The’legal reporters cartel problem’ leads to a court battle. Media specialty media and exploration reporting media, which were virtually denied access to the law, recently announced that they would go to administrative litigation and constitutional complaints against the prosecutors and courts with the’lawyer meeting for democratic society’ (hereinafter referred to as Minbyun). This is because the closed nature of joining and operating the legal journalists infringes on the freedom of media coverage and further restricts citizens’ right to know. Reporters operating in a form that can be called’cartel’ due to the high barriers to entry are not limited to the legal field. However, in addition to the strong social influence of the prosecutors and courts, which are the places of entry, the legal reporters have been spotlighted by politics, the press, academia, and the civil society in recent years, when the’legalization of politics’ accelerated. It has emerged as a representative venue to discuss the direction and plan of media reform. Had contacted about 20 people, including the media company who had announced the lawsuit, reporters belonging to the legal reporters group, journalists, media and civic groups activists, and public prosecutors and court public officials, to hear the status of inside and outside the legal reporters group and settled journalistic issues.
■ Lower the threshold to join higher To join the legal reporter corps, a team of three or more reporters must report a legal article for more than six months and then pass the votes for and against the three reporters at the Seoul Central District Court, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, and the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office. In the case of the press room of the Supreme Court where the team leader is gathered, the application for membership can be applied only after a certain period of time after being assigned to the legal reporter group after passing the votes of three reporters earlier. When you join a reporter group, you will be provided with convenience in accessing space and information, such as using the press room at the prosecutor’s office and court at a small fee. Currently, there are 42 local law, district prosecutors, and supreme prosecutors, and 33 supreme courts in press companies belonging to the legal journalists. In the case of central government departments and police, there is no significant difference between the number of legal reporters and the number of media outlets, but 181 media companies entering the Blue House (counted in 2020) and 502 media companies entering the National Assembly through the participatory government in the mid-2000s. It reached (compilation of the service report of the Ministry of Government Affairs in 2019). As a result of inquiries to the secretaries of reporters at various levels on the 11th, there was no internal movement to change the existing regulations, such as lowering the threshold to join the press. Some reporters said that “the information monopoly that could be called’cartel’ has already disappeared,” and an official at the prosecution said, “Even if you are not an attendee, you will provide data and receive questions from reporters who request information.” Regarding the reason for maintaining the barrier to entry, some reporters said, “I agree with the point that the registration rules are too closed, but full openness is a concern.” A reporter belonging to one of the legal journalists said, “The cartel was right for the reporters in the past when there were few media, but now that the media exploded, we need a minimum filter to prevent the’old quality’ of some media.” Said. Many journalists agreed that the closed operation of the legal journalists was a problem, but they had mixed opinions on maintaining the journalists. Some scholars said,’Information from the prosecution and court should be disclosed to all citizens as well as reporters to the same level.’ Bae Jeong-geun, a professor of media department at Sookmyung Women’s University, said, “If you are only covering the outside and confirming with the prosecution, it is better to get rid of the reporters so that you can focus on the coverage, away from the press room where it is difficult to distance from the prosecution.” “It should be publicly disclosed.” Yoon Tae-jin, a professor at Yonsei University’s Graduate School of Communication, also criticized, “The appearance of reporters to maintain a journalist group while arbitrarily choosing access media or giving embargo-related discipline seems to be revealing an authoritative and stability-oriented attitude.”
■ The best way to change the media itself Some scholars are questioning the claim that “the quality of legal reporting is improved only when the legal reporters disappear.” Articles produced by the Blue House and the National Assembly, which are more open to entry and exit registration than the law, are also criticized for being’quoted journalism’ in which reporters assimilate to reporters’ logic or dictate information from reporters. Experts said that in a large framework, △the practice of news production centered on access destinations and the practice of reporting and reporting crimes centered on suspected facts △the prosecution’s enormous power and the closedness of the legal profession △the portal news distribution environment centered on the number of views, △the polarized public space, and other structural issues. This is the reason for collecting. It is pointed out that the report of’probation’ comes from structural factors rather than the individual’s unethical behavior. Even considering structural issues, it is best for the media to change itself. Nam Jae-il, a professor at Kyungpook National University’s Department of Journalism and Broadcasting, said, “For a media company that has an editorial policy that highly appreciates the news value of information provided by government offices, including law, the entry and exit system is not easy to give up because it is cost effective. Nevertheless, the press must come forward,” he pointed out, “it is impossible to solve the problem of the legal reporters unless the editorial office decides and declares how to change the paradigm of the editorial direction and implement the method of coverage.” Editor-in-Chief Lee Jae-jin said, “It would be best to solve the problem with the media’s midnight efforts, but it was not easy to find a solution without an external’shock’.” “In particular, I think that it is a problem that the legal reporters who have not deviated from the existing practice even to the newly launched high-ranking officials criminal investigation office (airborne) will be in charge. I hope that media companies will recognize the problem and talk about it so that the airlift can introduce an alternative model that can solve the problem of the reporter corps cartel.” By Kim Hyo-sil, staff reporter [email protected]