Government Information Agency

Propaganda Machine’s Raison d’Etre Increasingly Questionable

Every cloud has a silver lining: In the pressroom integration controversy, the existence of the Government Information Agency is in peril. Six political parties discussed Monday whether to retain the GIA, the government trumpeter taking the lead in abolishing briefing room at most ministries, as a state agency. The main opposition Grand National Party (GNP) appears set to close the propaganda machine, while others would settle for readjusting its role and function. In sum, their conclusion was the GIA must change or go.

Few government agencies might have undergone greater changes in scale and status than GIA. This shows the agency is not an indispensable organ, but one whose role and weight depends on the need of the power elite. Under the Park Chung-hee regime, it served as the suppressor of critical media by blocking their advertising business. Chun Doo-hwan used it as the conduit of ``report guidelines.’’ Kim Dae-jung briefly abolished it but revived it later, belatedly realizing the need for the spinmeister organ.

What all this means is the GIA’s main role, unlike those of similar foreign agencies, was to serve the interests of the incumbent government rather than the state _ all the while using taxpayers money. This can be seen in the government’s operation of a separate agency for the latter purpose _ the Korean Overseas Information Service (KOIS). Never before, however, has the GIA’s role been more active and stronger than under the incumbent administration. President Roh Moo-hyun no longer tries to cajole media but gag it, and the GIA is his action corps.

The media-averse president has attempted to use GIA as his own outlet, soliciting popular support for his major proposals such as the ``grand coalition’’ with GNP, constitutional revision toward two-term presidential system, interest rate hikes and the free trade agreement with the United States. Any administration wanting to artificially influence public opinion is bound to fail, however. One needs to look no further than that all of these self-PR efforts have not just failed but backfired.

Still, this is but one example of how the so-called participatory government regards the people. When asked about the feasibility of abolishing briefing rooms at most government agencies, for example, a GIA official reportedly said, ``How can the tenants (reporters) not vacate rooms when landlords (agencies) demand them to do so?’’ One cannot help but ask who are the landlords _ government officials or the taxpayers? Have they sought popular opinions on the latest press repression scheme at least once?

This is like the subjects of supervision trying to limit the activities of supervisors. The term participatory government is one of the biggest ironies, as the people have had the least chance to take part in policy-making now. Likewise, under the ``debate government,’’ no government ministers made any remarks on the briefing room abolition at a recent cabinet meeting. The GIA should go or be forced to conduct only overseas PR by being merged with the KOIS.