With the presidential election just around the corner, notable reports are continuing.
These are articles that disclose the prosecution's investigation records almost raw.
Details of the stock transaction of Kim Gun-hee, spouse of candidate Yoon Seok-yeol, who is under investigation, were released through several media outlets, and the contents of a messenger conversation between Channel A reporters included in the investigation record related to former Channel A reporter Lee Dong-jae were also released as they were.
The 'Transcript of Jeong Young-hak' included in the investigation record of the Daejang-dong development project preference is also being released one after another through different media outlets, with different interpretations.
Report of the suspect... I can't 'dictate', but is 'copy' okay?
Among the series of original reports of the prosecution's investigation records, there are articles that are worth reporting, and there are articles that are questionable whether they are worth reporting.
It is absurd to think that a report based on the prosecution's investigation record is unconditionally unethical, but it cannot be immediately evaluated as a good report just because the prosecution investigation record has been disclosed.
However, one point needs to be pointed out.
The point is that the recent reports of the prosecution's investigation records prove how absurd the indiscriminate accusations of 'reporting the facts of the suspect' were.
The act of reporting on the contents that the prosecution is investigating, or reporting based on the contents investigated by the prosecution in a situation in which the judgment is not finalized in the court, is called 'reporting the facts of the suspect'.
However, these days, some of the media outlets that are citing Kim Gun-hee's investigation records and Lee Dong-jae's investigation records have strongly criticized 'reporting the facts of the suspect' as 'dictation of the prosecution' in the past in the case of the homeland.
There are places where high-ranking officials have publicly pledged not to do the 'prosecution dictation' scoop.
But how should we interpret the act of disclosing the prosecution's investigation records by those who criticized 'prosecution dictation'?
It's 'copy' rather than 'dictation', so would it be ok?
It is not easy to rationally understand the situation in which those who criticized the 'prosecutor's dictation' are taking the lead in 'copying the prosecution'.
Are there any problems with the prosecution records received from a third party?
There are those who argue that reporting the prosecution's investigation records obtained through a separate channel rather than directly from the prosecution is not a 'dictation of the prosecution'.
The claim is not that the prosecution intentionally dictated the leaked data, but that it was not dictated because it received the record from a third party.
However, this argument is less convincing in two respects compared to the existing logic that has criticized the prosecution's dictation.
First, the main reason for those who criticized the report of the suspect was that 'the act of reporting the unilateral claim of the prosecution is unfair.'
Looking back on the situation in the country, there have been constant criticisms that it is unethical to report the "one-sided argument of the prosecution" that has not been confirmed through a trial with respect to reporting the contents of the investigation by the prosecution.
Even the act of citing and reporting evidence submitted by the prosecution in an open court was criticized as dictating the prosecution's unilateral argument.
However, according to this logic, citing and reporting the prosecution's investigation records, regardless of the source of the source, can only be viewed as an act of conveying the prosecution's unilateral argument.
If the media company receives it from the prosecution, it cannot be said that the prosecution's investigation record, which becomes a 'one-sided claim of the prosecution', is transformed into an 'objective fact' when the media company receives it through a third party.
If you think that 'prosecution dictation' is a problem, it is a more consistent attitude to condemn the act of reporting itself based on the prosecution's investigation record, regardless of the source of it.
Second, receiving data directly from the prosecution is problematic because it is a 'prosecution agreement', but there is also a problem with the logic that obtaining data from a third party is not subject to the intentions of the prosecution.
Being influenced by an informant or a reporter's intentions is something a reporter should always be on the lookout for and be vigilant about.
However, even if a third party is a reporter, the problem of 'cohesion' may occur as well.
For example, you might consider the case in which the reporter who provided the investigation record is not a prosecutor, but a member of a specific political party or a person supporting a specific political party.
If reporting data provided by the prosecution is a problem because it is likely to reflect the intentions of the prosecution, the nature of the problem is different in that the act of reporting data provided by a specific political party is also highly likely to be subordinated to certain political intentions. not.
Even if it is not necessarily a political figure, most of the cases the reporter and the informant have a specific intention.
Few reporters provide information purely for the public good.
Therefore, it is always necessary to critically review the intentions of the source, but the act of reporting the material provided by the source with a certain intention cannot be evaluated as unethical in itself.
It means that the claim that the prosecution official is unethical because there is an intention is unethical, and that it is ethical because there cannot be an intention if a third person is a reporter means that it is difficult to establish.
If 'coherence of proverbs' is a problem, 'cohesion of verbs' is also a problem.
Conversely, even if the reporter is a politician, it is natural to write an article if the report is worthwhile.
This is the reason why it is not valid to claim that there is no problem of 'cohesion' if the data was obtained from a third party rather than the prosecution.
Expectations gained thanks to 'Nambul'
Therefore, it cannot but criticize that people who criticized the report of the suspect as 'dictated by the prosecution' take the lead in reporting the original investigation record, or cheering while seeing such reports, is an attitude that cannot find even the least consistency.
Still, I don't think the recent controversy surrounding the disclosure of the original prosecution records is necessarily a bad thing.
This is because there is an expectation that misunderstandings about the report of the suspect may be resolved through this opportunity.
Even at the time of the Fatherland crisis, I have argued through various papers and I wrote it at the beginning of this article, but reporting of a suspect is not in itself ethical or unethical.
Reporting facts worthy of public interest, even if the prosecution is reporting on what is being investigated, can be considered justifiable. However, it can be considered unethical.
In recent years, whenever an investigation involving people they support is reported in the media, some have condemned reports of suspects as unfair.
Now, the people who criticized the report of the prosecution's investigation are actively citing the prosecution's investigation record and reporting it, so there is an expectation that such criticism will disappear in the future.
I would like to believe that I will not change my position and criticize again if the investigation into 'the person we support' is reported again in the future.
'Disclosure of the indictment' is not allowed, but is it okay to 'disclose the investigation record'?
There is one more thing to consider.
It is a matter of the investigation agency's 'publication of the facts of the suspect' and the investigation into it.
The media's reporting of the suspect's facts and the investigative agency's announcement of the suspect's facts are different concepts.
Reporting the facts of a suspect is the act of reporting the contents under investigation by the investigative agency, and the publication of the facts of the suspect is the act of notifying the investigation agency of the contents under investigation.
Even if the reporting of the suspect is justified, there are cases where the publicity of the suspect is not justified.
A separate and lengthy discussion will be required as to whether or not the disclosure of the facts of the suspect is justified.
However, the recent issue is not whether the disclosure of the facts of the suspect itself is justified.
The problem is that the standard that raises the issue of public announcement of suspect facts is being applied extremely double.
Until recently, whenever there was a report of a suspect, they took issue with the publicity of the suspect or raised the suspicion of leaking official secrets.
Minister of Justice Park Beom-gye raised his voice several times because he reported the contents of the indictment, a document that was released to the press through the National Assembly before the alleged interference in the Blue House in the Ulsan mayoral election and is still subject to disclosure in court. It was only a few months ago that a communication warrant for Korea was issued and the investigation began.
However, even though the original texts of Kim Gun-hee's stock transaction history and the messenger conversation between Channel A reporters in Lee Dong-jae's investigation record, which are much more confidential than this, were released, I heard that the Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Prosecutor's Inspection Department, and the Airborne Service started to investigate or investigate. did not see
Respect the privacy rights of reporters... The problem is the double standard
Regarding the reports of investigation records such as Kim Gun-hee and Lee Dong-jae, this does not mean that an investigation should be carried out as in the past.
It is very inappropriate for investigative agencies to mobilize their investigative powers for the purpose of finding sources of legitimate reports.
When it was belatedly known that the U.S. federal prosecutor at the time of the Trump administration had inquired about reporters' phone calls over suspicion of leaking official secrets, President Biden officially banned the act of securing reporters' phone calls, etc. That's why it's banned.
U.S. Attorney General Garland also said in a memorandum announcing a policy banning forced investigations involving reporters and sources, premised that "a free and independent press is essential for our democracy to function." It was also defined as "national interest" as well as national security.
Freedom of the press, including protection of reporters' privacy rights, deserves to be treated as a significant public interest in the United States and in Korea.
However, with regard to reporting the contents of the indictment against Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon, it is difficult to rationally understand that the people who conducted the compulsory investigation and inspection are not taking any action regarding the articles that reported the more intimate investigation records.
Criticism of double standards or narrowness cannot be avoided.
The fear that the various policies related to the ban on the disclosure of criminal cases introduced by the Ministry of Justice and others after the Fatherland Incident will eventually be abused as a means of blocking reports unfavorable to the government has become a reality.
Since it is ultimately the government that decides whether or not to apply the prohibition rule, the prospect that the prohibition rule will not apply to reports that are favorable to the government and that the prohibition rule will be harshly applied to reports that are unfavorable to the government That's count.
What is more important than criticism of 'Nambul'
The logic put forward by several people while criticizing the report of the suspect, and the various regulations announced to prevent the publication of the suspect, have completely collapsed ethically and logically.
However, there is something more important than criticizing ethical and logical bankruptcy with the word "neighborhood".
It is to re-establish ethical standards related to reporting regardless of political advantage and power and to revise unreasonable regulations related to information disclosure.
When the whirlwind passes, I hope that a new discussion will begin to break the vicious cycle of forgetting the past and repeating the same story, and to find a logically coherent method that can be applied in reality.