The ruling and opposition parties of Korea, which have fought each other like cats and dogs all these years, have produced in bipartisan manner a unique statute which provides government authorities with an open mechanism to intervene in the newspaper business.
Extreme confrontation between the Uri Party and the Grand National Party over the four "reform bills" proposed by the government party delayed until the last day of 2004 the passage of the 2005 budget bill and parliamentary approval for extended deployment of Korean troops in Iraq. When the clock was ticking toward midnight, legislators took their seats and passed the budget and troop bills, along with one of the four disputed bills titled the "Law on the Freedom and Protection of the Function of the Press, etc."
Strategists at the two rival parties were wise enough to coin a new title for the press bill, which originally was a revision bill to "the Law on the Registration, etc., of Periodicals." The holy title gave the new statute the fake cause of further guaranteeing the freedom of the press and unhindered operation of press organizations.
The press bill was approved with 133 in favor and 99 against and the GNP is known to have added significantly to the yes votes. The opposition party insisted some bad provisions of the "press freedom law" had been significantly watered down to accommodate its objections. But it still had a number of articles binding the operation of press organizations, paving the way for government authorities to intervene in the newspaper business when it takes effect on July 1, 2005.
We can see that the Uri and GNP were able to compromise as the former believed there still were enough provisions in the modified bill that stood for its reform character while the latter could boast that it had successfully removed or corrected most of the poisonous articles regarding the ownership structure of newspaper companies and their market shares. By passing at least one of the four controversial bills, the two parties could also claim they do not just keep fighting but can agree as well.
From the point of media organizations, it is fortunate that newspapers are not obligated but "recommended" to create an editorial code, establish an editorial committee made up of editors and reporters and operate a readers' committee to advise on editorial directions. Yet, NGOs on journalism criticized the flexible provision as backtracking from "press reform."
On the other hand, major newspapers condemned the provisions on curbing their market shares as violating the people's right to know guaranteed by the Constitution. The ceiling is lowered to 30 percent for an individual paper and 60 percent for the top three mass-circulation newspapers from 50 percent and 75 percent, respectively, as in the original ruling party draft. The market share provision, however, will be of little meaning as the percentage will be based on all 133 daily newspapers, including specialized journals, instead of the top 10 general newspapers as originally contemplated.
Large-circulation papers are fuming about what they call undemocratic provisions in the new press law but civic groups complain that the long-awaited press reform is missing as a result of the partisan compromise. The Uri Party drafted the press bill in a move to prevent a few mass-circulation papers from monopolizing public opinion and to promote more transparent and democratic operation of newspaper organizations.
The "press freedom law" cannot practically serve whatever reform purpose it had but will only aggravate conflict between the press and political power, which will now be tempted to use the tools in the statute to intervene in the newspaper business. And it seems even the opposition party was attracted by this legal instrument.
