The proposed revision to the law on registration of publishers of periodicals submitted by twenty-seven ruling and opposition party members of the National Assembly is not even worth debate, because the very idea that the press can exist only along lines forced upon them by the law is something you would expect to see only in authoritarian states. The press has won its freedom through adversity and authoritarian control, so trying to return it to government regulation is not only an attempt to turn the clock hands backwards, it is an attempt to paralyze the press¡¯ ability to speak with a critical voice, something that the press has to live by.
Despite the persuasions of these Assembly members, it is still hard to understand the motive behind presenting the Assembly with a bill that both the government and the ruling party have never expressed sympathy with. And if is true that the final draft of the bill is only a rewriting of a proposal written by a certain organization, without regard to the press companies themselves or public opinion, then who is the revision really for? One has to hold their motives suspect when instead of doing all they can as members of the National Assembly to guarantee press freedoms, they are working to make it easier for the government to exert control.
The clause about forming ¡®editorial committees¡¯ is a complete disregard for the nature of the newspaper business. Editorial authority lives on independence and autonomy from governmental authority, and editorial authority is something exercised in ways unique to each news media company as part of company tradition, something that editorial staff and journalists are supposed to win and maintain on their own. The idea that it is something that should be uniformly regulated by law is exceedingly dangerous. The clause allowing the Minister of Culture and Tourism to order changes when news media companies don¡¯t follow the editorial regulations they would be required to publicize is clear interference in editorial authority, and could easily be used to bring the press under control. The editorial guidelines for newspapers agreed upon by the Korea Newspaper Association, the Editors¡¯ Association, and the Journalists¡¯ Association should be enough; one wonders why they want to give the same responsibilities to the state.
News media companies already furnish the National Tax Service with documentation about company management, so the clause requiring companies to report on their activities to the responsible ministry would let political authority interfere with the housekeeping of each company, and one wonders if such legal provisions exist anywhere. Thanks to investigations by the NTS and the Fair Trade Commission, the status of Korean news media companies is as clear as can be. The authorities already get their information, so wanting them to be able to run their hands through internal documentation is like treating the press like organized crime. Where do these Assembly members get the idea that the government has all the answers?
The Korean press leave much to be desired. The press knows quite well what needs to be improved and what it has to do to make things better, and not because of the commotion of last year. Now we suddenly have an attempt to regulate the press from the outside. It¡¯s as if there¡¯s bad karma. Probably it¡¯s just an attempt to give the authorities an open season hunting license.
(February 15, 2002)
See our list of related articles titled
"Press Under Siege."
