By I have a hard time having any sympathy for the people over at PD Diary that intentionally broadcasted fraudulent information for political purposes last year:
Blue House spokesman Lee Dong-kwan fired an unusual broadside against a public broadcaster and its staffers yesterday as controversy grew over the prosecution’s Thursday indictment of producers and a scriptwriter for MBC’s “PD Diary,” an investigative television newsmagazine.
The disputed April 2008 episode concerned the risk of contracting the human form of mad cow disease from eating American beef.
“All [MBC] executives are supposed to apologize to the TV audience and step down,” Lee said in a press briefing. “Broadcasters must take responsibility even for minor misreporting. But when it has been revealed that [MBC] ran distorted content that caused social chaos, blaming the investigation for a politically motivated probe would be like putting the cart before the horse.”
On Tuesday, prosecutors wrapped up their year-long investigation into the disputed TV show.
The broadcast prompted months-long nationwide candlelight vigils against U.S. beef imports, causing 3 trillion won ($2.4 billion) in estimated damages.
Indicting four producers and one scriptwriter for the show, an equivalent of “60 Minutes” in the United States, the prosecution concluded that those MBC workers deliberately created a biased report on the safety of U.S. beef, thus defaming then Agriculture Minister Chung Woon-chun and other government officials and trade negotiators. Chung filed a complaint with the Supreme Public Prosecutors’ Office.
Almost immediately after the indictments, the PD Diary staff claimed that the investigation was “politically motivated” at the order of the government and infringed on the “freedom of the press.” [Joong Ang Ilbo]
Lee Dong-kwan actually had a pretty good come back to the “freedom of the press” claims:
Regarding accusations that the incumbent administration is suppressing the media, spokesman Lee said, “You might remember even middle and high school students poured out into the streets for the candlelit vigils last year, holding placards saying ‘MB Out’ in English. You saw that scene on TV. Do you think that would be possible in a country that suppresses freedom of the press?”
The former newspaper journalist said that having subjective judgment overwhelm objectivity without adequate gatekeeping is not part of the media’s function.
“It’s the same as letting a drunk person drive a car,” he said.
“Media won’t be media if they only want to criticize and not assume reasonability, or they want to see things with a subjective perspective,” he continued. “As the president has repeatedly said, we don’t want the media to side with the administration. What we want the media to do is apologize for wrongdoings, if any, and improve their quality of service.”
So what does everyone else think? Should the government be allowed to prosecute members of the media who intentionally broadcast fraudulent information for partisan political purposes? If that happened in America there wouldn’t be many journalists left.
11:21 am on June 20th, 2009 1
I have no problem over laws to regulate the media. The media is often dishonest in what they report and why they report what they do.
The problem lies with politicians who must make the laws and are as dishonest in the laws they make and why they make them.
It would be nice if everyone were honest, and made laws in the interest of the people as well as reporting those stories that inform people as to the merits or demerits of each law.
But, money speaks louder than truth, therefore money and its source will largely win over both honesty and truth. Its the human thing we have to deal with.
11:52 pm on June 20th, 2009 2
The American government certainly has done its share of policing the media over the years. Up until 1987 the FCC enforced the "Fairness Doctrine" which would exactly address issues such as MBC PD Notebook's shoddy and politically motivated mad-cow journalism. In 1987, the FCC revoced the doctrine, siting concerns of free-speech violation. Every couple of years, congress considers re-instituting some sibling version of the original fairness doctrine, but thusfar such a re-institution hasn't come into fruition.
It seems to me that Mr. Lee is conflating freedom of the press with freedom of speech. Although they sometimes intersect, these freedoms are not the same. A 15-year old girl holding up a placard is not the same as a multi-billion dollar public broadcasting company airing a politically motivated, fabricated, and flagrantly false story with the intent of instigating a public outcry.
Freedom of the press is granted, through licensing agreements, to certain individuals and companies to broadcast to the exclusion of other parties. It is this element of exclusion which makes the issue a little sticky. Basically, because PD Notebook exercises its right to produce whatever it likes, and MBC is licensed by the government to broadcast whatever and whenever it likes, other parties’ voices necessarily go unheard, or at least less-heard. Such a right is a privilege afforded to the broadcasting government by the people via licensing contract with the government. Freedom of the press is a privilege – and an important one – but it is not a human right, as is freedom of speech.
Neither freedom of the press, nor freedom of speech absolves the broadcaster or speaker from ultimate responsibility for their words. Because of the exclusion principal, broadcasters must be held to a higher ethical standard than individual citizens.