The aftermath of ‘Kim Geon-hee’s Transcript’, which was engulfed in controversy even before the broadcast of MBC, continues. The claim that it is illegal to ‘record’ and broadcast a ‘private conversation’ premised on the premise of non-disclosure is illegal, and the act of disclosing the conversation between a reporter and a public figure who is the spouse of a presidential candidate is of great interest to the public, and this is the public’s right to know. It was argued that it was consistent with And the court ruled that, with the exception of some conversations, there was no problem with the broadcast.
First of all, it is undeniable that the transcript of Kim Gun-hee is a conversation between a reporter and the spouse of a presidential candidate. In light of the fact that the reporter in the transcript revealed his identity and continued to call about 50 times, it is reasonable to assume that mutual trust was formed between the reporter and the public figure, and public conversations were held based on that relationship.
Rather, it is necessary to consider whether the court’s decision to restrict broadcast disclosure to Kim’s views on social and political issues had the effect of censoring the broadcast content in advance.
The fact that the People’s Power visited MBC in protest is also an inappropriate act in terms of freedom of press. Even if there is content that is an invasion of privacy in the contents of the call, it is a problem that the broadcasting entity must filter through desking. If content that lowers the trust of the media is broadcast on the air, that is also the responsibility of the media. Pressing them with protest visits before broadcasting is no different from undermining freedom of the press.
Looking at the transcript, it is worrying that the situation cannot be regarded as a normal reporting act. There is also a problem with Kim’s perception of the media.
According to the transcript, there is a circumstance where a reporter from Seoul’s Sori handed over data about a person who was arguing with Kim’s mother. In order to maintain a trusting relationship, the reporter delivered information that might be of interest, and explained that the relevant information is available to anyone. However, it cannot be avoided that it is a violation of reporting ethics in that the public reporting process must be transparent without any interruption in the cost relationship.
Kim’s mention of ‘information industry’ as a role within the camp while offering a camp job to reporters also means that he intends to use former journalists as a window to receive information, but it is something that cannot be heard lightly. The remarks that tell reporters to “line up on both sides (camp)” are also concerned about whether journalists are viewed as beings only pursuing careers.
In particular, it is very dangerous to mention the real name of a reporter from another media and say, “He will probably go to jail.” Among the transcripts added to the YouTube channel by the Voice of Seoul, “If I take power, I will not be safe,” and “Even if we don’t do it, the police will take care of them. It’s terrifying,” he said, expressing hostility to the media. It is possible to object to baseless allegations, but speaking about the regime is a dangerous idea that can tame the media.
The media also needs a cautious attitude in handling the transcripts of Kim Gun-hee. It is questionable whether it was in the public interest to disclose the content of Kim and the reporter laughing and talking to each other about the ‘Me Too’ case, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court, where the perpetrators and victims were clearly identified.
While additional transcripts were released by the media saying they were obtained after the MBC broadcast, Media A published Kim’s remarks that undermined the essence of the #MeToo by referring to the victims’ real names. On the other hand, Media B showed caution in conveying Mr. Kim’s remarks, saying, “We will omit it in consideration of secondary harm.”
The transcript of Kim Gun-hee can be summarized as the question of how far the conversation between a reporter and a public figure can be disclosed. This case presented the topic of freedom of press freedom and at the same time raised the difficult task of accountability to the Korean press.
.
