The Uri Party's press bill, one of four controversial reform legislation programs pushed by the ruling camp, consists of two revision bills and one new enactment. Of the three, in our view, the revision bill to the Integrated Broadcasting Law and the "press arbitration and damage reparation law" bill are relatively less poisonous than "law bill on safeguarding the functions of newspapers, etc. and protecting the interests of the readers, which is to replace the current Law on the Registration of Periodicals, etc." This one needs further scrutiny because concerned individuals and groups still do not seem to fully understand its real nature.
The International Press Institute, attentive to the press situation in South Korea in recent years and particularly since the previous administration's tax investigation of media organizations, last week denounced a "politically inspired attempt to cower the media" by the government. The IPI finds various institutional measures contained in Uri's press bill, such as creation of "readers' interests committees" and establishment of a state fund for development of the press, as schemes to create "a malleable and compliant press."
The IPI rightly warns of threats to the principles of editorial independence and freedom of expression. But we find the press bill involves problems far more serious than what the IPI sees as a government attempt to suppress critical newspapers. In essence, the bill is sure to paralyze the proper functioning of all newspapers by facilitating external intervention through a dubious entity called "readers" and by inviting internal conflicts on editorial matters between management and labor, or the publisher and the union. Anyone aware of the realities of newspaper operations knows that what Uri lawmakers have worked out in the name of press reform is complete nonsense.
Under the projected law, purportedly designed to enhance the media's social responsibility, newspapers "should contribute to the unity of the people, the harmonious development of the nation and the creation of democratic public opinions," and should not cause conflicts between regions, generations, classes and genders. In addition to these draconian obligations, the bill requires newspaper reports should be "fair and objective" and allow no discriminatory treatment by sex, age, occupation, faith, social status, locality and ethnicity.
To ensure the press dwells on these editorial principles, each newspaper company, whether it publishes a general, specialized or a foreign language paper, should form a readers' interests committee with 10 to 30 members, representing various sectors of its readership. Each newspaper should also form an "editorial committee," consisting of members speaking for management on one side and those representing reporting and production staff on the other. This committee is to establish an "editorial code" covering all aspects of newspaper production, such as editorial policies and staff appointments as well as operation of the readers' committee.
The rules on major papers' market share and the requirement for financial reports to the authorities, the focal point of opposition party objections, look like insignificant chores compared to provisions on the operation of these externally and internally hazardous committees. Who are these "readers" and what on earth are their "interests?" An editorial committee will serve as the stage for troublesome argument in search of the great value of "public interest" under this latter-day totalitarian press law. Both the drafters of the bizarre statute and those who criticize it are urged to take a careful look at the bill once again.
