The rather oxymoronic media reform laws ``legally'' went into effect yesterday, with the politicized Constitutional Court's controversial ruling last week.
We feel more sad than angry to see the Lee administration and the ruling Grand National Party being busy turning these revisions into action ― giving broadcasting licenses to large, conservative papers ― even without bothering to express apology or at least some regret for procedural violations they committed to railroad these bills at the parliament months ago.
Funny as it was, the top tribunal's decision ― which said in short the process was illegal but the result is legal ― has turned the matter back to the National Assembly for further discussion by the political parties to both correct procedural wrongs and compromise on these laws' contents.
The governing camp couldn't care less, however. Both Speaker Kim Hyung-o, from the ruling party, and GNP floor leader Rep. Ahn Sang-soo have made it clear they would never revisit the laws, sticking only to the ruling's validity part. Equally funnier are the arguments of most pro-government media outlets: If the Constitutional Court said in effect, ``Let's respect the Assembly's decision however flawed its process was,'' these newspapers would be likely to say, ``Let's respect the top court's ruling however self-contradictory its reasoning was.''
Would it be too much to say that these papers have forgotten their basic duty as a public media for the more immediate benefits of having a lucrative TV channel?
These government and media people say the legal revision is vital for developing the nation's outdated broadcasting industry to advanced countries' level, and ensuring politically fairness and neutrality on the airwaves.
But when the Lee administration replaced the heads of two public broadcasters, it has more than attained ``political correctness.'' And the ongoing moves to bring electronic media further to the right could tilt the nation's media landscape to one side almost beyond restoration, as few future administrations would be as uncouth and blindly purposeful as the incumbent one to dare to change the industrial picture by force.
If family-controlled conglomerates and large newspapers operate broadcasting stations, will they be able to create a rival to Time Warner, as these officials say? Any lay people who understand the difference between the manufacturing and services industry ― much less culture and media sector ― would make negative answers.
Yes, more diversification and sophistication of the broadcast industry may be needed, but not in the ways opposed by up to 60 percent in most surveys, and not in such a hurry. The bipartisan panel that studied this matter for the past 100 days ended up presenting separate reports, indicating this requires far longer, ideologically-neutral research.
Some future academics may ask: Was the development ― or domination ― of the broadcasting industry so urgent that it was needed to sacrifice the conscience and common sense of an entire society?