|
Newspaper publishers, editors and reporters have automatically handled their paper operations ranging from editing principles and guidelines, appointment of editors and ethics in news coverage to deliberation and decision making on paper make-up, erratums and exercising the right of news covering. But in future, these functions may be determined by a "committee" formula which is stipulated by the state.
The ruling Uri Party-proposed newspaper bill has poisonous provisions enabling the government to interfere in every corner of not only editing but also advertising and readership management. Mass communications scholars, jurists and lawyers, accordingly, note that the press bill has "a greater room for breaching the freedom of the press than the Basic Press Law the Chun Doo-hwan military dictatorship legislated and the report guidelines the military junta issued."
Article 17 of the newspaper bill stipulates the establishment of an editing committee represented by management and labor. The article also provides that the editing committee will enact editing rules covering a total of 10 items including the appointment of an editor. The article seems to reflect the establishment of an editing committee, equally represented by management and labor, demanded by some civil organizations like the Press Reform Federation. These provisions may well infringe upon management rights as well as the freedom of the press, experts point out.
"Forcing a newspaper firm to organize an editing committee is unconstitutional," said lawyer Park yong-sang. "Applicable to a public broadcasting station, the provision should not be applied to newspaper companies." The newspaper bill has many provisions about "public responsibilities" like paragraph 3 of Article 4 stipulating that "the people's right to know and freedom of expression shall be enhanced." According to Park, this evinces that authors of the newspaper bill are not well versed in the freedom of the press as stipulated in the constitution. "It is an unconstitutional provision under which the state's law enforcement authorities are highly likely to inflict disadvantages on a particular paper, based on arbitrary judgment, on grounds that the paper has failed to satisfy the citizens' right to know as stipulated in the law," added Park.
Article 12 of the newspaper bill, dealing with 'causes of disqualification,' substantially reinforces the current provisions applicable to periodicals' publishers and editors. "This not only infringes upon editing rights but also hampers the freedom of choosing one's occupation," commented lawyer Park Jun-suk. "One can hardly understand by what grounds they have come up with this provision involving private businesses. It lacks equilibrium." Jurisprudence professor at Hongik University Park Sok-ho said. "The bill has many horrendous provisions that shake the foundations of a publisher's freedom and a media firm's editing rights."
The newspaper bill excessively interferes in advertising as well. In addition to reviving the provision of the Basic Press Law requiring a separate indication of an advertisement, Article 10 of the bill provides that the proportion of advertisements in a newspaper shall not exceed 50 to 100s. Relevant organizations like the Advertising Sponsors Association and Advertising Association plan to submit to pertinent authorities recommendations "concerning restricting advertising proportion that can hardly be found anywhere else in the world." "The newspaper bill appears to label newspaper advertising as an evil that does harm to readers," a senior official of an advertising organization said. "Advertising is a service provided to the readership. It is a matter to be left to the market." When the Basic Press Law was legislated under the military dictatorship, an attempt was made in vain to restrict the quantity of advertisements on grounds that it constitutes a restriction on a right of business guaranteed by the constitution.
The bill contains coercive provisions for the readership too. Article 8 stipulates that a daily owner shall establish a readers rights committee, manned by between 10 and 30 members, as an advisory body to protect the rights of the readership. "Stipulation in a law of a matter that should be handled by a paper firm on its own is a restriction on the press, unimaginable in foreign countries," noted mass communications professor Lee Jae-jin at Hanyang University. "It's an excessive interference in editing and an infringement on the freedom of the press." It would be difficult for a financially weak paper company to set up a separate body of ten or more members, added Lee.
The press bill commits to a presidential decree too many matters ranging from how to form an editing committee to reporting to the Information and Tourism Minister of information on paper firms' management and to the operation of the Korea Press Institute, noted lawyer Park Jun-suk. "Existence of the danger of conferring too much discretionary power on the law's enforcing authorities runs counter to the principle of 'prohibiting blanket authorization,'" commented Park.
(Jin Sung-ho/shjin@chosun.com )
|
