Reporters of the Hankyoreh “I wrote an article to look at Lee Yong-gu as the fall line data”

The 〈Hankyoreh〉 has nothing different from when it released a statement of ‘The Report of the Motherland’ in September 2019. The Hankyoreh, which has laid the edge of criticism without’sanctuary’ for the past 30 years, has become increasingly dull in verifying and criticizing’power’ after the motherland crisis. Reports on suspicions related to the Blue House or the Ministry of Justice started the latest, and eventually they were often left empty-handed. In recent years, I went beyond a delay in coverage and wrote an article covering the assault while driving by Deputy Minister of Justice Yong-gu Yong-gu and faced a misinformation. Eventually, these things go beyond helplessness in the field and make you feel a sense of heat and defeat. Nevertheless, I write this statement by gathering the will of the on-site reporters with a desperate heart toward the directors who do not recognize the seriousness of “communication is good” or “balanced reporting”.

The Hankyoreh was particularly generous to the Ministry of Justice of the Moon Jae-in regime. ‘Yoon Seok-yeol’s new charge… In an article on November 25 last year, ‘The Yang Seung-Tae document’ was used to investigate the propensity of the motherland judiciary’, the wrong assertion of the minister was also included. This article criticized strongly, saying, “Prosecutor Yoon Seok-yeol investigated whether it was a judge who caused water in the case of former Justice Minister Cho Kook.” However, there was no information regarding’whether the judges of the fatherland jurisdiction caused the water’ in the documents released later. The Hankyoreh was silent even though it turned out to be not true.

In many cases, unreasonable article plans that were completely different from the atmosphere of the site were created during the editorial meeting and were filmed unilaterally. On December 2, the day after the court cited the request for suspension of the exclusion of the duties of the prosecutor general, he was the one who destroyed the court… An article titled “Judges Confused with the Court Decisions That Saved Yoon Suk-yeol” was caught in the morning paper plan. In the first place, reporters on the scene combined the reactions of the judges that’the court restricted Chu’s abuse of administrative authority’ and’the judgment was based on the jurisprudence and conscience of the court’, but after going through an editorial meeting, the court decision made a’complex judge’. It was organized into an article with the opposite purpose. During the interview process, very few judges responded that’the court was ruined’ or’the court decision was complicated.’ The’Cruel Judges’ article was eventually left out of the afternoon paper plan, but reporters on the scene were compelled to ask why this article was made and by whom.

On the same day, the editorial department also posted a criticism of the title,’Looking at the first page today’. It was a criticism of the lack of balance in dealing with the court ruling citing President Yoon’s suspension of exclusion from duties and the unreasonable disciplinary procedure of Minister Chu. “Exclamation Goto. Yesterday, it wasn’t today, but it’s not too much to worry about. He added that journalism is dying in the name of factionalism.” This was similar to the feverish feelings of reporters ridiculed on the scene as’pro-government media’. Nevertheless, the Directorate General did not respond to any protests related to the Chu-yoon incident, which had even been posted on house betrayal.

Taking the side too much led to misinformation. The article, “It is not in operation after reaching the destination,” in the prosecution’s guidelines for Vice Minister Lee Yong-gu, was criticized not only by the legal profession, but also by the progressive camp as’reporting that does not fit the facts and context. Criticism that the police did not properly investigate the assault case of the Vice Minister of Justice In a situation where public opinion was strong, the case was sent to the prosecution, but in order to make public opinion that the special price law could not be applied anyway, the data received from Prosecutor Choo Mi-ae was received without confirming the fact. It was the result I gave In Seocho-dong, he even turned to Chirashi saying, “The Prosecutor Chumiae line asked me to write an article on the by telegram the night before.” Reporters on the field were pointed out by the public officials about the facts after the article went out and forwarded their opinions to the head of the legal team, but the facts were not properly corrected because they disagree with the reporter who gave the data. Although there have been several on-site reports that the facts are inaccurate, I would like to ask the Directorate of the Bureau of the reasons why only some of the contents were corrected and put on the paper.

It is questionable whether the recently raised suspicion of Kim Hak’s illegal departure from Korea is also being reported with fair standards. Even the editorial titled’Kim Hak’s Prohibition of Departure, Procedural Defects and Substantive Justice Together’ published in the paper on the 15th was used as a logic in advocating the situation in which legal procedures were not followed for’substantial justice’. Procedural justice is a core value of the rule of law that can never be compromised. Apart from the former Vice Minister of Justice Kim Hak-e, the fact that infringement of basic rights should be done through minimal due process is a value that the 〈Hankyoreh〉 has kept for the past 30 years. There is no conflict between the prosecution’s resentment over the fact that the prosecution’s investigation of wrapping up my family did not properly receive the charges committed by Kim, and the voice that he should punish Kim according to proper procedures. The side-by-side reporting pointed out from the time of the motherland crisis is the essence of such editorials and reports.

Currently, legal articles are written according to political interests. The shame and responsibility resulting from this are completely returned to the on-site reporter. How did the Hankyoreh come to write an article that was criticized as “fascist”? How many criticism articles are being written by the 〈Hankyoreh〉 that the other person is ill with? Even so, the desks are avoiding the arguments, saying, “There is no on-site presentation” and “The on-site reporters have no knowledge.” “It is not a traditional prosecution article, so journalists with knowledge can see it. Frontline reporters are not an issue that can be seen in depth”, which shows how the desk is excluding voices from the scene. In a one-sided press-and-press presentation and article writing instruction environment, it is not possible to actively present on-site.

“The Hankyoreh” is reminiscent of the founding remarks that it does not aim to support or oppose a specific political party or political force. Beyond interests, you should criticize that what is wrong is wrong, and actively cover any suspicions. The director’s accurate judgment and smooth communication with on-site reporters make a good report. It is not communication when the desk asks for and explains’the driver who takes one side’ to the site without specific circumstances or physical evidence. I don’t want to hear the “Justice Agency” or “Chu Mi-ae’s trumpet” in the field anymore.

The value of’good journalism’ is being undermined by the bureaucrat’s clumsy regime and ambiguous judgment. Last year, the legal team raised similar issues a number of times, but nothing improved. Young reporters gathered that this is a problem not only for the legal team but also for most reporters of the Hankyoreh. The gap between the desk and the reporters on the scene is only widening, but the director’s pledges such as’Expanding the discussion unit’,’Press check spot’ and’Emergency exit for on-site reporters’ could not be found.

Accordingly, reporters at the 〈Hankyoreh〉 demand that the Director of the Bureau of Directors, the Director of Social Affairs, and the Head of Legal Affairs reveal the details of the article and editorial, and then take the appropriate responsibility and come up with an official apology and countermeasures to prevent recurrence. We also ask for concrete measures whether to build a system that reflects the voices of reporters on the field and reports according to fair standards, regardless of political factions and left and right camps, beyond the tabletop theory.