The Press and Democracy in South Korea

Asian Social Science June, 2009
The Press and Democracy in South Korea

- A Survey of Print Journalists’ Opinions -
Eun Suk SA
Department of Sociology and Social Policy
PGARC A20 John Woolley Building
The University of Sydney NSW 2006, Australia
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
The media are highly involved in the development or limitation of democracy. In South Korea (hereafter Korea) the
history of the media companies has been about allying themselves with political power through partnerships under
authoritarian rule. Some of these companies are still strong and influential groups as cultural producers in Korean
society. Press freedom without social responsibility by major conservative newspapers has led to a conflicted society
and a threat to grassroots democracy in Korea today. This paper explores journalists’ responses to four main issues
regarding the press environment and democracy in Korea. There are some differences in ideas about the press
environment and democracy between actual practice and the journalists’ perspectives. These differences may come
from the lack of media practitioners’ views regarding ethics of journalism, discrepancies in Korean democracy such as
the strong influence of clientelism, the limitation of traditional media as a mechanism of two-way communication, and
the idealistic thinking of journalists.
Keywords: Press freedom, Democracy, Cultural producers, Media roles, Clientelism, Media credibility, Partisanship,
Rights to press freedom
Introduction
Justice and ethics are often overlooked and the truth can easily be distorted if the media collude with political power
groups and big business. Herman and Chomsky (1988) argue, "The democratic postulate is that the media are
independent and committed to discovering and reporting the truth and that they do not merely reflect the world as
powerful groups wish it to be perceived." In this conception the ideal purpose of the media should be to encourage
equal opportunity and a harmonious democratic society. However, some Korean media capitalists have aggravated
differences and conflict and not only have let powerful people dominate the socially weaker but also have forced the
weaker people to be dominated (Kim, S-S. 2005). Moreover, some media, especially privately owned media, have
played political power makers for their own benefit rather than develop Korean grassroots democracy. The 2007
presidential election was no exception. The major conservative newspapers colluded with the conservative political
group and big business and criticized the previous government in one voice, as a result Myung-Bak Lee became the
president of Korea. These three groups tend to form a ‘power bloc’ in Gramsci’s term. The process of discussing media
roles and press environment in Korean grassroots democracy may help stimulate and improve media practitioners’
responsibility to the Korean society.
According to sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1993), cultural producers dominate economically and symbolically in a
society. Korean culture has been based on long colonial and authoritarian rule, which have led to a “habitus” of
clientelism. This has been a powerful factor shaping media culture. Dominant “cultural producers” have been based on
pro-Japanese colonial rule and have supported dictatorial rule. Interestingly, this phenomenon can be experienced even
after colonialism and authoritarian rule formally disappeared. The dominant cultural producers have also controlled
information and culture, and dominated the economic and cultural base in Korean society. Korean society is an
unbalanced democracy because there is more trust in clientelism than in public systems. Dennis Hart (2001) argues,
“The supporters and planners of Korea’s capitalist industrialization versus the average Korean person, the conflict has
been decidedly uneven.” Externally, Korea has adopted Western democracy but the society has been controlled by
19
Vol. 5, No. 6 Asian Social Science
clientelism. Korean clientelism is based on region, education and blood ties, which are also core factors in social
conflict. Many politicians use social conflicts especially regional conflict. Media academic Seung-Soo Kim (2005)
writes, like a dormant volcano this classical conflict can explode anytime.
The history of the Korean media companies has been about allying themselves with political power through
partnerships under authoritarian rule. This is one of the reasons why dictators or conservative groups in Korea could
maintain power over such a long period, for more than several decades including Japanese colonial era. Authoritarian
rule did not allow for diverse editorial opinion in the media (Sa, 2009b). It gave existing media companies an oligopoly
in the media market. As a result of their collusion the media companies have gained more social power (Park, Kim &
Sohn, 2000). These conservative elements have more power than liberal elements in many areas of Korea because of
long authoritarian rule. However, their cartel was threatened for a while during the liberal rule of the two presidents
Dae-Jung Kim and Moo-Hyun Roh.
This paper will explore how the media influence society and democracy in Korea. It will set out the findings on
journalists’ perception of the press environment in Korean society and show the differences between their perception
and practice. It discusses four issues: the important roles of the media; the importance of press freedom; factors
determining subscriptions to particular newspapers; and lastly, rights to press freedom.
Methods
The key empirical data comprises the survey data collected from practicing print media exponents, current news from
online services, and my own experiences at provincial and specialist media outlets for several years in Korea. The
survey focused on Korean news journalists working in print media and not those who worked in electronic media, such
as broadcasting and online news. Therefore, the result can be seen to be representative of the national newspaper
environment. The survey was based on an in-depth structured survey and made up of a mix of closed and open-ended
questions. The survey used both qualitative and quantitative methods, and took about three and half months from 3rd
October 2006 to 20th January 2007.
The survey questionnaires based on the Korea Press Foundation survey method (Oh, 2005), are designed to glean
editors, journalists and sub-editors’ opinions on press freedom within contemporary circumstances. The study involves
print journalists answering a set of questions through an email survey. Eighty four journalists from thirty eight different
companies in Seoul, and also from provincial newspapers, completed the survey questionnaires and returned them to the
researcher. The number of respondents based in Seoul (48 journalists) is higher than the provincial journalists (36
journalists). However, the number of provincial companies (20 newspapers) is slightly higher than Seoul based
companies (18 newspapers).
1. The important roles of the media
In the survey journalists were asked “What is the most important role of the media in a democratic society? Please
select three of the following in order of preference.” Many journalists selected as their first choice that the most
important roles of the media in a democratic society are ‘the people’s right to know,’ ‘as a watchdog of power and for
the protection of the socially weaker,’ and ‘for the public good.’ These responses show that journalists link the media
role with democracy (see Table 1).
1.1 First preference results
About forty percent of the journalists selected ‘for the public good’ as the most important role of the media (see Table
2). In each of the ten categories, journalists were asked to provide information on gender, job type etc. There are some
differences in the percentage ratios of the respondents in terms of their status and education. Firstly, when comparing
the responses to the sections of news in which journalists worked, a higher percentage of the journalists, who work in
the sub-editorial and the political sections selected ‘for the public good.’ However, as there was a higher percentage of
the journalists who responded to the survey in the general reporting section, this indicates that the journalists in the
sub-editorial and the political sections were more strongly inclined to select ‘for the public good’ than were the
journalists in the general reporting section. Next, it appeared that the same percentage of journalists with qualifications
between a 4 year Bachelor degree and a Masters degree selected ‘for the public good.’ However, there was a much
higher percentage of journalists with a 4 year Bachelor degree who responded to the survey, suggesting that the
journalists with a Masters degree were more strongly inclined to select ‘for the public good’ than were the journalists
with a Bachelors degree.
1.2 Second and third preference results
Journalists’ second choice was that the most important role of the media in a democratic society was ‘for the people’s
right to know,’ next was ‘as a watchdog of power and for the protection of the socially weaker,’ and then ‘for the public
good.’ As the journalists’ third preference, about thirty one percent of the journalists chose ‘as a watchdog of power and
20
for the protection of the socially weaker.’ This figure was almost double the percentage of the next choice, ‘for the
people’s right to know.’ Some journalists selected ‘for the public good.’
1.3 Others
Interestingly about twenty percent of the respondents chose a fourth preference (even though I did not ask for a fourth
preference). They selected ‘for the public good’ and ‘for balance between social stability and change’ (each 4.8%), ‘as a
watchdog of power and for the protection of the socially weaker’ (3.6%), and ‘for the nation’s good’ (2.4%). The lowest
percentages chose ‘for the discovery of truth,’ ‘for readers or viewers,’ ‘for a mass-education,’ and ‘for individual
self-fulfilment’ (each 1.2%) as their fourth preference. One journalist made his own list about the most important role of
the media in a democratic society as follows: “check and watchdog power” as his first preference, “information delivery
and for the people’s right to know” as his second preference, and “harmony and cooperation of people and solution of
trouble” as his third preference.
1.4 Clientalism and the role of the media as a president maker
Despite the survey result, it is argued here that there are some gaps between the journalists’ choice about the most
important role of the media in a democratic society and actual media practice in Korea. For example, some media exist
to foster their own power interest rather than ‘for the people’s right to know,’ or ‘as a watchdog of power and for the
protection of the socially weaker’ or ‘for the public good.’ Yet, these were the options most commonly selected by the
majority of the journalists as the most important role of the media.
Korean culture has been based on long colonial and authoritarian rules, which have led to a “habitus” of clientelism.
This has been a powerful factor shaping media culture. Dominant “cultural producers” have been based on pro-Japanese
colonial rule and have supported dictatorial rule. They have also controlled information and culture, and dominated the
economic and cultural base in Korean society. Korean society is an unbalanced democracy because there is more trust
in clientelism than in public systems (Rhee & Choi, 2005). Korean clientelism informally and significantly influences
the Korean society. Park, Kim and Sohn explain clientelism:
In the background to this relationship is the regional antagonism, which has been a major source of social conflict and a
central characteristic of the power structure in Korea. In Korean society, blood ties have long been regarded as of great
importance. This informal relationship has been expanded to the relations based on the same educational or regional
backgrounds. The phenomenon might be related to the long authoritarian rule in Korea. People often lose mutual
confidence in each other when they live through long periods of authoritarian rule. Informal networks might have been
formed as a way to compensate for the insecurity. Private ties also make up for the limits official social relations have.
Regionalism, in particular, was openly promoted during the presidential election campaign of 1971 and has since then
been a major factor in defining political practices (Park, Kim & Sohn, 2000).
The strong influence of clientelism can probably cause Western democratic systems, principles or theories to not
properly work, affecting the development of grassroots democracy in Korea. It also is perhaps a core reason for the
corruption in Korean society. The media are no exception. Clientelism has extended its power to media companies in
Korea (Park, Kim & Sohn, 2000). The media has connections to political power through journalists becoming
politicians or bureaucrats, which has a great impact during presidential and parliamentary elections (Park, Kim & Sohn,
2000). The 2007 presidential election in Korea was no exception.
Though such practices are not only Korean, because John F. Kennedy for example appointed his own brother and
friends to his cabinet, Korea has been quite distinctive in its implementation of such practices. One good example of
clientelism based on education, church and region is the current Myung-Bak Lee government inaugurated in February
2008. It is called by a new Korean language term ‘KoSoYoung’ administration. ‘KoSoYoung’ means administrators
based in Korea University, Somang protestant church and Youngnam region, and refers to the personal background of
President Myung-Bak Lee. The Youngnam region is the south-eastern North and South Kyongsang Provinces, which is
the hometown of President Myung-Bak Lee. Since 1961 all dictators in Korea have been based in this area. Furthermore,
many administrators have been based in Youngnam region beginning with the dictator Chung-Hee Park and lasting
until the liberal leader Dae-Jung Kim took office in 1998.
According to Hallin and Mancini (2004), “Ties between journalists and political actors are close, the state intervenes
actively in the media sector, and newspapers emphasize sophisticated commentary directed at a readership of political
activists.” Also, De Burgh points out the role of the media in a democratic society, especially one that has recently
become free from external political pressures:
All sides have struggled to understand the roles and the potential of the media in democratic society. In countries where
journalists are free from external political pressures for the first time, they have run into internal constraints, when
media proprietors are still reluctant to exert independence after so many years of being muzzled (De Burgh, 2005).
21
Their views are demonstrated in Korea. Some media companies often struggle with their roles and continue to function
as they did under the dictators. Baker (2007) argues, “Media partisanship combined with media concentration can lead
to authoritarian results.” In Korea, according to Rhee and Choi (2005), the crisis in Korean newspapers cannot be
overcome, if partial reporting is not stopped. As a result of their partisanship the newspapers have diminished credibility
and decreasing readership (Rhee & Choi, 2005). Since 1992 some Korean media especially privately owned media
often function as president makers extending their power to the next administration (Kang, 26/11/2004). Many
journalists have admitted this. The 2007 presidential election in Korea was no exception. Bourdieu argues,
The cultural producers are able to use the power conferred on them, especially in periods of crisis, by their capacity to
put forward a critical definition of the social world, to mobilize the potential strength of the dominated classes and
subvert the order prevailing in the field of power (Bourdieu, 1993).
Bourdieu’s view is confirmed in Korea when Myung-Bak Lee one of candidates during the presidential election in 2007
suffered a financial scandal, ‘BBK.’ Major conservative newspapers distorted the truth, and during the election denied
the relation between the BBK and Myung-Bak Lee. One old conservative right wing publisher Kab-Jae Cho (Naver,
10/04/2008) argued, “During the presidential election, major conservative newspapers supported Myung-Bak Lee with
one voice and they did not properly report the truth. They distorted and covered up the fact that Myung-Bak Lee was
associated with the BBK.” Moreover, Cho strongly criticized journalists who had worked in the major conservative
newspapers by saying, “The journalists who supported Myung-Bak Lee were a co-criminal group against the Korean
people and also they made wrong choices as journalists.” Cho said journalists who had not reported the truth, are not
good enough to be journalists and these kind of ethically “dead” journalists cannot help develop grassroots Korean
democracy (Naver, 10/04/2008).
The Citizen’s Coalition for Democratic Media (CCDM), a group media social movement monitored the news at six
daily newspapers (Kyunghyang, Dong-A, Seoul, Chosun, JoongAng and Hankyoreh) from June 11 to September 30
2007. It found that Chosun, JoongAng and Dong-A (ChoJoongDong) did not report critically as watchdogs but
protected Myung-Bak Lee from the BBK scandal (Ohmynews, 28/12/2007). After the election the CCDM held a
discussion, titled “The media review of the presidential election in 2007.” According to the discussion, many media
reported for one side. One academic panellist Kyoung-Jae Song commented many Korean media did not present a
balanced view because they are involved in too many complex relationships from which they stood to benefit. As a
result bad reporting is increasing (Ohmynews, 28/12/2007). Most Korean newspapers are privately owned by family
groups or complex business groups, which control the media indirectly and directly (Kim, S-S. 2002). These
newspapers tend not take on the social responsibilities such as impartiality or the role of public service but seek profits
for the interest of their media companies.
A former-ambassador, Jang-Choon Lee, criticized conservative newspapers in an interview for the online news service
the Pressian: “Regarding the reporting of the BBK and Myung-Bak Lee’s ‘scandal,’ the ChoJoongDong were terrible
newspapers” (Pressian, 07/12/2007). Furthermore, one former parliamentary law maker Chul-Yong Lee argued in an
interview at the daily Hankyoreh: “The presidential election in 2007 was won by ChoJoongDong rather than by
Myung-Bak Lee” (Hankyoreh, 14/04/2008).
Why did ChoJoongDong support Myung-Bak Lee? These major conservative newspapers in Korea seek benefits by
cooperating with big capitalists and the conservative political party (Kim, S-S. 2005). These three groups have tried to
keep their power and their property permanently. Attempts to minimize this power through change, has led to a
backlash and the three groups have promoted theories against such attempts and influenced the people to give up these
attempts (Kim, S-S. 2005). There are many apologists for these three groups. The Moo-Hyun Roh government tried to
re-distribute traditional power by moving the capital city (Ohmynews, 01/11/2004), raising the real estate tax (Sa, 2007),
reforming the law of private institutes, and reforming the law of the media. These were main issues under the Roh
government, however, they were not implemented because the three groups strongly resisted such reforms.
As seen above, major conservative newspapers in Korea do not play roles ‘for the people’s right to know,’ ‘as a
watchdog of power and for the protection of the socially weaker’ and ‘for the public good,’ even though they were
selected by the majority of the journalists as the most important role of the media in a democratic society. They engage
in political power games rather than serving to develop Korean grassroots democracy. Since 2008 political power has
returned to the conservative group, according to Sa (2009b), the Korean grassroots democracy and press freedom that
developed during the liberal rule Kim and Roh have been threatened by the dictatorial style of leading groups such as
the president, the Grand National Party and major conservative newspapers. These leading groups do not look out for
the majority of Korean people and socially weaker groups but look out for the small percentage of dominant groups
(ongoing).
22
2. The importance of press freedom

When asked why press freedom was important the majority of the journalists nominated ‘for the people’s right to
know,’ ‘as a watchdog of power and for the protection of the socially weaker,’ and ‘for the public good’ (see Table 3).
About twenty nine percent of the journalists selected ‘for the people’s right to know’ as the most important reason for
press freedom (see Table 4). In each of ten categories, journalists were asked to provide information on gender, job type
etc. There are some differences in the percentage ratios of these respondents in terms of their status and education.
Firstly, regarding their position in the company, a higher percentage of deputy editor or equivalent, and editor or
equivalent selected ‘for the people’s right to know.’ However, a greater percentage of reporters responded to the survey.
This indicates that the deputy editors and editors were more strongly inclined to select ‘for the people’s right to know’
than were the reporters. Secondly, comparing journalists’ length of service, a higher percentage of the journalists with
25-29 years service selected ‘for the people’s right to know.’ However, a higher percentage of journalists who had
shorter service records (20-24 years) responded to the survey, indicating that journalists with longer service records
(25-29 years) had a stronger inclination towards ‘for the people’s right to know’ than journalists with shorter service.
Lastly, journalists who studied Politics/Administration and Planning, or Economics/Business as the major in their
highest degree at university, showed the same propensity to choose this option. However, those who studied
Economics/Business responded in lower numbers. This indicates that Economics/Business journalists more strongly
affirmed ‘the people’s right to know’ than the journalists who studied Politics/Administration and Planning.
About thirty seven percent of the journalists selected that the most important reason for press freedom in a democratic
society was ‘for the people’s right to know’ as their second preference. This figure was the highest percentage, next
followed ‘as a watchdog of power and for the protection of the socially weaker.’ A number of journalists chose ‘for the
public good.’ As a third preference, some journalists chose ‘for the public good’ and ‘for balance between social
stability and change.’ Smaller percentages selected ‘as a watchdog of power and for the protection of the socially
weaker,’ ‘for the people’s right to know’ and ‘for participation in democratic decision-making.’
2.3 Others
About eighteen percent of the participants gave a fourth preference (even though I did not ask) for the importance of
press freedom. Several journalists chose ‘as a watchdog of power and for the protection of the socially weaker’ (6%),
‘for the public good’ and ‘for the discovery of truth’ (each 3.6%). Small percentages chose ‘for the nation’s good,’ ‘for
readers or viewers,’ ‘for participation in democratic decision-making,’ and ‘for balance between social stability and
change’ (each 1.2%).
2.4 Free press without social responsibility as a threat to democracy
These findings were the same as the journalists’ selections for the important roles of the media in a democratic society.
Again in practice some gaps exist between the journalists’ survey choices and the actual practices of the media. Some
major conservative newspapers abuse freedom of the press for their own benefit rather than protecting it for the reasons
many journalists selected. Some media capitalists in Korea have used freedom of the press or the people’s right to know
in order to protect and enlarge their property (Kim, S-S. 2005). Many journalists have said that the media have not stood
up for or given a voice to the socially weaker groups in Korea.
According to De Burgh (2005), often journalists and the media are not ready to use freedom of the press in a democratic
society, especially if they have just become free from external political pressures. De Burgh writes, “Journalists are
frequently unprepared to use the freedom and commit abuses in their eagerness to denounce malfeasance, sometimes
without proper evidence or attention to ethical considerations.” Regarding media power in Australia, Julianne Schultz
(1998) states an increasingly powerful media industry means that the relation between governments (or equivalents) and
the media was becoming too close. In 1993 and 1994, major inquiries by the Commonwealth and Queensland
parliaments in Australia found that “close and unaccountable relationships between the executive and the news media
could lead to abuses of power and influence, to the cost of the entire community” (Schultz, 1998). This situation
developed in the Korean media industry under the authoritarian rule and still exists especially among major
conservative newspapers. Y-H. Im (2005) argues freedom of the press will be guaranteed when the media exert
self-control and accept their public responsibility. The close relationship (‘Kwonunyoochak’ in Korean) between the
media and political power, illegal activity and corruption was protected under the military regimes (Kim, Y-H. 2004).
Some instances of this close relationship still exist especially between the current Lee government and major
conservative newspaper companies. However, Y-H. Kim (2004) argues, to eradicate ‘Kwonunyoochak’ might be
impossible because political power groups want propaganda from the media and the media need the protection of
political power for their interests. These two elements agree to put up with each other (Kim, O-J. 2004). Therefore, as
23
discussed before the media play the role of political power makers during the elections especially the presidential
election in Korea (Kim, Y-H. 2004).
Park, Kim and Sohn (2000) argue, “Ironically, the Korean media has gained more social power thanks to media control
by authoritarian political powers and instability related to the division of South and North Korea.” Authoritarian rule
did not allow a diverse editorial policy within the media and it produced a media oligopoly. However, this cartel was
threatened for a while during the liberal rule from 1998 to 2007. Since democratization in 1987 and the change of
hegemony in society, the Korean media have gained great social power and they have tried to use it in the political
arena (Kang, 26/11/2004). Professor Myung-Koo Kang argues the Korean media have focused on gaining political
influence rather than developing grassroots democracy.
Under liberal rule from 1998 to 2007 (Dae-Jung Kim and Moo-Hyun Roh), there were significant tensions between the
political ruling parties and major conservative newspapers. For example, the Dae-Jung Kim government undertook the
biggest ever tax investigation of the media companies (Kang, 26/11/2004). Furthermore, the Moo-Hyun Roh
government tried to re-distribute media power and encourage media diversity. Also, the Roh government opened
pressrooms to more Korean journalists (It needs to be noted that they have now returned to their pre-Roh state). Online
news such as portal site is becoming more influential in Korean society. This kind of media policy meant that the major
newspaper owners felt their power and property were threatened (Kang, 26/11/2004). As a result major conservative
newspapers abused freedom of the press to protect their own power or property. They cooperated with the conservative
political party and conglomerates by continually criticizing the liberal presidents (Kim and Roh) and governments
(Kang, 26/11/2004). This kind of media behaviour peaked during the Roh government. A former journalist and
professor Young-Hui Rhee calls these kind of media ‘hyena’ newspapers:
Big newspapers easily change their role depending on the political power in Korea. They become weak, if the
government rules with strong military control. However, they easily become strong, if the government rules without
military control, and continually criticize. Furthermore, these changes can happen under the same government. For
example, if the government power is strong, the newspapers support it like lapdogs. However, if the government
becomes weak, the newspapers change and overstep their role as watchdogs (Rhee, 1999).
According to one survey conducted in April 2003, seventy percent of the journalists answered that criticism about Roh
government was not criticism by the media as watchdogs but for the purpose of finding fault with the Roh government
(Lee, 07/11/2003). In another survey by the Journalists Association of Korea in August 2003 again seventy percent of
the journalists said some media irrationally criticized the Roh government (Lee, 07/11/2003). One professor Hee-Yeon
Cho stated, in an interview with Ohmynews (online news) after the presidential election in December 2007, that the two
main reasons for the failure of Roh government were firstly, the conservative groups including major dailies, especially
ChoJoongDong, manufactured a negative image of the Roh government (Ohmynews, 20/12/2007). For example, they
created an image of the Roh government as presiding over a ‘Lost Decade’ (including Dae-Jung Kim government)
marked by economic and other failures. However, according to political science Professor Sung-Ho Kim (2008), during
the Roh government, the Korean economy was not as bad as voters were led to believe during the 2007 presidential
election. Kim argues:
The average growth rate of 4.3 percent and unemployment rate of 3.6 percent were more than respectable figures
for an economy of Korea’s size and maturity. For another, it is unfair to blame the North Korean nuclear mayhem
squarely on the Roh government, especially given Pyongyang’s reckless brinkmanship and the inconsistency of
Washington’s reaction to it. On the contrary, the hitherto rewarding six-party framework, currently in place to cope with
North Korea, should be credited in large measure to the Roh government’s initiative and perseverance (Kim, S-H.
2008).
The second reason given by Cho for the failure of Roh government was that its own policy failed (Ohmynews,
20/12/2007). For example, the Roh government went against public opinion in sending troops to Iraq and Free Trade
Agreement (FTA) with America in April 2007, though it has to be ratified by two countries respective legislatures
(Freedom House, 2008). Cho argues the leadership of the Roh government was struggling against this image until the
presidential election in December 2007. However, ChoJoongDong made the 2007 election not about voting for a new
president but voting for the review of Roh government (Ohmynews, 20/12/2007). The role of ChoJoongDong was one
of reasons that Myung-Bak Lee won the election by the largest margin ever (Kim, S-H. 2008). One of the media
policies of Myung-Bak Lee is to allow cross ownership for newspaper owners. However, cross ownership can limit
diversity of the media because the same news or messages can be delivered only in a different format.
Regarding freedom of the press, the current Lee government oppresses the electronic media, such as broadcasting and
Internet (Sa, 2009b). Electronic media journalists face harsh treatment including the wanton arrest of television
journalists and producers; and the detention of Internet blogger during investigation. Also, the directors of media related
organizations and broadcasting companies such as YTN and KBS have been replaced forcefully with Myung-Bak Lee’s
sympathizers (Sa, 2009b). Moreover, the president, the government and the Grand National Party are trying to privatize
24
the existing public broadcasting companies. The Grand National Party is trying to pass seven media-related bills that
include allowing newspapers and big business to buy major stakes in terrestrial broadcasting stations. These issues are
ongoing.
3. Factors determining subscriptions to particular newspapers
Journalists were asked why they thought people subscribed to particular newspapers. The majority of the journalists
believed ‘the credibility of the newspaper,’ ‘the editorial stance of the newspaper,’ ‘providing gifts from the newspaper
companies,’ and ‘the size of the newspaper company’ were the main reasons (see Table 5).
3.1 The most popular choice of the journalists
About forty percent of the respondents selected ‘the credibility of the newspaper’ as the largest factor determining
subscription to particular newspapers (see Table 6). However, among journalists' positions, working locations and
length of services, there were some interesting differences in the percentage ratios. Firstly, a higher percentage of
deputy editors or equivalent selected 'the credibility of the newspaper.' However, a higher proportion of reporters
responded to the survey. This indicates that the deputy editors were more strongly inclined to select 'the credibility of
the newspaper' than were the reporters. Secondly, with regard to journalists working locations, double the percentage of
Seoul journalists selected 'the credibility of the newspaper' than the provincial journalists. Though double the number of
participants selected this answer, the ratio of the location of respondents to the survey was not as significant a margin.
This means that provincial journalists were not so convinced this was a determining factor as Seoul journalists. Thirdly,
longer service journalists (over 25 years) more strongly believed in ‘the credibility of the newspaper’ as a factor than
shorter service journalists (0-4 years). All the respondents with longer service chose ‘the credibility of the newspaper’
but less than half of the respondents with shorter service selected it.
3.2 Others
A small percentage of the respondents gave multiple answers (Two participants gave two answers each, so I grouped
them as ‘no answer’). One chose ‘the credibility of the newspaper,’ and ‘the newspaper was provided free for few
months, including some gift’ (No.25). Another chose ‘size of the newspaper company,’ and ‘the editorial stance of the
newspaper’ (No.65). Moreover, one journalist commented, the people chose particular newspapers because of
‘flamboyant editing, amount of information, and practice and structure of distribution’ (No.43).
3.3 Unfair trade in the newspaper industry
The largest percentage of the journalists selected that the determining factor for the readers to subscribe to particular
newspapers was ‘the credibility of the newspaper.’ The result is interesting because it shows a difference in attitude
between journalists and readers about reasons for subscribing to a paper. A 2008 survey, that included electronic (E)
and print (P) media, asked respondents to rate Korean media in terms of credibility, likelihood of subscribing and
influence. The results showed that the participants chose the daily Hankyoreh (P) as the most credible media; the
Chosun libo (P) as the most popular subscription; and the Korean Broadcasting System (E) as the most influential
media (Sisajournal, 20/08/2008).
This section analyses the option ‘the newspaper provided free for few months, including some gift,’ which was one of
major selections by the journalists, as this has been a serious problem in the newspaper market in Korea. An
unsupportive market or market fragmentation are limiting factors for press freedom (LaMay, 2007). Hallin and Mancini
(2004) argue, “Where the market is particularly dominant, commercial media are likely to prevail over media tied to
political and social organizations.” The Korean newspaper industry ostensively has adopted the model of market
liberalism but many newspapers in practice have existed with a non-market base (Im, 2002). The existing newspapers
enjoyed oligopoly status under authoritarian rule. This situation did not allow for diverse editorial policy in the media.
As a result the media have been strongly linked to government ideas. Major newspapers have been especially powerful
because of the oligopoly newspaper market and home-delivery subscription (Park, Kim & Sohn, 2000). Also, provincial
newspapers are based on local power groups or personally related to them (Im, 2002).
However, since 1988 the power of this cartel has decreased and a competitive era based on increasing the number of
pages published started among newspapers (Park, Kim & Sohn, 2000). Furthermore, major conservative newspapers
came under threat as people’s belief in the credibility of newspapers decreased as online media developed as an
influential media form in Korean society (Lee, 07/11/2003). Since the International Monetary Fund (IMF) intervention
Asian economic crisis in 1997, the newspaper market in Korea has had serious problems with unfair competition (Lee,
07/11/2003). According to Myung-Koo Kang (2004), about half of the newspapers are distributed for free in order to try
and dominate the market. The increased competition that emerged under the civilian governments failed to produce a
diversification in editorial policy. It just increased the competition in seeking advertising revenue (Park, Kim & Sohn,
2000). The newspapers focused too much on quantity issues -such as number of pages- rather than quality issues (Im,
2005). Park, Kim and Sohn (2000) argue, “Media companies started to pay more attention to gaining profits. The
competition accordingly showed many aspects of unfair rivalry. Newspaper companies often delivered papers to people
25
free of charge to increase their circulation.” The Moo-Hyun Roh government tried to improve fair trade and fair
competition in the newspaper industry by reforming the related law.
D. Hart argues that the market theory is good for the rich (Ohmynews, 11/03/2008). In Korea, the oligopoly newspaper
market possibly exists because of the expense of providing the free newspapers and gifts (Kim, S-S. 2002). As a result
of spending large amounts of money on low cost or free home-delivery subscription and gifts, the newspaper companies
depended heavily on advertising revenue. Therefore, advertisers have become a core influential factor in the media (Sa,
2009a). The oligopoly character of the Korean existing power groups was briefly threatened during the rule of President
Kim and Roh. This was one of the reasons conservative groups in the media, the conservative political party and
conglomerates cooperated as one voice against the two governments because they wanted to keep their power and
private property permanently. Why do the newspapers have powerful influence in Korean society? Park, Kim and Sohn
explain the power of newspapers to lead public opinion based on the media system of newspaper industry as follows:
First, the proportion of home-delivery subscription was, and still is, overwhelmingly higher than that of newsstand
sales. … But not many Koreans subscribed to more than two dailies. Another feature of the Korean newspaper market
was that national papers published in Seoul dominate the entire national market. ... This oligopolistic feature guaranteed
the established papers secure advertising revenue but made it difficult for newcomers to enter the market (Park, Kim &
Sohn, 2000).
Engaging in restrictive practices like the oligopoly means the market can be more easily distorted. Myung-Koo Kang
(2004) criticizes both the newspapers and the state for this problem. According to Kang, the major conservative
newspapers have unfairly competed in order to dominate the newspaper market for a long time. However, under the
liberal governments these major conservative newspapers sued the Korean government in an International organization
saying that they were being pressured by the government (Kang, 2004). The liberal governments also failed to control
unfair competition in the newspaper market over ten years. As a result the public space of the media in Korea has been
threatened.
Under the current conservative Lee government these tactics are still being used. Haeng-Rang Hoh (2002) argues,
“Credibility is necessary for media development. A lack of credibility cannot be off set by gifts or free newspapers,
which are only temporary methods.” Therefore, Myung-Koo Kang (2004) strongly argues, “The state must apply the
current media law strictly to illegal activities of the ChoJoongDong, which are the major dominant newspapers and
main distorters in the newspaper market.” Also, Yung-Ho Im (2005) argues, the media law in the market must be
applied because any policy will be ineffective without ethical competition. However, Kang and Im’s arguments are
almost impossible under the current Lee government. Since 2008 conservative political groups in Korea have regained
power after ten years of liberal governments. The conservative political groups have cooperated with ChoJoongDong
newspapers.
The system of the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) was adopted to contribute to the development of scientific and
rational advertising and media management through the following activities:
Firstly, audit the data about the circulation, distribution, audience and the other matters related to media plans for
advertising media such as newspapers, magazines, and electronic media including interactive media by standard
procedures; and next conduct research and surveys on the matters of common interest in the advertising and media
industry (Korea Audit Bureau of Circulations).
In practice, the ABC system does not properly work (Yonhapnews, 07/11/2008). The attempts of the Roh government
and citizen groups have not worked properly. The newspaper industry is still distorting the market. The CCDM
(01/05/2008) monitored forty newspaper home-delivery offices, which belong to the four dailies: Hankyoreh, Chosun,
JoongAng, and Dong-A, on the 29th and 30th April 2008. It found that many home-delivery offices of the
ChoJoongDong newspapers provided with gifts and free papers for over four months. Moreover, three of the
home-delivery offices also gave subscribers about $AUD60 cash and free papers for a few months (CCDM,
01/05/2008). One branch office at JoongAng llbo provided to subscribers the equivalent of about $AUD200 (CCDM,
01/05/2008). This amount is almost the same as one year subscription fee. This behaviour, which is against media
administration orders, is seen in many places in Korea (Journalists Association of Korea, 23/04/2008a). Furthermore,
ChoJoongDong and their home-delivery offices have been fined about two billion dollars from 2004 to 2007 because
they have breached the newspaper law (Journalists Association of Korea, 23/04/2008b). The serious problem from their
perspective is not to stop their illegal behaviour but to try to abolish the related law under the current Lee government
(CCDM, 01/05/2008).
4. Rights to press freedom
When answering the question who should have the right of press freedom, the majority of the journalists first chose
‘general public’ and also their second choice was ‘readers or viewers,’ then thirdly they chose ‘journalists’ (see Table 7).
There were eleven options to given to the journalists but in my analysis, I have grouped these eleven options into six
26
groups: the state, which includes nation, government and politicians; the media made up of media owners, media
managers, media editors or a group of editors; journalists; citizens, which includes civil organizations, readers or
viewers, and general public; advertisers; and interest groups.
Seventy five percent of the journalists answered that citizens should be the group to benefit most from press freedom
(see Table 8). Some interesting differences occur in the percentage ratios of the respondents. Firstly, the same
percentage of deputy editors or equivalent, and reporters selected citizens. However, as there were a higher percentage
of reporters who responded to the survey, this indicates that the deputy editors were more strongly inclined to select
citizens than were the reporters. Secondly, compared to journalists working for Seoul based newspapers lower numbers
of journalists, who work for provincial newspapers, answered the survey. However, a higher percentage of provincial
journalists selected citizens than Seoul journalists, indicating the provincial journalists’ stronger inclination towards
citizens’ press freedom rights. Lastly, between journalists, who studied Media and Communication or
Politics/Administration and Planning as the major in their highest degree at university, those who studied Media and
Communication responded in lower numbers, yet had a much higher percentage affirming that citizens have the right to
press freedom. This may be a result of journalists learning more about media in the Media and Communication major
than Politics/Administration and Planning major.
Journalists chose as their second preference citizens as the group who should benefit most from press freedom as they
did for their first preference. Some journalists selected journalists and the media as their second preference. The results
for the choice of third preference are interesting. Journalists chose various players in press freedom as their third
preference. The highest numbers of respondents chose journalists. Next, citizens were chosen by some journalists as
third preference. Thirdly, some journalists selected as the group with the right to press freedom the media, the
nation/government/politicians, advertisers, and interest groups. However, about five percent of the respondents did not
give a third preference.
4.3 The main players in press freedom are the media in practice
A basic right in a democratic society is that each member of society enjoys freedom through the free expression of their
ideas or their thoughts. However, freedom for all members of the society is only a theoretical state in the current media
system. There are three main players in the Korean media: the state, media organizations and citizens (Kim, K-T. 1998).
Actually the key players in identifying press freedom are the media and citizens because the state holds power (Sartori,
1987). The meanings of press freedom differ for each of these groups.
This section by analysing the tension between the theory of a free press and its actual practice looks at the complex
ways that freedom of the press has been perceived by the state, the media, and the general public in Korea. It also
analyses the current state of rights to press freedom in Korea and explores the Korean journalists’ perceptions of rights
to press freedom. The results from the study undertaken for this research indicate that the Korean journalists in the print
media believed that the group whose right to press freedom should be most carefully protected was the citizens in a
democratic society. This is an interesting finding that shows a gap between media practice and the journalists’
perspectives about rights to press freedom.
In Korea, the main group to assert a right to press freedom is the media, which include all members of media
organizations or the media themselves (Lyu, 2004), including media companies, media owners, media managers, media
editors and journalists. The traditional approach in examining press freedom has been to assess the relationship between
the state and the media. More recent approaches, however, have included the citizens in the relationship but citizens are
still not considered a key player in discussions about press freedom. As McQuail (2003) argues, “The main candidates
for claiming the right to press freedom, aside from any individual author, are media owners plus outside sources and
voices.” McQuail’s point is easily illustrated in the print media industry in Korea. For example, those who make claims
for a right to press freedom are mainly the media rather than individuals. Daily newspapers such as the Dong-A Ilbo, the
Chosun Ilbo, and the Hwankyungkunsul Ilbo claimed their rights of press freedom in the Constitutional Court in January
2006 (Constitutional Court, 2006). Under the Moo-Hyun Roh government two new media reform laws were passed in
January 2005 and came into effect in July 2005. These are the Law Governing the Guarantee of Freedom and Functions
of Newspapers (also known as the Newspaper Law), and the Law Governing Press Arbitration and Damage Relief (also
known as the Press Arbitration Law). The Constitutional Court (2006) overturned parts of the newspaper laws in June
2006 but most of the new laws are in accordance with the Constitution.
The parliament passed the two media reform laws because citizen groups had urged the government and the media
organizations to improve public accountability in the newspaper industry. They claimed that some newspaper
companies have distorted the market and news stories. As mentioned in the previous section many major newspaper
companies provide their newspapers free to subscribers for a few months with gifts such as gift certificates. Also, media
27
owners have abused their power by interfering with the editorial section and controlling journalists' position. So the
citizen’s groups had asked for fair trade and fair competition from the media companies. However, the media
organizations ignored the citizens’ claims. Media academic H-S. Chang (2004) says that the media companies in Korea
have been entrusted by the people to produce truthful, fair and reliable news. They have had greater privileges than any
other industry. However, the media owners have abused this privilege and for a long time have failed as trustees. Y-H
Im (2002) points out that freedom of the press has been changed to freedom for big capitalists. So citizen groups and the
Roh government tried to limit media ownership and protect the independence of editorials by reforming the law.
Freedom House a US-based press freedom monitoring organization, described the Roh government laws:
The Law Governing the Guarantee of Freedom and Functions of Newspapers Etc. requires all newspapers, including
those with internet sites, to register with the government and designates newspapers with a market share of more than
30 percent, or a combined total of 60 percent for three dailies, as “dominant market players.” In the event that a
dominant player engages in unfair trade practices, it may be subject to a cease-and-desist order or suffer financial
penalties (Freedom House, 2006).
These laws are intended to encourage the diversity of the media and the autonomy of journalists. These also include
clauses to enhance the rights of citizens. During the Roh government, citizen groups and the government tried to shift
freedom of the press from the media owners to the citizens. However, the media owners and the opposition (the
conservative Grand National Party, which now hold power) strongly resisted the laws. Furthermore, the Dong-A Ilbo,
the Chosun Ilbo, and the Hwankyungkunsul Ilbo challenged their constitutionality through the court system in January
2006. They argued that they wanted freedom of the press from their point of view. They claimed that the press freedom
of the media owners is based on their capital and their power.
Equating the freedom of media owners with freedom of the press has caused a distortion in concepts of press freedom in
Korea. As suggested earlier the main players in developing or defining press freedom in Korea are the media but the
point of view of the citizens should be considered. There are some differences in who is understood as needing press
freedom in practice and from the journalists’ perspectives. Korean journalists believe that citizens should be first to
have the right of press freedom followed by journalists.
5. Why do gaps exist between journalists’ perspectives and their practice?
Despite the survey results, it is argued here that there are some gaps between media practice and the journalists’
perspectives about four issues regarding the press and democracy in Korea. These gaps emerge around: what they
understood as the most important roles of the media; the importance of press freedom; factors determining subscriptions
to particular newspapers; and rights to press freedom. Why do these gaps between practice and the journalists’ ideals
exist? There are many reasons but key causes to explain the differences are identified below.
A main reason might be from the lack of media practitioners’ views regarding ethics of journalism. According to media
academic M-K. Kang (2004), the core value of journalists’ ethics is to seek the truth and try to be independent from all
pressures. A credible media needs good media owners and good journalists who correctly deliver the truth through
ethical behaviour. Also, one more basic condition for a credible media is good political leaders, who can guarantee
freedom of the press. The aim of ethical behavior of journalists is to achieve free and independent journalism. Then the
media can play a watchdog role in a society. However, in Korea many media owners and journalists have ethical
problems. H-S. Chang (2001) argues, many Korean media owners are lacking in ethical and professional credibility.
According to Chang, if their behaviour in controlling media content is ethically compromised it can threaten not only
individuals but also national development. Chang’s point has been practiced in many cases in current Korea. Moreover,
J-W. Kim (2004) points out many journalists’ lack of awareness of media ethics in Korea. The survey underpinning my
doctoral study (Note 1) demonstrated that many journalists lack awareness of media ethics in theory and practice. The
survey of journalists was structured around three ethical issues: firstly, how frequently journalists follow the journalists’
code of ethics; secondly, how frequently journalists receive gifts from news sources; thirdly, how frequently journalists
accept job offers in government or political circles. In practice the journalists have been enticed by many things
including bribes (envelope money or Chonji in Korean). Because of the long period of authoritarian rule many aspects
of Korean society are based on corrupt cultures (Kim, O-J. 2004). LaMay (2007) points out ‘unsupportive culture or
lack of public support is a limiting factor for press freedom.’ This point is confirmed in Korean media practice and is
also the cause of this existing gap between practice and journalists’ perspectives.
The second possible reason explaining the gap is the strong influence of clientelism. Ostensively, Korea is a Western
democratic country but the society has been controlled by clientelism because of long colonial and authoritarian rules.
As discussed earlier Korean clientelism is based on region, education and blood ties, which are also core factors in
social conflict. As Park, Kim and Sohn (2000) point out the Korean media structure was adopted from Western models
and theories but journalistic practice and content are far from Western rationalism. Therefore, the Western theories and
models do not work properly in the Korean media industry. Clientelistic networking exists inside and outside media
organizations. Authoritarian style and conservative ideologies are still a strong controller in Korean society and the
media. The media, both officially and unofficially, have been controlled by the state. Informal mechanisms such as
clientelism have had a stronger influence through collusive relations between the state power and the media (Park, Kim
28
& Sohn, 2000). The gaps between practice and journalists’ perspectives reflect these discrepancies in Korean
democracy.
The third reason perhaps comes from the limitation of traditional media as a mechanism of two-way communication. It
is very difficult to activate any individual right of press freedom in practice without working through the media.
Traditional media such as newspaper and television are mainly based on one direction of communication, delivering
messages from the media to readers or audience. They also have worked for the interests of power groups based on
capital and political power, and media content is mainly produced by journalists who are employed by the media
companies. In this system it is difficult for journalists to be independent of their companies therefore, they serve their
media owners rather than citizens. The media should serve the public good and act for citizens in democratic societies.
However, most print media are owned by individual private capitalists, who seek their own benefits sometimes in ways
that have negative impact on the public good of citizens in Korea.
The final reason might be that journalists based their selection on their ideals, not the Korean situation specifically.
Therefore, journalists perhaps offered an answer based on the ideal of the press environment and democracy in their
general choice. However, most media especially privately owned media put commercial interests ahead of the public
interests in Korea. Also, the gaps connote that journalists felt conflicted because their ideals are not reflected in reality.
However, they should not change their ideals as they give hope for the future in Korea.
Conclusion
This paper explored journalists’ responses to four main issues regarding the press environment and democracy in Korea:
firstly, what they understood as the most important roles of the media; secondly, the importance of press freedom;
thirdly, factors determining subscriptions to particular newspapers; and lastly, rights to press freedom. There are gaps
between the practice of media and the journalists’ perceptions about the press environment and democracy in Korea.
Firstly, in relation to the important roles of the media, there is a gap between the practice of media and the journalists’
perception. The majority of the journalists believed the most important roles the media played were ‘for the people’s
right to know,’ ‘as a watchdog of power and for the protection of the socially weaker’ and ‘for the public good.’
However, in practice major conservative newspaper companies sought to look after their own interests such as
supporting a president who will look after and favour them.
Secondly, regarding the importance of press freedom, these findings were the same as the journalists’ selections about
the important role of the media. Again in practice some gaps exist between the journalists’ choices and the practice of
the media in Korea. In practice major conservative newspapers abuse their power and use freedom of the press for the
protection of their own interests more than many journalists thought.
Thirdly, in relation to the reasons why readers subscribed to particular newspapers, the largest percentage of the
journalists selected ‘the credibility of the newspaper.’ However, the Korean people have different preferences, when
evaluating media credibility, subscription choice and influence. In practice, unfair trade in the newspaper market has
become a serious problem because of major newspaper companies illegally and silently engaging in unfair practices
around pricing their papers and enticing subscribers.
Lastly, regarding rights to press freedom, there are some differences in who is understood as the key player or claimant
of press freedom from the journalists’ perspectives. In practice, the main player in press freedom is the media. However,
the Korean journalists believe that citizens should be the main group benefiting from press freedom followed by
journalists. Freedom of the press focused on citizens tends to encourage democracy.
There are some gaps in ideas about the press environment and democracy between actual practice and the journalists’
perspectives. The gaps perhaps come from the lack of media practitioners’ views regarding ethics of journalism,
discrepancies in Korean democracy such as the strong influence of clientelism, the limitation of traditional media as
mechanisms of two-way communication, and the idealistic thinking of journalists.
In order to guarantee their wealth and power, an alliance was formed by major conservative newspapers, conservative
political power groups and big business. This trio collaborated to criticize and manufacture a negative image of the Roh
government but supported Myung-Bak Lee to distort the truth, which led to the 2007 presidential election victory by
Myung-Bak Lee. Since 2008 political power has returned to the conservative group, the Korean grassroots democracy
and press freedom that developed during the liberal rule Kim and Roh have been threatened by the dictatorial style of
leading groups such as the president, the Grand National Party and major conservative newspapers. These leading
groups do not look out for the majority of Korean people and socially weaker groups but look out for the small
percentage of dominant groups (ongoing).
Freedom of the press greatly influences, for better or worse, democracy. Press freedom without social responsibility by
major conservative newspapers has led to a conflicted society and a threat to grassroots democracy in Korea today. The
media should try to reduce social gaps and social conflict among classes in a society. It should produce reliable media,
which are based on truth and fairness and also promote a healthy democratic society. It should not produce unreliable
news, which distort articles and cover up the important news and so reinforce inequality.
29
References
References 1. English sources
Baker, C. E. (2007). Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production: essays on art and literature. In R. Johnson (Eds.), The Field of
Cultural Production, or: The Economic World Reversed (pp.29-73). Cambridge England: Polity Press.
De Burgh, H. (2005). Making journalists. In H. de Burgh (Eds.), Introduction: journalism and the new cultural
paradigm (pp.1-21). USA; UK; Canada: Routledge.
Hallin, D. C. & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge and
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hart, D. (2001). From Tradition to Consumption: Construction of a Capitalist Culture in South Korea. Seoul Korea:
Jimoondang Publishing Company.
Herman, E. S. & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent. New York: Pantheon Books, (Chapter 1).
Kim, S-H. (2008). Korea’s Conservatives Strike Back: An Uncertain Revolution in Seoul. Journal of Global Asia, vol.3,
no.1, pp.78-85.
LaMay, C. L. (2007). Exporting press freedom: Economic and Editorial Dilemmas in International Media Assistance.
New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.): Transaction Publishers.
McQuail, D. (2003). Media Accountability and Freedom of Publication. Oxford: The Oxford University Press.
Park, M-J., Kim, C-N. & Sohn, B-W. (2000). De-Westernizing Media Studies. In J. Curran & M-J. Park (Eds.),
Modernization, globalization, and the powerful state: The Korean media (pp.111-123). London and New York:
Routledge.
Sa, E-S. (2009a). Factors influencing freedom of the press in South Korea: A survey of print journalists’ opinions,
Journal of Asian Social Science, vol.5, no.3, March, pp.3-24.
Sa, E-S. (2009b). Development of press freedom in South Korea since Japanese colonial rule, Journal of Asian Culture
and History, vol.1, no.2, July (Forthcoming).
Sartori, G. (1987). The theory of democracy revisited. New Jersey America: Chatham House Publishers.
Schultz, J. (1998). Reviving the Fourth Estate: Democracy, Accountability and the Media. Cambridge UK: Cambridge
University Press.
References 1-1 Web sources
Freedom House, (2008). Freedom in the World: South Korea 2008. [Online] Available:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/inc/content/pubs/fiw/inc_country_detail.cfm?country=7425&year=2008&page=0&view
=mof&pf (December 27, 2008)
Freedom House, (2006). Freedom of the press: South Korea 2006. [Online] Available:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/inc/content/pubs/pfs/inc_country_detail.cfm?country=6994&year=2006&pf (January 12,
2009)
Korea Audit Bureau of Circulations. [Online] Available: http://www.kabc.or.kr/action.ddf?a=main.MainApp&c=1034
(November 17, 2008)
References 2. Korean sources
Chang, H-S. (2004). Freedom and Responsibilities of the Press in Korea. Seoul Korea: Hanul Publishing Company.
Chang, H-S. (2001). The right of editorial section should be separated from the right of management, Kwanhun Journal,
vol.78, Spring, pp.72-78.
Constitutional Courts in Korea, (2006). The decision paper of Constitutional Court in June 2006 in Korea about two
new media reform laws.
Hoh, H-R. (2002). Sensational journalism and commercialism. Kwanhun Journal, vol.85, winter, pp.141-149.
Im, Y-H. (2005). The crisis of the Korean newspaper: current situation, the problems, and the way to support its
improvement. In Y-W. Kim, E-J. Lee, Y-H. Im, M-S. Kang, Y-J. Kim, Y-S. Hwang, and E-S. Joo (Eds.). Seoul Korea:
Korea Press Foundation, (Chapter 3).
Im, Y-H. (2002). The newspaper industry of the transitional period and democracy. Seoul Korea: Hannarae Publishing
(Chapter 1).
30
Kang, M-K. (2004). Media War and the Crisis of Journalism Practices. Journal of Korean Society for Journalism and
Communication Studies, vol.48, no.5, pp.319-348.
Kang, M-K. (26/11/2004). The reformation and establishment of media law. Seminar paper: Korean Society for
Journalism and Communication Studies, pp.25-44.
Kim, J-W. (2004). Media ethics in the global age: towards the common value. Seoul Korea: Communication Books.
Kim, K-T. (1998). A Study on the Reports about a Corporate depending on Ownership Structure of Newspaper.
Master’s thesis at Yonsei University, Seoul Korea.
Kim, O-J. (2004). Media ethics. (Review ed.). Seoul Korea: Communication Books.
Kim, S-S. (2005). Class Analysis of the Media Industry. Korea Association for Communication and Information Studies
Quarterly, vol.31, winter, pp.113-165.
Kim, S-S. (2002). Rethinking Newspaper Ownership, Control and Media Power. Journal of Korean Society for
Journalism and Communication Studies, vol.46, no.2, spring, pp.122-149.
Kim, Y-H. (2004). Editorial independence through the distribution of media ownership. Journal of Open media and
Open society, vol.10, summer, pp.12-23.
Lee, Y-S. (07/11/2003). The problems and causes of Korean media - Issues and practical strategy for improving media
ethics. Seminar paper: Korea Association for Communication and Information Studies. Seoul Korea (Hanyang
University).
Lyu, H-H. (2004). Freedom of the press and Democracy. Seoul Korea: Communication Books.
Oh, S-J. (2005). The Korean journalists [2005]: the 9th survey of journalists in newspapers, broadcasting, news
agencies and Internet. Seoul Korea: Korea Press Foundation.
Rhee, J-W. & Choi, Y-J. (2005). Causes of the crisis in Korean newspapers: Functional displacement in media use,
provision of lower value, and trust crisis. Journal of Korean Society for Journalism and Communication Studies, vol.49,
no.5, pp.5-35.
Rhee, Y-H. (1999). Soliloquy in a cave. Seoul Korea: Nanam Publishing House.
Sa, E-S. (2007). Real Democracy. Newsletter of the Center for Media Responsibility and Human Rights, vol.5, July.
References 2-1 Web sources
Chung, C-K. Yonhapnews. (11/07/2008). Vice minister Jae-Min Shin said, “The ABC system will be reformed.”
[Online] Available:
http://app.yonhapnews.co.kr/YNA/Basic/Article/Print/YIBW_showArticlePrintView.aspx?contents_id=AKR20080711
184800005 (September 07, 2008)
Citizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media, (01/05/2008). Does Korea Fair Trade Commission want to abolish the
‘Shinmoongosi’? 99% of the home-delivery offices of ChoJoongDong still breach it. [Online] Available:
http://www.ccdm.or.kr/board2/board_read.asp?bbsid=declar_01&b_num=31409&page=1 (May 02, 2008)
Hart, D. Ohmynews. (11/03/2008). Will there be one hundred independent high schools? But the American Charter
Schools failed. [Online] Available:
http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/Articleview/article_print.aspx?cntn_cd=A0000849959 (November 09, 2008)
Jang, Y-S. Ohmynews. (20/12/2007). The start of a New Conservative age: The victory of the cooperation among the
conglomerates, bureaucracy and ChoJoongDong. [Online] Available:
http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/Articleview/article_print.aspx?cntn_cd=A0000794625 (December 20, 2007)
JeonHong, K-H. Pressian. (07/12/2007). Former ambassador Jang-Choon Lee said, “Public investigation outcome was
politically manufactured.” [Online] Available:
http://www.pressian.com/Scripts/section/menu/print.asp?article_num=60071207110106 (December 07, 2007)
Kham, M-K. Sisajournal. (20/08/2008). The KBS’s stronghold is unstable and ChoJoongDong is struggling. [Online]
Available: http://www.sisapress.com/news/articlePrint.html?idxno=46995 (August 25, 2008)
Kim, C-N. Journalists Association of Korea. (23/04/2008a). For repeated illegal behavior…strong legal application is
needed. [Online] Available: http://www.journalist.or.kr/news/articlePrint.html?idxno=17331 (April 26, 2008)
Lee, K-T. Ohmynews. (28/12/2007). The reporting of 17th presidential election will be a shameful record in Korean
media history. [Online] Available:
http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/Articleview/article_print.aspx?cntn_cd=A0000800681 (December 29, 2007)
31
Lee, S-K. Hankyoreh. (14/04/2008). The unpopular liberal group…should act like the lawmaker Ki-Kab Kang. [Online]
Available: http://www.hani.co.kr/popups/print.hani?ksn=281892 (April 18, 2008)
Min, W-K. Journalists Association of Korea. (23/04/2008b). ChoJoongDong had two billion dollars in fines for
breaching the ‘Shinmoongosi’ during four years. [Online] Available:
http://www.journalist.or.kr/news/articlePrint.html?idxno=17334 (April 26, 2008)
Sa, E-S. Ohmynews. (01/11/2004). Moving the capital city - Korea should learn from the experience of Australia’s
capital city, Canberra. [Online] Available:
http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/Articleview/article_print.aspx?cntn_cd=A0000218248 (March 12, 2008)
Yoo, I-K. Naver. (10/04/2008). Kab-Jae Cho, from a leftwing journalist to an extreme rightwing critic. [Online]
Available: http://blog.naver.com/cjordan/70029872723 (April 16, 2008)
Note
Note 1. My doctoral project at the University of Sydney is entitled Freedom of the press in South Korea: Perception
and Practice – A survey of print journalists’ opinions. This paper also flows from my doctoral study.
Tables
Table 1. Journalists’ three choices of the important media roles in order of preference
Options 1st (%) 2nd (%) 3rd (%) Total (%)
For the public good 39.3 16.7 13.1 69.1
For the benefit of company 1.2 2.4 3.6
For the state’s good 7.1 3.6 10.7
For the discovery of truth 1.2 3.6 8.3 13.1
For the people’s right to know 32.1 31 16.7 79.8
As a watchdog of power and for the protection 13.1 28.6 31 72.7
of the socially weaker
For readers or viewers 6 2.4 2.4 10.8
For mass-education 1.2 2.4 3.6
For individual self fulfilment
For participation in democratic 3.6 7.1 10.7
decision-making
For balance between social stability and change 3.6 2.4 9.5 15.5
Others 1.2 1.2 1.2 3.6
No answer 2.4 2.4 2.4 7.1
Total (%) 100 100 100 300
*1st: first preference, 2nd: second preference, 3rd: third preference

Table 2. Journalists who selected ‘for the public good’ as the most important media role (39.3%)
Categories Details of categories Total respondents Journalists who
to the survey selected ‘for the
(100%) public good’
(39.3%)
Sections of news in Political 7.1 4.8
which they worked Social 27.4 10.7
Business 20.2 8.3
International/North Korean 4.8 1.2
Sports/life 1.2
Culture 3.6 1.2
Sub-editorial 9.5 3.6
32
Photo journalism 1.2 1.2

General reporting 14.3 1.2
Editorial writer 4.8 2.4
Managing editors or equivalent 3.6 2.4
Others 1.2 1.2
No answer 1.2 1.2
Positions held Managing editors or equivalent 10.7 4.8
Editors or equivalent 22.6 7.1
Deputy editors or equivalent 29.8 11.9
Reporters 35.7 14.3
No answer 1.2 1.2
Types of Seoul newspapers 32.1 9.5
newspapers Provincial newspapers 41.7 19
News agencies 3.6 1.2
Business newspapers 15.5 7.1
English newspapers 3.6 1.2
Special newspapers 2.4 1.2
Others 1.2
Location of the Seoul newspapers 57.1 20.2
company where Provincial newspapers 42.9 19
they worked
Gender Male 94 34.5
Female 4.8 3.6
No answer 1.2 1.2
Age group From 20 to 29 years old 1.2
From 30 to 39 years old 35.7 13.1
From 40 to 49 years old 56 22.6
No answer 1.2 1.2
First or subsequent First job 64.3 23.8
job Subsequent job 34.5 14.3
No answer 1.2 1.2
Length of service From 0 to 4 years 6 1.2
From 5 to 9 years 17.9 8.3
From 10 to 14 years 16.7 6
From 15 to 19 years 44 19
From 20 to 24 years 10.7 2.4
From 25 to 29 years 2.4
More than 30 years 1.2 1.2
No answer 1.2 1.2
Qualifications Diploma 2 years 1.2
Bachelor 4 years 51.2 17.9
Master degrees 41.7 17.9
33
Doctoral degrees 4.8 2.4

No answer 1.2 1.2
Major of highest Media and Communication 22.6 9.5
degree Economics/Business 19 6
Sociology/Philosophy/Psychology/History 10.7 2.4
Law 2.4 1.2
Politics/Administration & Planning 23.8 10.7
Language & Literature 15.5 6
Science 1.2
Others 3.6 2.4
No answer 1.2 1.2
Table 3. Journalists’ three choices of the importance of press freedom in order of preference
For the public good 26.2 14.3 20.2 60.7
For the benefit of company 2.4 2.4
For the state’s good 3.6 3.6 3.6 10.7
For the discovery of truth 4.8 1.2 6 12
For the people’s right to know 28.6 36.9 14.3 79.8
As a watchdog of power and for the protection 26.2 27.4 17.9 71.5
of the socially weaker
For readers or viewers 2.4 3.6 6
For mass-education
For individual self fulfilment 2.4 2.4
For participation in democratic 2.4 7.1 10.7 20.2
decision-making
For balance between social stability and change 4.8 6 20.2 31
Others
No answer 1.2 1.2 1.2 3.6
Total (%) 100 100 100 300

Table 4. Journalists who chose ‘for the people’s right to know’ as the most important reason for press freedom (28.6%)
to the survey chose ‘for the
(100%) people’s right to
know’ (28.6%)
Business 20.2 4.8
Sports/life 1.2 1.2
Culture 3.6
Photo journalism 1.2
34
General reporting 14.3 6

Others 1.2
No answer 1.2
Reporters 35.7 6
No answer 1.2
newspapers Provincial newspapers 41.7 13.1
Special newspapers 2.4
Others 1.2
company where Provincial newspapers 42.9 13.1
they worked
Gender Male 94 28.6
Female 4.8
No answer 1.2
From 60 to 69 years old 1.2
No answer 1.2
job Subsequent job 34.5 6
No answer 1.2
Length of service From 0 to 4 years 6
From 10 to 14 years 16.7 4.8
From 15 to 19 years 44 16.7
From 20 to 24 years 10.7 1.2
More than 30 years 1.2
No answer 1.2
Doctoral degrees 4.8
35
No answer 1.2
degree Economics/Business 19 6
Law 2.4
Politics/Administration & Planning 23.8 6
Language & Literature 15.5 3.6
Science 1.2
Others 3.6 1.2
No answer 1.2
Table 5. Journalists’ choices about determining factors to subscribe particular newspapers

Options Selection (%)
Credibility of the newspaper 39.3
Size of the newspaper company 17.9
The newspaper was provided free for few months, including some gift 19
The editorial stance of the newspaper 20.2
Others 1.2
No answer 2.4
Total (%) 100
Table 6. Journalists who chose 'the credibility of the newspaper’ as the main factor determining subscription to
particular newspapers (39.3%)
to the survey chose 'the
(100%) credibility of the
newspaper’ (39.3%)
Business 20.2 9.5
Sports/life 1.2
Culture 3.6
Sub-editorial 9.5 6
Others 1.2
No answer 1.2 1.2
Positions held Managing editors or equivalent 10.7 6
Reporters 35.7 10.7
No answer 1.2 1.2
36

Others 1.2
they worked
Gender Male 94 35.7
Female 4.8 2.4
No answer 1.2 1.2
No answer 1.2 1.2
First or subsequent First job 64.3 25
No answer 1.2 1.2
From 20 to 24 years 10.7 3.6
No answer 1.2 1.2
No answer 1.2 1.2
degree Economics/Business 19 9.5
Law 2.4
Science 1.2
Others 3.6 1.2
No answer 1.2 1.2
37
Table 7. Journalists’ three choices of who has right to press freedom in order of preference
State, government, politicians 2.4 2.4
Media owners 1.2 2.4 3.6
Media managers 1.2 1.2 2.4 4.8
Media editors or a group of editors 4.8 8.3 17.9 31
Journalists 17.9 14.3 35.7 67.9
Advertisers 1.2 1.2
Interest groups 1.2 1.2
Civil organizations 2.4 14.3 16.7
Readers or viewers 15.5 57.1 10.7 83.3
General public 59.5 14.3 8.3 82.1
Others 1.2 1.2
No answer 4.8 4.8
Total (%) 100 100 100 300

Table 8. Journalists who selected ‘citizens’ as having the most right to press freedom (75%)
to the survey selected ‘citizens’
(100%) (75%)
Business 20.2 11.9
Sports/life 1.2 1.2
Culture 3.6 2.4
Others 1.2 1.2
No answer 1.2 1.2
Reporters 35.7 23.8
No answer 1.2 1.2
Business newspapers 15.5 6
38

Others 1.2 1.2
they worked
Gender Male 94 70.2
Female 4.8 3.6
No answer 1.2 1.2
Age group From 20 to 29 years old 1.2 1.2
No answer 1.2 1.2
No answer 1.2 1.2
From 10 to 14 years 16.7 13.1
From 20 to 24 years 10.7 8.3
From 25 to 29 years 2.4
No answer 1.2 1.2
No answer 1.2 1.2
degree Economics/Business 19 13.1
Law 2.4 1.2
Science 1.2 1.2
Others 3.6 2.4
No answer 1.2 1.2
39

The Press and Democracy in South Korea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Press and Democracy in South Korea

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Press and Democracy in South Korea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asian Social Science June, 2009

The Press and Democracy in South Korea

2. The importance of press freedom

*1st: first preference, 2nd: second preference, 3rd: third preference

Photo journalism 1.2 1.2

Doctoral degrees 4.8 2.4

*1st: first preference, 2nd: second preference, 3rd: third preference

General reporting 14.3 6

Table 5. Journalists’ choices about determining factors to subscribe particular newspapers

Types of Seoul newspapers 32.1 11.9

*1st: first preference, 2nd: second preference, 3rd: third preference

English newspapers 3.6 2.4

You might also like