Prosecution Has Little to Do With Reporting Problems

Indicting the staff of MBC TV's investigative report on the U.S. beef import issue, prosecutors cited up to 30 erroneous points. Media people can seldom excuse themselves for wrong or unfair reporting ― whether intentionally or accidentally ― and should rectify and even apologize for them if necessary.

Still, many Koreans must find it hard to shake off a couple of questions that have been lingering throughout the prosecution's year-long investigations: Should the law enforcement authorities ― instead of some media panels ― be the one to point out the accuracy and purposes of news reports; and, in the same vein, should one-sided or inaccurate reporting be subject to criminal punishment?

More difficult to understand ― if not simply comedic ― are the charges against the four program directors and one scriptwriter: defamation (of government officials) and interference with business (of beef importers).

Prosecutors say the production staff injured the reputation of the government's beef import negotiators with distorted and exaggerated reports. This is little different from banning all media outlets and their employees from doing the very work for which they exist ― challenging the government ― and a move aimed at maximizing the ``chilling effect'' of self-censorship and voluntary restraint from critical reporting. This can be compared to teachers suspending students from school for submitting less than perfect term papers, and is reminiscent of the Shakespearean calls for cutting out flesh without bleeding. Even funnier was the accusation of interference with business, which, if upheld, will have the effect of allowing all owners of unsanitary restaurants in consumer protection programs to sue PDs for hurting their businesses.

All this would have been far easier to understand if the prosecution came out more candidly, accusing them of hating the Lee Myung-bak administration and wanting to instigate a popular uprising. The law enforcement officers' revelation of personal e-mails containing such content sent by the scriptwriter to her friends showed their intention better than anything else.

Aside from the undeniable infringement on privacy committed by the prosecution's disclosure of such private information ― not in court but in public ― how could the prosecutors prove the highly psychological connection that the scriptwriter's perception of the incumbent administration affected the production of the report?

It might be much clearer if one presumes the whole situation upside down: How would it have been had the public TV not aired the program to protect the reputation of these officials and bolster the revenue of meat importers, and some tainted U.S. beef actually caused health problems. Even elementary schoolchildren wouldn't hesitate to tell which should come first.

Cheong Wa Dae said if similar incidents had happened in advanced countries, the entire MBC management would have stepped down with an apology, indirectly comparing this case to the BBC's reporting of the Tony Blair government's decision to send troops to Iraq. The difference between the two cases is all too clear, however. In the BBC case, the decision on fairness and accuracy of the controversial report was handled by a neutral commission presided over by a judge, not by law enforcement authorities like here. Second, the nature and content of the mistake were graver than this case.

Blue House also said the months-long candlelit protest last year hurt the ``national reputation,'' but what was hurt was not the nation's but the Lee administration's reputation ― for conducting trade negotiations in total disregard of the people's wishes.

Freedom of speech and popular opposition to the government are the very heart of democracy. Which is why when media outlets and government clash in most countries, neutral agencies take sides with the former ― even when the reports have some mistakes ― as long as they are correct ``in the broadest context.''

Any government aiming for advanced country status while ignoring this simple principle is confessing it is still running a banana republic.