One of the serious mistakes made by President Lee Myung-bak’s administration was to issue licenses to four new “general programming” cable television channels and one news-only channel last year. This is shown by their abysmal ratings, which reveal an average viewer share of less than 1 percent.
One of the questions raised is why four general programming channels were allowed to operate when it was widely believed that, given the market size, two would be more than enough. Moreover, the advertising market was thought to be saturated.
This question gave rise to suspicions about unwarranted favors that may have been given to the influential newspaper companies applying for cable TV licenses during the selection process. Suspicions were also raised about some investors who sunk large sums into the channels, including savings banks that were on the verge of insolvency at the time.
Against this backdrop, a civic advocacy group, the People’s Coalition for Media Reform, citing the right to public information, demanded that the Korea Communications Commission disclose the minutes of the selection process, the names of those involved and the identities of those who invested in more than one channel.
The commission turned down the request, making the dubious argument that critics of the newspaper companies might launch a campaign to boycott products produced by those investing in their channels.
In response, the advocacy group filed a petition for an injunction against the decision with the Seoul Administrative Court, which ruled last Friday that the commission disclose the requested records except for those that may violate privacy. The court said the commission was ordered to disclose the records to clear public suspicions that inappropriate investments have been made and to promote transparency in selection processes.
The commission is reportedly considering appealing the case. That would not be a wise decision, given that the commission has already committed itself to publishing a white paper on the selection of operators of general programming channels.
Foot-dragging would give the impression that the commission has something to hide. Moreover, its chief at the time of license issuance is charged with bribery in a separate case and is in the custody of the prosecutors’ office.
The commission is urged to disclose the records promptly, as ordered by the court, if it wishes to contain the damage that has already been done to its image.
