The ruling party's original proposal stipulated that general interest, economic and English dailies, as well as provincial papers, whose market shares exceeded 30 percent of the market - or three dailies with a combined share in excess of 60 percent - would be regulated as monopolistic businesses under the Fair Trade Law.

Any newspaper companies deemed monopolistic would be monitored by the Fair Trade Commission, dubbed the prosecution of the business world, in all managerial matters, ranging from newspaper sales and subscription fees to acceptance of advertisements. If the newspaper was subsequently found to have "abused its monopolistic status," it would be subject to a fine corresponding to 3 percent of its sales. If the company's annual sales reached between W300 billion to W400 billion, it could sustain a fatal blow in the form of a W10 billion penalty. Should this penalty be levied several years retroactively, the firm would have no choice but to close down.

Under the original newspaper bill, the three major dailies - the Chosun Ilbo, Dong-A Ilbo and JoongAng Ilbo - are not considered monopolistic because their combined market share is 44 percent. If only ten dailies published in Seoul are subjected to this calculation of their market share, with economic dailies, provincial papers, English dailies and sports papers excluded, the market share of the three papers jumps to 68 percent, therefore automatically condemning them to monopolistic status.

This is what the ruling party is effectively aiming to do in changing the revision bill. Put simply, Chosun, Dong-A and JoongAng would face the threat of extinction at the edge of a government-wielded sword, while the Hankyoreh and other minor dailies would openly receive monetary support through a newspaper development fund. The ruling party's objective in changing the revision bill is quite clear.

Since the revision bill was made public, many scholars of the Constitution have pointed out that legalizing the discriminatory regulation of newspaper firms according to their market share would infringe on two basic rights - the right to equality and the right to conduct business. As these are protected in the legal code, such a move would be unconstitutional.

The regulation for newspapers is much stricter than the law for other businesses, which states that corporations that hold a 50 percent market share, or three companies with a combined share of 75 percent, can be considered monopolistic. Further disciminating between newspapers based on where they are published expands the likelihood of the regulation being unconstitutional.

It is a trend of the modern press market that the weight of newspapers is diminishing while the influence of broadcasting and Internet media is on the rise. The ruling camp have nonetheless decided to upbraid newspapers on the issue of their market share and it is now insisting that "general-interest daily papers published in Seoul" constitute the entire press market.

Dailies published in Seoul are subject to be tabulated in terms of market share, while the Busan Ilbo, Gwangju Ilbo and Daejeon Ilbo are not. Do they mean to say that those dailies have no influence? This is preposterous logic.

The ruling party said it would stipulate in the bill that market shares be tabulated by circulation instead of sales, which is the current provision in the Fair Trade Law. However, the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC), an objective survey agency, only carries out surveys on the three major dailies including the Chosun Ilbo. Under such circumstances, how are they going to calculate the circulation of the other dailies? What they are planning is nothing more or less than an excuse to wield their own yardstick arbitrarily.

The ruling party has mobilized all manner of euphemisms in describing the newspaper bill as being designed to "guarantee freedom and independence in newspaper publication, expand press freedom and promote public welfare." The ruling party is now shamelessly revealing the truth about who is being targeted with the newspaper bill. In order to achieve its goal of doing away with unfavorable dailies, the Uri Party has shown a similar disregard for liberal democracy, the Constitution and saving face. In doing so, it has sneered at the very public it pledged to protect.