ALMOST HALF a year since sexual misconduct allegations against Park Won-soon became public, an investigation launched by the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) concluded this January that sexual harassment did occur. After similar allegations within the Justice Party emerged days later, sexual misconduct by politicians dominated media once more. These incidents not only revealed the prevalence of sexual misconduct by some high-profile figures, but also the shortcomings of the media coverage around the #MeToo movement.

Summary of sexual misconduct allegations

   There has been a string of high-profile #MeToo incidents involving members of the uppermost echelons of Korean politics. The first incident was the sexual assault allegations against the former Governor of Chungcheongnam-do, Ahn Hee-jung. In March 2018, Ahn’s secretary gave an interview to the JTBC, claiming that he had sexually assaulted her multiple times. In response, Ahn apologized and resigned from his position, only to claim later that their relationship was consensual[1]. A month later, Ahn was charged with sexual assault by abusing his authority. However, the initial verdict against Ahn was overturned upon appeal, leading to even more public confusion up until the Supreme Court trial which found him guilty.

   Another member of the Democratic Party, Oh Geo-don, faced sexual harassment allegations in April of 2020, soon after he was elected the mayor of Busan. According to KBS, a Busan city government employee accused him of inappropriately touching her before he was elected. Oh admitted that there had been “unnecessary physical contact” and promptly resigned from his role.

   Of all the allegations, however, those against Park Won-soon’s drew the most attention from the public. After his disappearance on July 9, 2020, Park’s body was found the day after by police. Many speculated that his death was a suicide linked to allegations of sexual misconduct which were revealed to the public after his death. On July 13, the lawyers and supporters of the alleged victim held a press conference. Like in the case of Ahn, the accuser claimed Park had used his authority over her to repeatedly harass her over a long period of time. However, unlike previous cases, the allegations could not be taken to court as the accused had died before the investigation[2].

   The allegations against Kim Jong-chul are the most recent. In January 2021, the Justice Party revealed that the Party Head, Kim Jong-chul, was accused of molesting a fellow female party member. Similar to Oh, Kim admitted to the crime and made a formal apology, and the Party dismissed him from his position. Controversy arose when a civil organization sued him for harassment charges—against the victim’s own desire not to take legal action[3].

   Although these were not the only famous #MeToo cases, they were extremely publicized for the following reasons. First, the people accused of sexual misconduct were high-profile politicians. Ahn and Park were even considered to be potential future presidential candidates for the Democratic Party prior to the public allegations. In all four cases, the alleged victims claimed that the accused coerced them by abusing their position of power rather than through physical threats. Second, the accused were from politically liberal parties that had supported the #MeToo movement. Ahn and Park had long aligned themselves with the women’s rights movements. The Justice Party, which used to be led by Kim, was even more vocal about feminism. These elements fueled public shock and disbelief over the allegations, making clear verification of the facts all the more crucial for resolving public confusion.

The controversial media coverage

   It is not a surprise that the media focused on these shocking allegations. In the process, however, the shortcomings of the Korean media became apparent. Many media outlets damaged their credibility with blatant misreporting of Park’s case. The Citizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media (CCDM)[4] criticized the spread of misinformation and insensitive coverage of Park Won-soon’s disappearance. After Wolgan Joseon’s false report that Park’s body had been found an hour after his disappearance, articles about his death with strikingly similar details started circulating among other media platforms. In short, media outlets were parroting each other instead of delivering verified information[5]. Lim Dong Joon, the head of the policy monitoring team of the CCDM, explained that one of the biggest problems of misreporting was that misinformation spread so easily to other media sources, confusing the public and obscuring the truth. “Due to competition to cover the latest breaking news, media companies often repeat other companies’ scoops without fact-checking them,” said Lim.

   Not only did the media coverage provide false information, but it also sensationalized the sensitive subject of suicide. “Although many journalists take their roles seriously, some media companies exploit sensitive topics to come up with sensationalist headlines,” commented Lim. The coverage of Park’s death, for example, did not abide by basic journalistic ethics. The journalistic code for reporting on suicide urges reporters to refrain from showing details of the death out of respect for the deceased. However, news channels such as TV Joseon, Channel A, and KBS showed video footage of the police carrying out Park’s body. Furthermore, Channel A covered Park’s suicide note in great detail, commenting on the calligraphy and deducing Park’s “great internal suffering” from the note[6]. Reporting the gruesome details of the death and making wild speculations about the motives only fed into the morbid curiosity around his death and publicized it, turning what should have been a tragic event into high ratings for TV channels.

   Another shortcoming of Korean media was its focus on the specific details of sexual crimes and how they occurred. Headlines about Ahn Hee-jung’s accuser quoted her testimonies in excruciating detail, traumatizing the victim even further. The CCDM criticized multiple major media outlets that showed the victim’s hospital records, which had been presented in court as evidence, in graphic detail for shock value. Newspapers such as Dangjin Media directly quoted Ahn’s wife who claimed that the accuser had “seduced her husband,” without presenting the alleged victim’s stance, framing the serious allegations of sexual assault as a rivalry between two women. The coverage went against the spirit of the #MeToo movement by disregarding the privacy of the alleged victims for a chance to net sensationalist soundbites.

   Moreover, mainstream media was overtly political in coverage. Discussions about the prevalence of sexual coercion in unequal relationships were pushed aside to dissect the impact on party dynamics and politics. The media focused on the “political disaster”[7] of the Democratic Party following the accusations, contemplating the strategies for the next election. Even Park’s funeral, which some members of the Justice Party refused to attend in solidarity with the accuser, was a topic that exacerbated political polarization. For instance, a News Free Zone article framed the Justice Party’s contentious decision as a battle of “moral judgment” between opposing sides. The article used the conflict to shame the Justice Party who “turned their back” against those who simply wished to “reminisce Park” by attending the funeral, pitting the Justice Party and other liberal parties against each other. Chosun Ilbo, a conservative newspaper, also tackled this topic by focusing on the political “crisis” of the Justice Party following the funeral, reporting exclusively on the fall out between the two major liberal parties[8].

   Uncritical media coverage of the feud between opposite sides of the political spectrum politicized the allegations even further. Politicians and commentators lumped in the different accusations together to criticize politically liberal parties in general. The media regurgitated these points of view to the public without criticism. Chosun Biz, for example, directly quoted extreme comments from the People Party member Ahn Chul-soo condemning the entire administration for Ahn, Oh, and Park’s misconduct and accusing the Democratic Party of manipulating the public for votes. Even though journalists were simply quoting the statements in verbatim, they should have understood such practices would add fuel to the political fire instead of facilitating fruitful discussion. Without nuanced commentary, opposing opinions, or context for the quotes, readers lack the means to properly evaluate the situation. Presenting divisive statements as if they were facts can further polarize public opinion based on party lines and encourage political feuds, detracting from the core of the #MeToo movement.

   Lim pointed out that bringing up Oh or Ahn’s case when discussing allegations against Park reflected the opposition party narrative. Some even drew parallels between Kim Jong-chul’s case and Park’s. The major details, such as the relationship between the victim and the accused or whether the latter could be legally held accountable, were too different for the comparison to make sense. Lim explained that lumping in Park’s case with Kim’s unnecessarily politicized the issue, rather than addressing the fundamental social problem. Lim stresses the media’s role of covering “the heart of the issue.” “If you strip away Park’s unique political standing,” Lim explained, “this case is a straightforward allegation of workplace sexual harassment based on power imbalances.” This logic could be applied to the cases of Ahn, Oh, and Kim as well. The political affiliation of the accused and the political repercussions of the allegations should not take precedence over verifying the accusations themselves.

   Secondary victimization is a prevalent problem, and the recent allegations were no exception. Lim noted that Kim Jong-chul’s case had less victim-blaming compared to other cases. Unlike the other accusers, Kim’s victim was a political figure with assistance from the Justice Party that supported her decisions and restricted any unwanted leakage of sensitive information. Others, unfortunately, lacked this kind of support system and were exposed to various degrees of victim-blaming. In the cases of Ahn and Park, this phenomenon reached an extreme high. The day the accusations against Ahn first aired, Global Economic News and Joongdo Ilbo highlighted Ahn’s loving relationship with his wife with only one sentence mentioning the allegations. Chosun Ilbo’s article focused on Park Won-soon’s legacy, saying that he was “the attorney involved in Korea’s first sexual harassment lawsuit.” These articles subtly discredited the accusations by implying that the accused weren’t the type of people to do such things.

   Some victim blamers were even more direct. A newscaster on TBS explicitly claimed that Ahn’s accuser was “a homewrecker,” and criticized Park’s accuser for not “com[ing] out to report when [the harassment] first occurred.” A YTN radio moderator criticized Park’s alleged victim for “hiding when the accused’s life was over,” insinuating that she was responsible for Park’s death. He demanded she should reveal herself to be “a real #MeToo,” using her concern for safety to discredit her[9]. Commentators like Kim Uh-joon spread conspiracy theories regarding possible ulterior political motives against the Democratic Party and its politicians[10]. These claims from left-leaning media pundits were an extension of the intense political polarization that sought to use the allegations to gain a political advantage. In the process, they sabotaged the accusers’ reputation and judged the victims based on biases. Ahn and Park’s accusers, whose information had been leaked without their consent, bore the worst of the attacks. Their private lives and relationship with the abusers were dug up and used against them.

   Even when criticizing secondary victimization, the media coverage often did more harm than good by spreading hurtful information. The headlines of Hankook Ilbo, for instance, quoted insults against Park Won-Soon’s victim, drawing the attention of readers with extreme headlines. TV Chosun and SBS also showed screenshots of explicit posts that threatened to dox Park’s accuser “to teach her a lesson.” Articles meant to criticize online hate towards the victims of Ahn and Oh also quoted the hateful comments for shock value. “It’s like reporting about hate speech. If you simply repeat the hateful words, it only adds to expanding its use. […] There are other ways to tell the story and get the point across instead of quoting the remarks for shock value,” Lim expressed. “Considering the victim’s perspective when reporting on sexual offenses is called “gender sensitivity”, but it should be based on basic empathy for the victims.”

The lessons learned

   Media coverage about sexual misconduct allegations in recent years exemplifies the worst aspects of Korean journalism. The public’s perceptions, opinions, and actions are influenced by how the media frames the issue. Therefore, the media has a responsibility to accurately convey information. Vested political interests and the fierce media competition to get more views, however, resulted in insensitive coverage that muddled the search for justice and truth.

   Lim emphasized the media’s role in resolving the public divide through responsible reporting. “Even if the general public is divided, […] the media should use its platform to resolve the polarized divide instead of simply reporting on it. They should clear up any misinformation and try to close the gap between the two extremes,” he said. Lim gave credit to the media outlets that tried their best to deliver facts by adhering to basic journalistic ethics amidst the wild speculation from other outlets. However, he said that the majority of Korean media companies were not taking such precautions. He explained that although there were regulatory institutions and rules for correcting false or insensitive reporting, there were realistic limitations in preventing journalistic mishaps. Instead of relying on legislation, he suggested that Korean media outlets should self-reflect, improving the quality of their own coverage and keeping others in check.

   The cases of Ahn, Oh, Park, and Kim revealed the sensationalism and politicization prevalent in news coverage. Such coverage deviates from “the heart of the issue”—justice for the victims and preventing future abuses. Perhaps this is an opportunity for society to self-reflect on political polarization, the failings of Korean journalism, and the long road towards improving the media landscape for healthy public dialogue.

[1]Hankook Ilbo

[2]The Kyunghyang Shinmun

[3]The Hankyoreh

[4]Citizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media: A civic organization dedicated to evaluating Korean media

[5]CCDM

[6]KBS

[7]News1 Korea

[8]CCDM

[9]The Asia Daily Business

[10]DongA Ilbo