[Inside Chodong] The Dark Side of "I Am a God"

The scene beginning with an audio recording of Jeong Myeong-seok, the president of the Christian Gospel Mission (JMS), containing explicit sexual content, followed by an interview in which a female believer accuses him of sexual assault, sparked public outrage. This is about the Netflix original documentary “I Am a God: People Betrayed by God,” which exposes a cult religion. Interest in “I Am a God” exploded to the point that it became the number one popular content on Netflix in South Korea, a first for a documentary. When the female believer held a press conference last March accusing Jeong of sexual violence, the reaction was not as intense.

“I Am a God” raised social awareness. Prosecutor General Lee Won-seok personally urged, “Do your best to maintain the prosecution so that strict punishment corresponding to the crime is sentenced and enforced.” All six lawyers from the law firm Gwangjang, who were defending Jeong, decided to resign. Jeong was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2009 for sexual assault charges. He was re-arrested and indicted last year on charges of sexually assaulting two female believers. It is also surprising that among the cult’s followers are prosecutors, professors, PDs, architects, and celebrities.

The original documentary “National Investigation Headquarters” on Wavve also realistically portrayed the 24 hours of the National Investigation Headquarters from the occurrence of the crime to the arrest, based on a true crime story. Both “I Am a God” and “National Investigation Headquarters” delved into investigative reporting, demonstrating the potential of “OTT journalism.” However, the excessively graphic and violent scenes made viewers uncomfortable throughout. “I Am a God” exposed scenes of female believers bathing naked, the process of sexual assault, and a strangled corpse. “National Investigation Headquarters” showed weapons at crime scenes without mosaics and broadcast interrogation scenes of suspects whose sentences had not been finalized. This raises concerns about “secondary harm,” “copycat crimes,” and “human rights violations.” There are also criticisms that the productions focused on sensationalism with provocative direction.

The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family’s recommended guidelines for reporting on sexual violence and harassment include the provision that “the details of sexual harassment and sexual violence incidents should not be recreated in a sensational manner.” OTT platforms are not considered media outlets, so they are not obligated to follow these recommendations. Then, is there any system to regulate OTT? To conclude, there is none. Broadcasting is subject to restrictions on depictions of criminal incidents under the “Broadcasting Act.” OTTs are not subject to this law. Instead, they fall under the “Act on Promotion of Movies and Video.” They are also not subject to the Broadcasting Review Regulations or the Press Arbitration Act. Even if victims come forward, there is no way to provide relief. Legal and institutional improvements are needed to define the journalistic role of OTT platforms.

Starting in May, OTT providers will begin a self-rating classification system where they assign content ratings themselves. It is true that a self-rating system is necessary in the content market. This allows content to be released in a timely manner, and users can watch globally released content simultaneously without delay. However, concerns about harmful content remain. The government has decided to strengthen protection for youth and users by forming a professional monitoring team for post-management of video content, but this is still insufficient. To minimize side effects and strengthen accountability for content, a review system including OTT platforms must be considered.