.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
A colleague asked me the other day an interesting question: How much impact does the Korean media have on government policy?
It is frankly a difficult question to answer. To most Anglo-American observers, the Korean news media appears to be beholden to the country's political and business elite and does not play the same role as the fourth estate in the U.S. or U.K. as an independent referee.
The question can also be asked from another perspective: Whether the Korean media can generate creative ideas that lead to policy formation? It is hard for me to think of any recent examples, although I welcome evidence to the contrary.
What is puzzling about this situation is that the Korean news media theoretically wields enormous influence. The circulations of the Chosun Ilbo, Dong-a Ilbo and Joongang Ilbo are among the biggest in the world since they are truly national in terms of market penetration.
But most of the media is reluctant to adopt a crusading impulse to mount sustained campaigns for social change. With most Korean media dominated by conservative newspapers and broadcasters, consistent criticism is normally only provided by the left-wing dailies, Hankyoreh and Kyunghyang, which are caught in their own ideological straitjackets and preach mainly to the converted (although their content is closely monitored in the Blue House).
The reason for this state of affairs can be traced to the press club system and corporate advertising. The press club system, adopted from Japan, has been blamed for leading to conformity in news reporting about the government ministries and industrial associations. Newspapers and broadcasters often run consistently uniform reports about an event or an announcement.
Corporate advertising also contributes to media consensus in reporting about industry since newspapers rely heavily on ad revenues from the leading chaebol to survive. It is one why Seoul can boast of 20-odd newspapers when leading financial centers such as New York or London have far fewer.
Working practices also contribute to the lack of originality in media coverage. Korean journalists are frequently overworked and have little time to develop independent story angles. Moreover, reporters from the most prestigious newspapers are often the graduates of the same top universities as government officials with whom they interact, creating a shared sense of interests.
It is interesting to note, however, that the Korean media strives to avoid collusion between the reporters and officials by frequently changing a journalist's beat after only one or two years. The downside of this practice is that journalists rarely become experts in specific sectors and often cannot independently judge what they are being told.
Moreover, the role of the Korean media has to be seen in its historical context, having operated for four decades under tight government control and censorship before the country's democratization in the late 1980s.
Even during the democracy movement, the press took a back seat in pushing for political reforms, including freedom of the press. It was only during the 1990s and 2000s that the media achieved some degree of aggressive reporting, but a government crackdown, including libel suits, that began under President Lee Myung-bak has had a chilling effect in recent years and has led Freedom House to downgrade the local media from "free" to "partly-free."
Although the Korean media is not normally known for investigative reporting, it can play the role of watchdog at times, particularly during crises, such as the Sewol sinking and MERS, by pointing out flaws in the government response.
But in general the media can be seen to be reactive rather than pro-active in its coverage. It has had little impact on the strategic level in setting the agenda on big issues that are facing the country, such as the environment, the rights of gays and other minorities and the need for increased immigration in the face of a rapidly aging population.
The Korean media, however, has more of an impact on the tactical level by focusing attention on small-bore issues. Government officials live in fear in being publicly shamed or embarrassed by media reports and are sensitive to pressure from the media in this regard.
If the press identifies a "wrong," officials are often quick to react. This particularly applies to issues involving foreigners and foreign companies.
The strong nationalism that still pervades the media is reflected, for example, in a critical focus on foreign acquisition of Korean assets, which has resulted in bureaucrats sometimes taking a hostile stance on deals.
The media can also exacerbate public anger in terms of relations with other nations, particularly Japan. But this does not amount to help fashioning government policy in the broadest sense.
Ironically, it may be social media or NGOs that wield more influence in this regard nowadays as they harness the power of the grassroots. They are assuming the mantle of the "voice of the public" that the media once claimed.
John Burton, a former Korea correspondent for the Financial Times, is now a Seoul-based independent journalist and media consultant. He can be reached at john.burton@insightcomms.com.
