|
|
|
|
International Forum >> The Democracy Forum for East Asia>> "The Role of the Media in Fighting Corruption: Perspectives from Asia and Beyond"
|
|
|
Introduction
Session I: The Current State of Media Reporting on Corruption in Asia Session II: The Institutional and Legal Environment Session III: Forging Partnerships in the Fight Against Corruption Session IV: Promoting More Effective Media Coverage Agenda Participants |
Session II: The Institutional and Legal Environment Moderator: Sook-Jong Lee (Sejong Institute, Korea) The second session examined the institutional and legal environment in which the media operate in various East Asian countries. Moderator Sook-Jong Lee asked participants to consider whether media outlets are truly independent of the government and of major economic actors, and to discuss the extent to which freedom of the press is protected by legal norms and judicial practices. From 1949 to 2000, Rick Chu said, Taiwan was ruled by one party, the Kuomintang, which strictly controlled both print and broadcast media. With the lifting of martial law in 1987, however, "we have had considerable liberalization of the press." Nonetheless, the Taiwanese media have responded to the new freedoms with sensationalist coverage of crimes, disasters, violence-and politics. Mr. Chu cited the example of one former Tiawanese politician who started her career as a investigative reporter for a local television station by attempting to expose the sexual orientation of a popular singer-but who was later caught up in a sex video scandal herself. "We are still learning by doing," Mr. Chu said, adding that Taiwanese journalists "should really strive to improve their professionalism." Hyo Seong Lee said that while he, too, appreciated the contributions of Korea's free press, he believed it was necessary to identify some of its shortcomings. The first of these, Mr. Lee said, is that the press often reports allegations of corruption without conducting full investigations. This leads both the government and private businesses to accuse the press of being biased against them. It has also led the courts to lean more toward protecting the reputation of individuals rather than protecting the rights of journalists to investigate corruption. The second shortcoming is that the media are less critical of big corporations than they should be. As soon as critical articles appear, corporate public-relations officers pressure publishers for corrections or retractions, often by threatening the withdrawal of advertising. And the public is well aware of these practices, Mr. Lee said: one recent survey found that respondents considered corporate advertising, not government control, the biggest threat to freedom of the press in Korea today. Third, the press itself is a part of big business and is no more immune to the temptations of corruption than other big businesses. When the government began its tax investigation of selected newspapers in 2001, for example, many commentators considered this to be payback for how the media covered the investigation of President Kim's sons. But Mr. Lee considered this investigation a legitimate review of whether certain large companies had paid their taxes. Fourth, "there is too close a relationship between some sources and reporters." For many reporters it is easier to repackage what ministry sources tell them than to do the hard investigative work that uncovers real news. Ironically, he said, NGOs are more likely to use the various public disclosure laws than the Korean press. Finally, Mr. Lee said, the press needs to avoid exaggerating the extent of today's alleged or even real infractions: "It is incorrect to compare the major corruption of the past with the smaller-scale corruption of the present administration. To make such a comparison belittles the achievements of our democratic governments." Wen-Chung Wu then presented a brief history of efforts in the past decade to liberalize access to information in Taiwan. Known collectively as the Sunshine Laws, the main proposals would require public officials to provide access to government documents, would create an independent agency to determine which of these documents were truly state secrets, and would guarantee the media the right to report freely without fear of government prosecution. An additional law passed in 2001 required that certain government officials declare their assets upon assuming office or place their holdings in blind trusts. This law had provoked the most severe backlash, Mr. Wu said, because officials feared that making such declarations subjected them to public criticism and violated the privacy rights of their spouses. Gautam Adhikari noted that the discussion thus far had focused primarily on journalists. "However courageous individual reporters and editors are, owners and publishers still exercise subtle but powerful control over what appears in newspapers or how investigations are conducted," Mr. Adhikari said. He asked participants to discuss whether it made a difference if media outlets were owned by individuals or families or if they were parts of newspaper chains or of large business conglomerates. "In Korea, 70 percent of the media market is owned by three families," Hyo Seong Lee replied. "And while, in theory, editors have the authority to decide what stories to publish, in the end it is the owners who decide." "Most media in China are owned by conglomerates but are still controlled by the government," Xilong Chen said. They need to be regarded, in a sense, as manufacturers of a product called "news." For the political authorities, however, news-and the free expression of opinions about the news-are potentially destabilizing. This is why journalists in China cannot foresee the risks of publishing certain types of stories the way journalists in the United States can, he said. "Nonetheless, I still believe in market competition. When China's state-owned enterprises are privatized, our press will be able to report more independently," Mr. Chen predicted. "There are many ways that the government can influence the press," Young Jo Lee added, "but I do not think that newspapers, other than the three largest, are still subject to government control." But Mr. Lee did believe that, in addition to the question of ownership, one needed to look at the relationship between newspapers and the banks that lend them money. He noted that, "in the past, when the president had all the power, all the bribes went into one coffer. Now there are many coffers," which makes tracing corruption that much harder. Jong Wan Kim offered a summary of the five ways that political or business actors attempt to stifle media coverage of political corruption. First, government officials call their friends at newspapers and ask them to kill stories. Second, the government uses regulatory agencies or the tax authorities to threaten or exact retribution. Third, ministry officials develop close relationships with the reporters who cover them as part of a campaign to discourage real reporting. Fourth, politicians and business executives threaten to bring lawsuits against journalists. And fifth, these same politicians and businessmen offer bribes. "I think that Jong Wan Kim's remarks apply to Taiwan as well," James Tu said. And while he also agreed with Hyo Seong Lee's comments about Korea, "the fact that corruption in the past may have been worse does not make today's young reporters any happier about the present." Mr. Tu was also concerned that some of the new trends in Taiwanese press practices, such as the current focus on the personal lives of politicians, had led to real abuses. He therefore supported nascent efforts of civil society groups to monitor journalistic ethics in Taiwan. Britain, India, and the United States have debated the concept of press monitoring for decades, Gautam Adhikari replied, and there are press councils in Britain and India that serve as media watchdogs. The most important publishers in the United States, however, do not support such councils, arguing instead that their own internal systems and market competition are sufficient to resolve problems of media bias. Melinda de Jesus also agreed that Mr. Kim's five-point summary applied to the Philippines as well: "Since we share these problems, perhaps we can share solutions as well." One such solution, she continued, was to teach journalistic ethics, which her center began doing thirteen years ago. "At first we were criticized for doing this but now we are in demand" to provide such training. Finally, she said, "we have to realize that many of the reporters covering today's corruption have no personal memories of the Marcos era." In addition to teaching young reporters the techniques they need to do their work, "We need to keep the historical memory alive" by putting today's events in a broader context. |
|
| |