Global Media and Communication

http://gmc.sagepub.com/

Partisan public television : A last barrier to the democratization of South Korea?

Chang Keun Lee
Global Media and Communication 2008 4: 219
DOI: 10.1177/1742766508091656

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://gmc.sagepub.com/content/4/2/219.citation

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Global Media and Communication can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://gmc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://gmc.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from gmc.sagepub.com at National Cheng Kung University on March 30, 2011
 C O M M E N TA R Y

Partisan public television

A last barrier to the democratization of South Korea?

■ Chang Keun Lee

School of Communication, Kwangwoon University, South Korea

In December 2007, South Koreans elected an opposition candidate, Lee

Myung Bak, a former mayor of Seoul and a legendary self-made entre-
preneur, as their new President. The election marked another peaceful
change of government uncharacteristic of Korean politics which had for
years been interspersed with military coups and street demonstrations
against authoritarian rule. The constitution and elections were abolished
in 1972 by the former general-turned-civilian President Park Chung Hee
but were restored in 1987 when his successor capitulated to the massive
popular uprising that demanded a return to presidential elections. Last
year’s election then reinforced the country’s relatively new experience of
the democratic transfer of power.
South Korean broadcasting has more often served the interests of
those in power than the public, as it was controlled by authoritarian
governments and used for propaganda. This legacy was handed down
from the Japanese in the first half of the 20th century when they
exploited radio broadcasting as an instrument for their colonial rule that
lasted 36 years. Unfortunately, this instrumental view of broadcasting
was retained by the military junta government that seized power in
1960. The fact that the military government introduced television broad-
casting into the country in the same year foreshadowed how it would
treat television under its rule. In fact, the military oligarchy, which soon
changed from uniforms into civilian suits, harnessed television as a
means to mobilize people to support their modernization projects.
Television, indeed, proved to be an effective and powerful medium for
building a modern industrial state. However, they soon also realized that
television could be utilized as an effective tool to stay in power and used
television unashamedly for political purposes. In such a media culture,
the idea of public service or impartiality to competing political voices
found it hard to take root.

Global Media and Communication [1742-7665(2008)4:2] Volume 4(2): 219–222

Copyright © 2008 SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore:
219
http://gmc.sagepub.com)/10.1177/1742766508091656

Downloaded from gmc.sagepub.com at National Cheng Kung University on March 30, 2011
220 Global Media and Communication 4(2)

During the 1960s, when the junta leader Park Chung Hee competed
for the presidency with opposing civilian candidates, television, espe-
cially the state-run television, served as a propaganda machine for the
General. Commercial television stations, despite their independent
identity, dared not challenge him because of their business interests.
During Park’s 18-year rule, public television was not able to criticize his
government and had to be satisfied with its role as a medium for
government press releases. Park’s military protégé, Chun Doo Hwan,
who seized power by a coup in 1979, further tightened control of
broadcasting. During his 8-year reactionary rule, the regime’s grip on
television was so strong that his daily activities had to lead the main
evening news. The rule was enforced so strictly that it even displaced the
breaking news that a Korean jumbo airplane was missing on its way
home from Los Angeles in 1983. As was later revealed, the plane was
shot down by Russian fighters for invading its air space. The episode is
now frequently recited as a grim reminder of the rigidity and absurdity
of public television propaganda. In 1987 Chun finally surrendered to the
mass of people who took to the streets demanding the restoration of the
constitution. The downfall of this repressive regime initiated the democ-
ratization of Korean society and led to a huge expansion in freedom of
expression. Public television became one of the first social institutions to
benefit from this hard-earned political freedom.
However, it is true that the workers of public television were handed
this freedom by the popular uprising rather than earning it by their own
effort. Although they might be reluctant to admit it, they passed up the
opportunity to fight for politically independent broadcasting, unlike
their print colleagues who openly demanded press freedom during the
harsh regime of the early 1970s. Nevertheless, with the fever for
democratization that swept the country from the late 1980s, employees
in public television did form labor unions and began to fight for
political independence in broadcasting. The workers of KBS and MBC,
two giant public television networks, resisted attempts by the govern-
ment to retain control, in particular, the appointment of their chief
executive officers by the President, overruling the more democratic legal
process. The labor unions’ fight for independence finally allowed them
to earn the respect from the viewers that had long been absent. Among
the new programs aired since then, audience debate programs have
become very popular and indicate the potential for the development of
a public sphere.
What has happened since then? Has the use of public broadcasting
as a government propaganda machine disappeared with authoritarian

Downloaded from gmc.sagepub.com at National Cheng Kung University on March 30, 2011
 Lee Commentary 221

regimes? The answer is positive if considered in relation to the

oppressive Park and Chun regimes. The surveillance machinery has been
dismantled and the journalists and producers in public television now
relish more journalistic freedom than ever before. In fact, their influence
has grown so much as to be called an ‘unelected power’. However, as the
people’s voice also gained political weight, broadcasters have become
more mindful of the need to balance their news stories and give time to
opposing candidates. Journalists have responded to the fact that news
reports and programs are closely monitored for their fairness by citizen
groups as well as the regulatory authorities. This is not to suggest that
the concepts of fairness and impartiality in news reporting were alien to
Korean broadcast journalists in the past, but only to emphasize that they
began to practise them in earnest only after the democratization process
started.
In the decade since 1997, when President Kim Dae Jung ushered in
an era of what could be called progressive politics, public television’s
move toward political independence seems to have veered off course.
Public television journalists and producers became more assertive and
began to use their increased media power to support the political
agendas of Kim and his successor Roh Moo Hyun. The two Presidents
came from a long tradition of opposition and represented minority
interests in Korean politics and they have prioritized policies favoring
the distribution of wealth over economic growth. Rapid rapprochement
with North Korea has further divided public opinion and sharpened
ideological confrontation. The government’s antagonistic policy toward
the conservative newspapers that dominate the market further split the
newspapers and television along ideological lines, triggering a ‘media
war’ hitherto unknown in Korean media history.
President Roh’s government further bolstered this position by
packing the boards and the management of public television and regu-
latory authorities. In turn these political appointees filled the strategic
posts in their organizations with subordinates who sympathized with
the political agendas of the President. These younger and mid-career
journalists and producers in public television apparently believed that
the two Presidents tried to make the country more democratic and
egalitarian and that hence it was their historical duty to help them
attain their political goals, acting as if the journalistic standards of
fairness and impartiality were less important than the mission to achieve
social change. Thus, when President Roh was impeached for violation of
election law in 2004, public television immediately came to his rescue
by fanning anti-impeachment sentiments. But such acts did a great

Downloaded from gmc.sagepub.com at National Cheng Kung University on March 30, 2011
222 Global Media and Communication 4(2)

disservice to the democratic principles that public television is obligated

to protect; it helped, in effect, to foreclose rather than stimulate public
debates and pre-empted the decision by the constitutional court.
However well meaning, the journalists failed to distinguish their role
from that of a politician or social activist. They acted as if a lofty end
could justify the means and did not appreciate that public service
journalists can make a society fairer and more democratic by first
carrying out their professional duty of supplying information to the
public impartially.
In the past public television used to shift its allegiance to the new
President as soon as the winner was sworn in. Such opportunism has not
disappeared even when its journalistic autonomy increased after
democratization. In 1997 when the opposition leader Kim Dae Jung ran
for the presidency against a government candidate, public television
attempted to portray him as a leftist politician by televising a debate
which was set up in effect to smear him. In a country where a hot war
was fought against Communism, for a candidate to be branded as a
leftist was fatal. However, after Kim won the election, it immediately
aired a special documentary lauding his long career as a fighter for
democracy. Opportunism also turns up in an election year when public
opinion is very fluid. In such a situation, the poll results frequently serve
as the barometer of modus operandi for politically ambitious journalists
and the management of public television. They follow closely the ups
and downs of opinion polls and as the winner emerges out of the pack
toward the end of the race, public television is prone to portray the
leading candidate in a favorable light to advance individual journalists’
own interests and to protect its institutional interest. In last year’s
presidential election, preliminary evidence suggests that the coverage
was tilted in favor of the government candidate, though the tendency
was less marked than before. However, because a wide spectrum of
voters was dissatisfied with the performance of the Roh government, the
opposition candidate was in the lead from the beginning of the race and
this pre-empted any possibility for public television to influence the
outcome. In this respect, the last presidential election clearly demon-
strated who holds the real power in a democracy. Whether South Korean
public television will bow again to the new President, who has
drastically different policies from his predecessor, or attain political
independence as an entity truly loyal to the public, is an intriguing
question for the next five years.

Downloaded from gmc.sagepub.com at National Cheng Kung University on March 30, 2011