. However, emphasizing how problematic this law is and how many domestic and international experts oppose it will not be enough to quell civil society’s demand for reform. The core question is whether the media can answer questions like “So, should we just continue as is?” and “Hasn’t it already been proven that the media lacks self-purification ability?” but the answers they offer are weak.

It is deeply frustrating to witness the very behaviors considered the representative problems of Korean media: highlighting only negative aspects, resorting to any sophistry to achieve goals, and the repetition of such reporting practices. I have often written to many interest groups resisting reform that “if you miss the time to change and do not change yourself, you will inevitably be changed.” Many journalists must be grappling with similar concerns. In any case, a bleak era is passing.

Shin Beom-su, Chief of Political Affairs

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