Thursday, February 05, 2004
"DON'T MISUNDERSTAND THE FIRING OF SOUTH KOREAN FOREIGN MINISTER." So says Brent Choi (see here). Choi, who is a reporter for Joongang Ilbo, has some harsh words for the American media:
This interpretation of events, if valid, raises some interesting issues.
First, obviously, is the fact that reporters for our august media institutions failed to get the story right and assumed far more significance to the story's ROK-US relations angle than was justified by the facts. This would not surprise me. I am constantly amazed at how the media pushes a particular angle of a story that conforms to preconceived views and/or preconceived notions of what the audience is interested in rather than actually listen to sources and follow the facts as best they can. How many times have we seen journalists ask political candidates and pundits reporting on a local legislative race ask "what does this election result say about national issue x or y?" Then, when the local candidate or pundit replies that the election wasn't about national issue x or y but rather about local issues and personalities, the journalist blithely ignores it and closes the story with a conclusion about said national issue. I have sometimes heard criticism of Koreans to the effect that they assume that every political story and development is about them (probably even more true in North Korea than in South Korea). This is at best a sweeping over-generalization. However, it is important to recognize that these dynamics work both ways.
Second, I find it interesting that President Roh would fire his foreign minister for not punishing a subordinate who said some clearly intemperate anti-Roh comments. Is this any way to run an administration? Does Roh really want to hear the truth and get the best possible information with which to make decisions of national import or does he want to be surrounded by obsequious sycophants?
Third, firing the foreign minister for failing to defend the honor of the leader is nothing new. Foreign Minister Kim Yun-sik was sacked at least in part because he was present when Qing Resident Yuan Shikai spoke ill of King Kojong. Because Kim failed to contradict Yuan, he was dismissed and banished to the countryside for several years. Plus ca change . . .
Forgive me for my rude remarks but as a reporter in Seoul - familiar as I am with all kinds of weird foreign articles on Korea - I have never seen anything so completely misinterpreted than the lately featured articles of NYT, WSJ and LAT. The Foreign Minister in Korea got sacked and that as far as those articles got it right. As for what to make of it, the incident should be closely viewed through the socio-cultural prism of Korea's own bureaucratic society.So what is the real story?
Now let's see what really happened back in the Foreign Ministry. It started with Cho Hyun-dong, a director in the North American Affairs bureau under Yoon making an extremely offensive remark against the incumbent president Roh. "Once President Roh and his Our Open Party fail in the April General Election the president could revert back to just taking care of two ministries (Ministry of the Science and Technology and the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries)." President Roh enraged at such remarks (and more) went to confirm the rumor and in the process, the media caught on. The president expected Yoon to reprimand the official in question but he did no such thing thus, leading the Blue House to take the matter into its own hand and discharge Yoon instead. The president and the National Security Council deemed it a necessity as a way to uphold the general discipline in the officialdom. The fact that the official who made a personal misstatement also happened to be in charge of U.S.-South Korea relations had nothing to do with actual relations of the two nations.
This interpretation of events, if valid, raises some interesting issues.
First, obviously, is the fact that reporters for our august media institutions failed to get the story right and assumed far more significance to the story's ROK-US relations angle than was justified by the facts. This would not surprise me. I am constantly amazed at how the media pushes a particular angle of a story that conforms to preconceived views and/or preconceived notions of what the audience is interested in rather than actually listen to sources and follow the facts as best they can. How many times have we seen journalists ask political candidates and pundits reporting on a local legislative race ask "what does this election result say about national issue x or y?" Then, when the local candidate or pundit replies that the election wasn't about national issue x or y but rather about local issues and personalities, the journalist blithely ignores it and closes the story with a conclusion about said national issue. I have sometimes heard criticism of Koreans to the effect that they assume that every political story and development is about them (probably even more true in North Korea than in South Korea). This is at best a sweeping over-generalization. However, it is important to recognize that these dynamics work both ways.
Second, I find it interesting that President Roh would fire his foreign minister for not punishing a subordinate who said some clearly intemperate anti-Roh comments. Is this any way to run an administration? Does Roh really want to hear the truth and get the best possible information with which to make decisions of national import or does he want to be surrounded by obsequious sycophants?
Third, firing the foreign minister for failing to defend the honor of the leader is nothing new. Foreign Minister Kim Yun-sik was sacked at least in part because he was present when Qing Resident Yuan Shikai spoke ill of King Kojong. Because Kim failed to contradict Yuan, he was dismissed and banished to the countryside for several years. Plus ca change . . .
