S. Korea’s ruling party thinks Korean journalists must “contribute to peaceful reunification, national reconciliation & the restoration of national homogeneity”

I often reflect on how life has been kind to me lately. Once, I was poor and cold; now, I live in comfort and warmth. Once, I struggled to eat enough; now, I struggle to eat less. Once, life was enclosed in the ennui of poverty, isolation, and the prospect of a life lived in dullness and pointlessness; now, life is endlessly interesting. Once, I was alienated and alone; now, I come home to my best friends, including the two best friends I literally made. So if you still haven’t found the good fortune to climb Maslow’s pyramid, I advise you to find someone who looks at you like journalists once looked at Moon Jae-in.

[They gazed into his dreamy eyes and thought they saw their own reflections.]

Or did, until this happened.

The controversy erupted last week after conservative lawmaker Na Kyung-won cited the headline of the Bloomberg story as part of an effort to criticize Moon’s foreign policy after the collapse of U.S. President Donald Trump’s talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Lee subsequently issued the statement naming Bloomberg and the reporter involved, using a derogatory term referring to ethnic Koreans who work for the foreign press. [Bloomberg]

The topic of the Bloomberg story was how Moon was trying–and failing–to sell Kim Jong-un to a skeptical world as a lovely guy we had all just misunderstood. The rational mind cannot reconcile this view with reality; consequently, Moon’s oleaginous praise and glossing-over of Kim’s crimes against humanity was shaping Moon’s own image far more than it was shaping Kim’s. It was also widening the already-wide split between Washington and Seoul.

This week, the debate over whether Moon is too committed to engagement with North Korea boiled over in a controversy about a Bloomberg news report that called him a “top spokesman” for Kim Jong Un last year.

Moon’s office faced criticism from foreign media associations after ruling party officials used the racially charged term “black-haired foreigner” to personally single out the author of the Bloomberg story – who is South Korean – for being “almost treasonous.”

After days of pressure, the party apologised on Tuesday for using “black-haired foreigner,” while Moon’s office said it would take action if the reporter were “under real threat.” [Reuters]

After this, several Bloomberg reporters received threats from Moon’s supporters. Until then, for almost two years, their fellow journalists had failed us–and failed the cause of Koreans’ civil liberties–when they overlooked Moon’s abuse of libel suits to silence his critics and jail his opponents. A few simpered some token complaints at his censorship of “fake news,” but most didn’t, because they didn’t care for the speech or the speakers and had lost sight of the greater danger of censoring controversial ideas. They barely coughed at the silencing of defectors because peace. They still haven’t said a word about Moon’s criminal investigations of campus protest posters. That is how democracy dies in the blazing light of day. But at least they finally spoke up for one of their own.

“It is disturbing for any politician to accuse any journalist of treason ”“ a criminal offence – for reporting on matters of public interest or voicing an opinion. This is a form of censorship and journalistically chilling. Questions or complaints regarding an article should be raised with the publication in question rather than personally and publicly targeting a reporter. South Korea underwent a long struggle to achieve full democracy and the SFCC calls on politicians on all sides to respect the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.” [Seoul Foreign Correspondents’ Club, on Facebook]

On March 12, in a National Assembly speech and subsequent comments, the Liberty Korea Party floor leader referred to the Bloomberg article, pointing to it as an example of coverage by the “foreign press” (외신). In response, the ruling Minjoo Party’s spokesperson questioned the reporter’s credentials, her affiliations with foreign media, and referred to her article as “a borderline treasonous act insulting the head of state.” Her Korean ethnicity and the fact that she is based in Seoul have been used to discredit her reporting. AAJA-Asia is disturbed by this rhetoric targeting a journalist. It is further disturbed that following these accusations, she has faced threats to her personal safety.

Threatening or intimidating behavior towards journalists is unacceptable and needs to stop. Such activities have a chilling effect and undermine the freedom of the press for all journalists working in Korea. AAJA-Asia urges everyone engaging in this discussion to respect the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The statements from the involved parties have also highlighted some misconceptions in how foreign media are perceived in Korean media. Some have referred to “the black-haired foreign reporter” (ê²€ì€ë¨¸ë¦¬ 외신기ìž), which implies that there is something abnormal about a Korean reporter’s role as a member of the foreign press corps. [Asian-American Journalists’ Association]

The words that ignited the party mouthpiece characterized Moon as “a de facto spokesman singing [Kim Jong-un’s] praises.” In retrospect, the reporter might have made it clearer that she was characterizing foreign perceptions of Moon. I’ve found that characterization to be an almost universally held view on Capitol Hill, regardless of party. It is also widely held inside our government, at least by the people who talk to me.

Blue House’s statement on South Korean ruling party’s treatment of Bloomberg reporter. pic.twitter.com/YoMlHerTOI

– William Kim ê¹€ì˜ê¶Œ (@NKMESSENGER) March 19, 2019

After days of controversy, the spokesman issued a non-apology for his remarks, and the Blue House issued a token affirmation of freedom of the press. Journalists moved on, but this time, they could not fail to notice the ugly ethno-nationalism that motivated the ruling party’s rage against this heretical journalist, implying that her ethnicity burdened her with a duty to portray the government in a favorable light. But even this criticism may have missed the spokesman’s most disturbing–and revealing–criticism.

The DP then cited parts of the ethics code of the Journalists Association of Korea, saying Korean reporters were responsible for following the principle of fairness and contribute to peaceful reunification, national reconciliation and the restoration of national homogeneity. Bloomberg is not part of this association. [Joongang Ilbo]

This is only partially true, but the truth is bad enough. From the JAK’s introductory pages, one can see that it leans left and favors what it calls “journalist exchanges to promote peace and reunification of the Korean Peninsula,” which is both hilarious and tragic because it implies belief that the North Koreans its members met were, in fact, journalists. Its Code of Ethics says nothing about “peaceful reunification, national reconciliation and the restoration of national homogeneity,” but does talk about freedom of the press and the rejection of outside pressure that might threaten it. Its Korea Press Association Code, however, says, “We strive for the peaceful reunification of our country and the restoration of homogeneity of the nation.”¹

Just how disturbing you find those words to be depends on how they’re applied in practice and enforced by the state. And in this case, the “Democratic” Party cited it to enforce the idea that ethnic Korean journalists are uniquely obligated to serve the ruling party’s agenda of “peaceful reunification, national reconciliation and the restoration of national homogeneity” by suppressing criticism of Kim Jong-un and those who would appease him. I could restate the significance of this, but why say it twice? And note well that the villain and victim of this part of the story is Park Geun-hye.

Pyongyang has repeatedly demanded that Seoul muzzle or censor political criticism of it as the price of peace. The second of the 2000 inter-Korean agreement’s eight points required the two sides to “work for mutual respect and trust in order to overcome differences in ideology and system.” Seoul obliged, and used the police forces of a nominally free and democratic society to enforce the point against the few troublemakers – and there were very few of them, most of them defectors – who protested against the North.

* * *

In 2014, Seoul agreed to Pyongyang’s proposal that each state should cease its “slander” of the other, as part of a deal allowing family “reunions” – in reality, short visits with relatives, often people abducted by the North, under the close supervision of North Korean minders. It was never clear exactly how the two sides would define “slander,” or whether Pyongyang would interpret this as an agreement by Seoul to censor criticism of Pyongyang by private South Korean citizens or activist groups. (Pyongyang prefers vague agreements. It can interpret them freely at moments of opportunity.) [Me, in 2016]

The duty of a journalist is not to serve the state, a party, a leader, or a race. It is to find important facts and report them accurately. It is to give the people of a free society the means to see the truth and make decisions about the governance of their country. The duty of any journalist, regardless of her ethnicity, is to serve truth.

[I found this picture of Na Kyung-won on her Facebook page, so I’m pretty sure no one will sue me for using it.]

But journalists still paid little attention to the ruling party’s vicious attacks against opposition leader Na Kyung-won. Ruling party lawmakers threatened her with an ethics investigation and a “disciplinary hearing,” even though her words were arguably true. One ruling party lawmaker even compared Na to a Nazi—and worse yet, Shinzo Abe. South Korean columnists Kim Jin-kook and Kim Myong-sik both pointed out that right-wing dictator Park Chung-hee used similar tactics against his opponents in the 1970s, including future President Kim Young-sam. And this is not the only example of Moon’s government and party–we’ve recently seen the Blue House outsource its most vicious attacks to the “Democratic” Party–behaving like authoritarians. Here are the latest ones:

• The Korean Communications Commission moves forward with new plans to tighten internet censorship of social media, including YouTube videos alleging a North Korean role in instigating the Kwangju uprising. Even lawmakers who try to argue the facts of this event–which is of almost incalculable significance in modern Korean history–draw petitions of strip them of their seats in the National Assembly, or an “ethics” investigation and unspecified “punishment.”

• A former Environment Minister is accused of blacklisting and trying to fire civil servants who criticized the Moon administration or were appointed under former President Park Geun-hye. The prosecution sought a warrant for her arrest, but the court refused to grant it. Moon and his supporters had accused former President Park of blacklisting left-leaning artists in the decisions about who would receive government grants.

• Kim Seung-min, who survived both North Korea and cancer and still broadcasts dissenting views into his homeland, alleges that South Korean government officials offered to fly him to Washington to participate in North Korea Freedom Week 2019, on the condition that he not say anything critical of the Moon administration’s agreement with Kim Jong-un at Panmunjom last year. Kim told them to fuck off, which is also what he told Kim Jong-un and cancer. Ditto Park Sang-hak, who survived an assassination attempt inside South Korea in 2012.

You may still call Moon Jae-in a “liberal,” but only if you rely on the sort of journalism that has always ignored the ample evidence that the Korean left is nothing of the kind. And you may still call South Korea a free society, but only if you’re either extraordinarily obtuse or have an extraordinarily fluid definition of the word “free.” A democracy that many of us went to Korea to defend is dying. It is good that journalists have exhibited some solidarity with the freedom of their colleagues. They would do better to show more solidarity with the principle of free speech itself.

~ ~ ~

1. One can also find other codes of ethics online from competing Korean journalists’ organizations.

~ ~ ~

Update:

This is terrifying. https://t.co/ahmuyj0cLv

– Joshua Stanton (@freekorea_us) April 6, 2019