What should the media be arguing before the election? It can provide necessary information to help voters make choices and point out the absurdities of the political world. The words and actions of politicians should be interpreted or criticized based on universal standards such as the constitution or democracy, not the role of an advisor belonging to a specific political party or election camp.
It is difficult for the media to directly play as a ‘player’. Although there have been many pointed outs, the media often takes the place of politicians belonging to a specific political party without even removing the minimum mechanical balance or objectivity. Such is the agenda of unification of People’s Power candidate Yoon Seok-yeol and People’s Party candidate Ahn Cheol-soo.
About a month before the presidential election, Candidate Yoon and Democratic Party candidate Lee Jae-myung battled each other in various opinion polls, making it difficult to see with certainty. Then, some media outlets are blatantly pressing the need for unification between Candidates Yoon Seok-yeol and Ahn Cheol-soo for the goal of ‘regime change’.
“Even if the opposition votes for a single candidate, victory is not the winner.”
“In order for the opposition to win this election, it is necessary to attract not only the supporters of the two candidates, but also those who do not support them. In order to do that, we need to quickly end discussions such as unification or the formation of a common government, and come up with a vision and policy that fits the purpose of solidarity.”
“If ‘solidarity for regime change’ is achieved, we will be able to attract them (2030s and the middle class) stably.”
“It is an illusion that the opposition can win only through solidarity, but it is a bigger misconception that the opposition can win without solidarity.”
This is not an election strategy report of a certain opposition party. This is a part of the Chosun Ilbo on the 3rd of the last day, “Can the opposition party win without solidarity?” “In past presidential elections such as 1987 and 2017, the need for unification of candidates was raised, but in the end, the one that failed was defeated,” he said.
A case in which Roh Tae-woo was elected as a result of the failure to unify the opposition candidates Kim Young-sam and Kim Dae-jung during the 1987 presidential election also appeared in the Munhwa Ilbo.
On the 4th, the Munhwa Ilbo’s “New Four Characters Theory and the Memory of 1987” introduced the situation of the 1987 presidential election in detail and said, “If we only believe in the current opinion polls, the mistake of 1987 could be replayed.” “Maybe even if it is unified It can be difficult,” he said. The case of non-unity is expressed as “misjudgment” and the media press for unification and regime change.
There is also a column that expresses the frustration of Candidate Yoon, who distances himself from unification. Looking at the JoongAng Ilbo’s “Unification, Yoon Seok-yeol’s choice” on the 3rd, he said, “For Candidate Yun, a match without unification is inevitably dangerous. It is difficult to understand that self-reliance theory comes out just because it is ahead of it.”
He also expressed his anxiety that he might lose to candidate Lee Jae-myung. The JoongAng Ilbo said, “Even if Lee’s approval rating is locked in the box, the presidential approval rating is still intact. Passports are all in line when it comes to elections,” he said. This is a column expressing sincere concerns about Candidate Yoon.
It was also argued that if there was no unification, there would be Han (恨). If you look at the column of the Chosun Ilbo on the 5th, “If you miss unification, whether it is ‘尹一化’ or ‘Anilhwa’, it will be 恨(han).” Concerned about President Moon Jae-in’s approval rating and the gathering of ruling party votes, he mentioned past cases such as the DJP Alliance in 1997 and the unification of Roh Moo-hyun and Jung Mong-joon in 2002. In the corresponding column, he said, “It is difficult for Yoon and Ahn to laugh alone on March 9,” and “we are already bound by an invisible chain that has no choice but to laugh and cry together.” The Dong-A Ilbo column on the 4th criticized the failure of unification as “betrayal of the people.”
On the 7th, the Dong-A Ilbo column “Responsible Prime Minister Ahn Cheol-soo” stated, “Whether it is Yoon Seok-yeol or Ahn Cheol-soo, if he refuses the obvious path of regime change and insists on ‘My Way’ and opens the door to extending the government, he will become a sinner of history.” What should I do to avoid leaving a bigger regret? 30 days until the election day. There is still time.”
Rather than actively dealing with unification issues with straight political articles or related planning articles, he is blatantly insisting on unification and regime change over and over again.
So far, Candidate Ahn has consistently expressed a negative stance on the demand for unification, and the power of the people has only partially discussed unification in the previous script on the 6th. Nevertheless, conservative-leaning media outlets have been mobilizing various expressions, considering it a sin of not being unified.
The analysis that ‘unification between the two candidates can be the biggest variable in the presidential election’ is different from the argument that ‘unification must be done for regime change’. Regime change and unification are the goals of the opposition parties, not the media.
