A war has been underway, even before the official presidential campaign has started, between politicians and the media. The Millennium Democratic Party candidate Roh Mu-hyun has been openly attacking the Chosun Ilbo, while Grand National Party presidential hopeful Lee Hoi-chang refused to appear on a certain TV program, and National Unity 21 candidate Chung Mong-jun must have been joking when he recently said he would buy the Chosun Ilbo after an unfavorable report was published.

The reason why these things happen is because Korean politicians are excessively sensitive to unfavorable articles. Each of them defines certain media groups as friends and the rest as enemies; when a friend criticizes them they wonder why and when an enemy does they treat it as one of a repeated series of attacks.

This kind of view within politics increased under President Kim Dae-jung's administration, which openly divided the media. When they applied pressure to their "enemies," their "friends" joined in the attack. Their usual logic in doing this is the reasoning that the media is stronger then political power. In what country does the media have more power than politicians? Michel Pouko, the creator of "power theory," must be rolling in his grave concerning this twisted logic. If the government's "friends" had maintained a distance and sought ideological diversification as in Western Europe, then they would not be experiencing such trauma at the end of Kim's government.

Korea's main newspapers have now been divided into two camps; the Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo and Dongah Ilbo, and the Hankyoreh Shinmun, Kyongyang Shinmun and Daehan Maeil. It is doubtful if the division reflects the ideological diversity in society, as it is more likely to be seen as an internal media feud in the presidential election campaign. This fight may bring out political hatred, and open threats from candidates to a specific media group. Some media have been guilty of using politicians for non-political purposes in their fight for survival amidst heated competition, and this may have caused some of them to look down on certain newspapers. Others have even endorsed this view openly. Some may say the scale of generosity of the post "Three Kims" political leaders is far smaller, leading them to react impatiently.

What is worrisome is that the next president may attempt to impose sanctions if he thinks the press is too critical of him. Pressuring the media with a so-called "tax probe supported by all of the people" should never be repeated, and if there is groundless reporting legitimate means of reply should be used. Market forces would consume any newspaper that ignored this and repeated its "slander".

Nobody feels happy when they are criticized, but the media is supposed to be critical and politicians should grow with this and act in a manner that draws none. The press is a check to political power that can explain in suitable language to assuage the feelings of the people; this is not a privilege, but a duty.

In Korea's modern history most people do not believe the media carried out its duty 100 percent, however, they do want a live press not a dead one, and so supported it when there were collisions with governments. On the contrary, presidential candidates are too busy calculating the influence criticism may have on voters and countering it for immediate effect, than understand the difficult history of the media. This may be why the popularity of candidates hovers between 20 to 30 percent.

(Chosun Ilbo Editorial Writer) November 8, 2002