[The Editors' Verdict] The Press Mediation Act Amendment Is Not a Reform, but a Deterioration

by Lee Kyungho

Published 25 Aug.2021 10:06(KST)

The amendment to the "Act on the Mediation and Relief of Damage in the Press (Press Mediation Act)," which imposes punitive damages up to five times for false and manipulated reports, failed to be submitted to the plenary session on the 25th. Given the overwhelming majority held by the Democratic Party of Korea, which spearheaded the amendment, it seems only a matter of time before it is forcibly passed. The Moon Jae-in administration, the Democratic Party, and the Open Democratic Party, among other ruling coalition parties, pushed through the complete removal of prosecutorial investigative powers (Geomsu Wanbak) following the "Cho Kuk incident," and then swiftly passed the Press Mediation Act through the standing committee. This bill was opposed by almost all press organizations, civic groups, the Justice Party, foreign correspondents, and veteran journalists who fought for press freedom during the military dictatorship era.

For a bill proposed by a member of the National Assembly to pass the plenary session and be implemented, it must go through numerous procedures. At least ten members must participate in the proposal, and once referred to a standing committee, it undergoes thorough debate in the subcommittee on bill examination. During this process, the committee's professional staff examine whether the bill conflicts with other laws, its effectiveness, potential side effects and concerns, opposing opinions, and international precedents. Public hearings are held to gather opinions from the government, public institutions, civic groups, and related stakeholders. The bill must pass the subcommittee, the full standing committee, the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, and then be submitted to the plenary session for a vote. The Press Mediation Act did not properly undergo any of these steps, including thorough debate, stakeholder consultation, or public hearings.

Reading the reasons for pushing the Press Mediation Act amendment is even more astonishing. In the middle section of the amendment proposal submitted by Choi Kang-wook, a member of the Open Democratic Party, it states: "Since media companies produce and distribute fake news motivated by social and economic interests, depriving them of profits gained from fake news can remove the incentive to spread fake news." The argument is that fake news spreads because the damage is small and the profit is large, so removing the profit motive will eliminate the incentive to spread fake news. Are there really media companies or journalists who create fake news with such thoughts? Even if there were, they would have already been expelled from the media industry and held strictly accountable in civil and criminal courts. Press organizations' criticism that efforts to curb fake news could instead make it harder to monitor and check those in power and public figures with significant social responsibility, thereby increasing the opportunity cost of social corruption beyond the effect of the law amendment, resonates more strongly.

The "2020 Media Consumer Survey" is often cited as a trump card in pushing the Press Mediation Act amendment. This survey found that the biggest problem with Korean media was "false and manipulated information (fake news)," accounting for 24.6%, ranking first. The second was "biased articles" (22.3%), and the third was so-called "jjirasi" information (15.9%). The media also takes care to prevent the harm caused by unintentional fake news by paying attention throughout the entire process?from reporting, desk editing, proofreading, to review?and cross-checking daily to narrow the gap between facts and truth.

Kyung-ho Lee, Head of Social Affairs Division

The survey also included other aspects. When evaluating journalists based on morality, professionalism, social influence, and social contribution on a 5-point scale (1 point for very low to 5 points for very high), the results showed social influence at 3.82 points, professionalism at 3.57 points, social contribution at 3.41 points, and morality at 2.99 points. All categories increased compared to 2019. Trust in journalists was 2.98 points, up 0.22 points from 2019. Politicians recorded the lowest trust at 2.26 points.