[The Editors' Verdict] How the Media Survives and the World Readers Live In

It is very difficult to call an unfriendly newspaper and speak with the person in charge of a certain article. A reader who wanted an article about himself deleted finally succeeded in reaching the author. The arduous process he must have gone through was pitiful, and his voice over the phone sounded desperate.

He is a middle school teacher who was disciplined for being involved in an unfortunate incident at school. Because the content was sensational, many media outlets wrote articles about it. He tried to prove his innocence and finally succeeded in having the disciplinary action canceled. Of course, this fact was not reported, but naturally, he did not want any additional articles. He just wanted to permanently remove the old article, which is ‘no longer true,’ from the internet. Later, it was found that some media deleted the article while others did not.

From the functional perspective of the press, which requires recording the beginning, process, and outcome of important issues, no journalist would agree to delete all past articles and leave only the final one. Although the article was deleted at the teacher’s request, it is not easy to logically explain whether this judgment is valid in bigger matters or if there are reasons to decide otherwise.

Recently, a journalism professor at a certain university had the opportunity to observe an editorial meeting at a newspaper. In a column summarizing the experience, he recalled being impressed by the heated debate among newspaper executives over the headline of the front-page lead article. Even now, when trust in the media is at rock bottom, this newspaper shows evidence that serious journalists are still struggling intensely. This newspaper publishes about 300 articles online daily. Was there also a fierce debate over the other 299 headlines? They probably thought the front-page lead article deserves special treatment because it is the core message the newspaper sends to society that day. However, for most readers who consume news online, that article is just one of 300 messages the newspaper spreads to society.

The argument that it is practically impossible to treat hundreds of articles daily like front-page articles is just an excuse. Could the omission or less consideration of the remaining articles due to the media’s circumstances be directly related to words like crisis or deterioration of the press?

Even now, when news consumption has been completely reorganized online, our journalists have hardly escaped old practices. It is probably not because they are unaware of the necessity but because they have not found alternatives. Our newspaper is no exception, and it feels like standing in the middle of a tunnel without any successful cases to refer to. Every day, many questions that make one uncomfortable arise, but the answers cannot be found on Naver.

Although the value that the press serves to guarantee citizens’ right to know remains unchanged, the changed media environment may have altered the ways to realize that value or the attitudes to be adopted. However, the press must ask itself how actively it has led the establishment and introduction of new common sense to meet the changed demands of civil society. Has it not just repeated the phrase ‘this is how the media has always been’ while being stuck in textbook journalism principles or the news producers’ perspective? Perhaps the restoration of trust in the media can only begin by breaking the common sense we take for granted and denying the textbooks.