[Comprehensive] 'Normal Reporting' vs 'Invasion of Privacy' Controversy Over Coverage in Front of Choo Mi-ae's House

Controversy Over Reporter Choo's Face Reveal... Civic Group Accuses "Press Suppression"

Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae is leaving the Ministry of Justice at the Government Complex Gwacheon in Gyeonggi-do around lunchtime on the 14th.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Han Seung-gon] On the 15th, Minister of Justice Chu Mi-ae posted a photo on her Facebook of a reporter waiting in front of her house to take a picture on her way to work, drawing criticism that it was inappropriate for a public official.

On the other hand, there are opinions that this constitutes an invasion of privacy. The media outlet to which the reporter belongs denied any violation of journalistic ethics. A civic group filed a defamation complaint against Minister Chu for revealing the reporter's face.

On the morning of the same day, Minister Chu posted on her Facebook along with two photos of the reporter waiting in front of her residence. In the photos released by Minister Chu, a reporter wearing a mask is seen holding a camera and waiting for her.

Minister Chu expressed displeasure, saying, "About a month ago, the Ministry of Justice spokesperson sent an official letter to each media outlet requesting cooperation to restrict filming in front of the apartment as it is a private area. However, the reporter said they were unaware of this and insisted on 'stalking' (a journalistic slang meaning to continuously wait without time constraints to meet a source)."

After the reporter's face was exposed and the photos spread on online communities, drawing critical comments, Minister Chu edited the post to mosaic the reporter's face.

Photo by Choo Mi-ae, Minister of Justice, Facebook capture

Amid ongoing controversy over Minister Chu's claims criticizing journalistic ethics, there are questions about whether reporting activities conducted in outdoor spaces of a residence can be considered an invasion of privacy, alongside counterarguments that photographing a public official's commute is a legitimate journalistic activity.

A representative of the media outlet to which the reporter belongs strongly opposed the criticism, saying, "We do not engage in hooliganism." According to Media Today on the 15th, the representative stated, "We concluded that our reporter did not particularly invade privacy," and added, "They did not enter the house but were at the apartment entrance."

They also emphasized, "In the past, when President Moon Jae-in was president-elect, photos were taken of him leaving his residence and going to work," and "Minister Chu is a public official. We cannot agree with the criticism."

Regarding Minister Chu's criticism that journalistic ethics were violated and privacy was infringed, the representative said, "Minister Chu's family are private citizens, so their privacy will not be violated, and our basic stance is to continue journalistic activities within the permissible scope for public officials and within the bounds of common sense."

Meanwhile, a civic group announced that it would file a defamation complaint against Minister Chu, calling her actions media suppression.

The Action Alliance for the Restoration of the Rule of Law (Beopse-ryeon) stated, "It is unimaginable that in a normal country, the Minister of Justice would post the personal information of a reporter covering her commute on social media, subjecting them to a terrible lynching, and then claim that the reporter is obstructing her commute and refuse to go to work."

They continued, "As a cabinet member and high-ranking public official, Minister Chu's public duties begin the moment she leaves her home, and the reporter waiting at the apartment entrance, where both residents and outsiders pass, to cover the minister's commute was conducting perfectly normal journalistic activities."

Beopse-ryeon further criticized, "However, Minister Chu labeled these normal journalistic activities as an invasion of privacy, posted photos on Facebook showing the reporter's face without concealment, and insulted the reporter with derogatory expressions, which is a highly anti-democratic outrage tantamount to state violence."