A collective conscious of clicks

By David Tizzard

Whether the current South Korean society is judged positively or negatively will largely depend on the approach one takes. Few, if any, can zoom out to such an extent that they are able to obtain that heavenly eyed view that reveals the entirety of a nation and all those that reside in it.

As individuals we are forced to take a more terrestrial position: Be it political, economic, societal, legal, cultural, artistic, or even sexual.

From one perspective, a curious observer might look out into society and see BTS giving speeches at the United Nations to world leaders, Pyun Hye-young's literature being discussed, the national football team emerging victorious at the Asian Cup, and then conclude that this is indeed a time of cultural recognition. An era in which Kim Dae-jung's push for globalization and the spread of the Korean idea have now begun to take place naturally without the requirements of huge government backing.

However, on the opposite side, the very same society might be seen as one fraught with danger. A national or regional community in which the oppressive male not only rules the workplace and home, but has also now even entered the private sphere and begun putting cameras in bathrooms, hotels and changing rooms.

These two societies exist simultaneously. And so despite the arduous nature of the task, it is important that people make a genuine attempt to understand as many of the viewpoints as possible.

To wit, last week most media outlets published reports of the latest molka (hidden camera) crime ― this time in Paris and involving two Korean female celebrities.

The molka offenses are indeed a serious problem. Not unique to South Korea, Chuck Berry despite his pioneering of the rock'n'roll genre is testament to that, but certainly one that needs addressing. There were more than 26,000 victims here ― predominantly female ― between 2012 and 2016 (and that number should be far higher as many went unreported or, worse, unknown). In contrast, roughly only 5 percent of those that committed the crime faced any prison time.

The representation is always on the victim and, frankly, in rather unpleasant terms.
Last week's newspaper report featured glitzy and, considering the subject matter, unnecessarily attractive photos of the two female celebrities as the lead images. This was accompanied by their names as well as the suggestion of more revealing details inside. Clicking on the link, one was greeted with further pictures of the women: their names, and then all the embarrassing details. Little more than "salacious sizzle" for want of a better phrase.

This likely only encourages others to follow suit as they are fed with the subconscious suggestion of seeing these "beautiful" people in compromising positions through the clandestine use of technology.

And it makes one think: Are we also not needlessly subjecting these poor victims to even further embarrassment? While the person who committed the crime escapes without their name or photo being revealed or mentioned once?

I suggest that this situation be reversed.

If these stories are to be made public, it should only happen once the defendant has been found guilty. Then those guilty of the crime will have their name and photo used in the report. Meanwhile, the people who were the victims can, if they wish, remain anonymous.

This is done not so much as to punish the perpetrator, though it will certainly have that effect, but also to help reform society at large. We are being told what has been judged incorrect behavior and also shown the consequences of such actions.

It serves not so much as a punitive warning, but a reminder of our social and ethical responsibilities that remain despite the exponential growth in the technological fields.

It also requires effort from both the media and the consumer. From the journalistic perspective, we cannot expect nor ask a government to enforce such regulations on the print and digital media. Freedom of the press remains fundamentally important to a democratic society.

So while there will still be the motivation for some outlets to continue their trend of printing things in such a manner because, quite simply, free speech allows them to and a competitive capitalist market almost compels them to, we the consumers can affect the market by simply refusing to click on those articles which are presented in such a way. We transform the market through supply and demand, which is acted out in the individual's choice. If we do not demand it, it will not be supplied.

Digital media and social network services have brought us in the Western world a phenomenal amount of benefits. After all, if they weren't so effective at promoting open discussion and discourse they wouldn't be banned in China and North Korea. A downside is, however, some of us have become subconscious clickers and likers.

We reach for both the outrage and the sex, the new bread and circuses. And there it is, at our fingertips: All in one convenient story.

Make no mistake, outrage and sex do have a place in society and they can be channeled in a positive manner. However, at the moment we are using victims of crimes to fuel these desires in a negative fashion while those that commit them seemingly remain unpunished, by and large.

Our ultimate goal should not necessarily be punitive. Forgiveness and rehabilitation should remain cornerstones of a society looking to grow, for we are all living in glass houses despite what our Instagram profiles might suggest.

What we want is to look upon the news and to be able to more clearly differentiate between those that have committed crimes while at the same time affording the victims the respect and protection that they might require at such junctures.

It cannot start with the law. It starts with self-regulation. On what we click. On what we read. On what we share. And what we print. That means it can start today.

David Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) is an assistant professor at Seoul Women's University and host of TBS eFM's cultural radio show "A Little of a Lot." The show can be heard every Sunday from 4 p.m.-6 p.m. on 101.3 FM or downloaded via online platforms such as iTunes and Podbang.