hankyoreh

A few days ago, the Supreme Court confirmed a guilty ruling against former and current journalists prosecuted for reporting on the “Agency for National Security Planning X-file.” This file contained transcripts of a conversation that took place before the 1997 presidential election between then-Samsung Group secretarial office head Lee Hak-soo and JoongAng Ilbo Chairman Hong Seok-hyun discussing the delivery of money to a particular candidate and around ten prosecution offices. A major controversy erupted in 2005 when it was reported in the press that the ANSP (current National Intelligence Service) recorded this content illegally, but the people who actually plotting government-business collusion and the buying off of prosecutors, as well as the prosecutors who received the “gifts,” had no charges pressed against them. It is the height of absurdity that it was the journalists who divulged this information who were found guilty of violating the Telecommunications Security Protection Act.
With its ruling, the Supreme Court put the protection of communication secrecy ahead of South Koreans’ right to know. The Court said that for the reporting of content gathered through illegal wiretapping to be justified, it “would have to be an unavoidable report to indict illegal wiretapping, or the content would have to be the subject of extraordinary public attention, such as a grievous violation of the public interest.” The argument is that the “X-file” report failed to meet this standard. While it is questionable whether the standard is proper, it is difficult to accept the ruling even in the light of the standard.
The content of the “X-file” showed an attempt by figures at the highest level of a conglomerate and press organization to illegal influence a presidential election and the prosecutorial organization through the distribution of money. This has bearing on a major national interest, as they threatened the foundation of the democratic republic system and schemed to contaminate a state organization. While the Supreme Court argued that it was “difficult to view this is an item of extraordinary public interest, as it happened eight years ago,” the risks of government-business collusion were considerable at the time, and the social repercussions, including public attention, were major. This was not at all an untimely report. These journalists’ report was also the incident that brought the topic of illegal wiretapping and monitoring by state institutions into public discussion. One can only scoff at hearing the Supreme Court arguing that this is not a matter of public interest and public attention.
Given the momentous nature of the public interest in question, it is both natural and inevitable that the real names of these public figures, whose numbers included public officials, and the content of the conversation should be disclosed. It strains logic to apply an arbitrary standard by arguing that the method of reporting was excessive or that individuals’ communication privacy was infringed upon.
The reporting of improprieties by state organizations is a basic mission of the press. In so doing, the press takes on the function of upholding the democratic order and the interests of the public. If the notion here is to apply a distorted standard to the press as it carries out this proper function, then this truly does compromise the public interest. In that sense, the Supreme Court ruling is clearly a miscarriage of justice.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]