[Insight & Opinion] Double Standard for Rodong Sinmun and General Cable Channels?

President Lee Jaemyung's remarks about Rodong Sinmun and general programming cable TV channels (Jongpyeon) stand in stark contrast. He criticized the longstanding restrictions on public access to Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of North Korea's Workers' Party. "Are we treating the public as people who can be swayed by propaganda and agitation?" he asked. "If we accurately inform people about the reality in North Korea, it could serve as an opportunity for them to realize, 'We shouldn't be like that.' So why block it?"

In contrast, he strongly criticized the general programming cable TV channels. "There are quite a few cases where I wonder whether Jongpyeon is even a broadcast or just a biased YouTube channel." The Broadcasting and Communications Review Committee has been responsible for evaluating the bias of broadcasts. President Lee stated, "Is the Broadcasting and Communications Commission completely unable to intervene?" Regarding the review committee, he added, "Unless it is a completely independent body, it must be subject to some form of command and control." By suspecting Jongpyeon of being a biased YouTube channel, he also raised the issue of command and control over the body that reviews Jongpyeon.

Rodong Sinmun, like Jongpyeon, takes the form of a media outlet. With headlines such as "Dear Comrade Kim Jong Un Provided On-Site Guidance to the Scientists' Residential District" (front page, November 1, 2020) dominating its pages, Rodong Sinmun is the epitome of bias. The bias of Jongpyeon does not even come close. Yet, while calling for "public access" to Rodong Sinmun, President Lee mentioned "command and control" for Jongpyeon, which raises questions about a possible double standard.

If Rodong Sinmun is opened to the public on the grounds of the people's right to information despite its bias, but Jongpyeon is strictly regulated because of its bias, this could be seen as selective justice based on ideological orientation and political objectives. If opening Rodong Sinmun is a product of "confidence in our system," then criticism of Jongpyeon should also be embraced as a sign of "democratic confidence."

Of course, President Lee's remarks about Rodong Sinmun and Jongpyeon may not necessarily represent a double standard. One could argue that Rodong Sinmun, for the South Korean public, functions less as a media outlet and more as a source of information to better understand North Korea, justifying a differentiated approach. Jongpyeon, on the other hand, is a broadcaster that must reduce its bias to fulfill its social responsibility.

Nevertheless, concerns about the president's remarks remain. Rodong Sinmun is not simply a source of information; it is also a propaganda tool for a regime that threatens us with nuclear weapons. Even if just 1% of our population-500,000 people-sympathize with it, that would be a problem. I do not want to see Rodong Sinmun articles posted on social media, attracting thousands of supportive comments. The president's logic assumes varying levels of discernment among citizens depending on the situation. He appears to trust the public's critical capacity to process North Korea's crude propaganda (Rodong Sinmun), while treating them as vulnerable to manipulation when it comes to domestic media criticism (Jongpyeon). This approach gives the impression that the public's capabilities are being assessed according to the administration's interests.

Above all, the equation "Jongpyeon = biased YouTube channel" has rarely been substantiated by objective indicators since the current administration took office. There is no solid evidence that conservative Jongpyeon channels are more biased than progressive terrestrial broadcasters. According to a foreign media report stating, "Korean media is a mirror reflecting the conflicts of Korean society," the bias in our broadcasts, if it exists, is simply an honest reflection of our society's ideological polarization.

In a country that values press freedom, the independence of broadcast review bodies from the executive branch is paramount. Command and control over the review committee represents a regression in broadcast autonomy. "The review committee's independence is undermined by presidential intervention," warned the Korean Journalists Association in a recent article. Unlike previous administrations, if the Broadcasting and Communications Commission directs the review committee, and the president receives reports from it, both bodies should withdraw from judging the neutrality of broadcasts. In advanced countries, self-regulation by private broadcasters like Jongpyeon is the norm. The cases of Rodong Sinmun and Jongpyeon seem to signal the beginning of a crisis for press freedom.

Professor Heo Manseop, Kangnung National University