[Insight & Opinion] A Different Perspective on President Yoon's 'Failing Grade' Press Conference

Attempt at an Unlimited Press Conference Beyond the Conventional Framework
Sometimes, Allowing Mistakes Is Necessary for Genuine Communication

Many people harshly criticized President Yoon Suk-yeol's national address and press conference, giving them failing marks. In opinion polls, over 70% of respondents said they did not sympathize with the press conference (Ace Research-NewSis, Hangil Research-Cookie News, Jo Won C&I-Straight News).

However, from a different perspective, Yoon Suk-yeol's press conference can be viewed differently. Among the three broadcasting companies that aired the conference, the highest viewership rating was only 3.7%. This means that only about 10% of poll respondents actually watched the conference. The majority of respondents answered that they did not sympathize with the conference despite not having watched it.

The reason for this phenomenon is the 'predisposition that people who do not support the president will not support whatever the president says.' Since recent opinion polls show that about 70% of respondents do not support President Yoon, the proportion of those who do not sympathize with his conference is at a similar level. According to this predisposition theory, it is difficult to judge the president's conference based solely on opinion poll results.

On the contrary, this conference could be evaluated as a progressive communication act by the president. The basis for this is the long duration of 140 minutes and the relatively free format that allowed questions.

In Korean politics, there remains a Confucian tradition of 'speaking cautiously.' If one utters inappropriate words or words that contradict one's actions, one faces difficulties. Therefore, presidents, as heads of state, tried to minimize speaking to reduce damage to their authority caused by verbal mistakes, minimizing the number and length of press conferences.

Yoon Suk-yeol's 140-minute free Q&A was an attempt to break away from the previous Confucian defensive minimalist communication style of Korean presidents. I believe this attempt itself deserves evaluation.

However, as expected, various harsh criticisms followed the president's remarks at the conference, such as 'He speaks informally to the spokesperson,' 'He is rude to foreign journalists,' and 'He defends his wife.' The opposition party, the Democratic Party of Korea, fiercely criticized it as 'an excuse to the end,' 'irrelevant answers,' and 'one-sided chatter.'

At the conference, a reporter asked that the president's apology was vague and that the citizens receiving the apology might be confused. This was a negative framing that belittled the meaning of the conference under the guise of a question. It was this question, not the president's answer, that became the topic. Everything the president wanted to avoid at the press conference happened. Despite the president's remarks including a national apology, denial of illegal nomination interference, establishment of a second secretariat, suspension of Mrs. Kim Geon-hee's activities, and initiation of personnel reshuffle, there was substance.

Interpreting this heated criticism as a contrarian view suggests that our presidential press conference culture still seems trapped in Confucianism. If one speaks incorrectly, one is harshly slandered and subjected to public trials like the literati purges (Sahwa) of the Joseon Dynasty, ultimately leading to speaking less. Yet, at the same time, the president is demanded to communicate actively with the media and the public. In this contradictory environment, presidents choose the safe option of reducing their exposure to press conferences. This is why disconnected presidents and imperial presidents continue to appear.

Despite being inarticulate, President Yoon undertook door-stepping (impromptu Q&A on the way to work) and this unlimited (actually 140-minute) press conference. Subsequently, his approval ratings declined or stagnated. However, it is true that he challenged the existing framework by speaking more. Since presidents are human, when speaking for a long time, they say appropriate and useful things as well as careless and disappointing things. Mistakes must be allowed for a true dialogue to open. When people encourage the president by saying it is okay and to speak more, creating an environment where the president can speak freely without burden, genuine communication with the president becomes possible.

Heo Man-seop, Professor at Gangneung-Wonju National University