Epilogue: Insularity

As I wrap up this blog for a short time being, I am devoting this post in order to set down some of my thoughts and defending some of my choices.

I started this blog in part to have reason to revisit the Korean news media, and see if it has changed in tone since I have immigrated to America. When I left for America years ago I felt that despite the rapidly changing world, the traditional media in South Korea was still too insular, too mired in old view of the world. We send out our children in record numbers to other countries in order to acquire skills and education, but in Korea itself our understanding about the world is still far too primitive. And that the media focused mostly on sensations and failed to give adequate understanding to greater world. This was reflected not only on the Korean newspapers and magazine I read for this class, but in blogs as well.


In the course of the class, the profound events in Syria was in the headlines. Yet, in Korean news they were muffled sound in the distance. It did not assume the center of attention, and more importantly, in general, failed to show reporting that were little different than the American one. Korean perspective was missing. Why did our own memory merely 30 years ago fail to inspire our own perspective?

A critic would say that the media and the citizenry in this country are not that different from Koreans. And that criticism has some merit. But what surprised me is the largely supporting of America in the conservative media, such as Chosun-illbo and Joongang-illbo in political news. True, in economics the papers were more balanced, but here all the media seemed concerned was about attainment of profit or security. However, I feel I did not quite manege to see the grand narrative of changing opinions and worldviews I expected when I begun the blog. Nuanced worldview is not only missing, but is not even considered as important. 

A reader of this blog might be surprised at the restricted sourcing of this blog, I drew primary on the established Medias and few professional papers. As for that, there are two reasons. First, reasons is largely technical. Blogs service in Korea, such as Naver, and Daum in Korea requires intrusive registration that I was not in position to do so (all my information needed are ironically in Korea). Second was living in blogging culture in Korea was different in some careful way that I could not get used to or adjust in time (if only I could figure out what that was more clearly...). Quite possibly despite my best efforts, years of living away from Korea may have distanced me from the worldview far more than I have realized.

This project was easy in some way, hard in others, and it was a joyous journey for me. I hope the reader whoever read it also found it joyous.

Conclusion: Legitimacy and Media

This will be my last posting for this blog. Since the beginning of this blog right after the spring break, I have been thinking about the how we, as people in countries look at the world around us and how it differs. Despite living in America over a decade I cannot quite penetrate the into the worldview of Amricans, so I will move directly into the worldview of Koreans.

The modern Korean is both prideful and still bearing heavy injuries around us. Since the fall of the Chosun Dynasty in 1910, and even in the chaotic two decades before that, the world was a hostile place where the foreigners were indeed "barbarians" as it was noted in the Confucian Orthodoxy. The new foreigners did not want to accept Korea as it was, but was determined to force it to the it Imperialist Great Game, and eventually Korea endured grueling three-decade rule from Japan, where Japanese tried to obliterate the unique distinction of Korea from the Koreans. After that Korea was liberated not through its own might, but through the intervention of victorious allied powers in WWII. And then in five years, Korea was engulfed in horrific Civil-International war (for how else can the Korean war be described?) where we were amputated into two very different, but equally unsatisfying political system. For the Southern half, it took three decade of democratic agitation, as well as untold hardship and development for its part to grow into democratic economic powerhouse today. But political discourse and the worldview has not caught up with the Korean people yet.

In the first two posting, I noted the inglorious history of conservatism in Korea: pro-Japanese, pro-American, pro-Dictatorship, pro-Corporation. In retrospect, the origin of the conservatism goes back even further to the neo-Confucian ideology of the Chosun Dynasty, which believed in keeping the alliance with the powerful Ming (later Qing) Dynasty in order to secure borders with the Japanese and the Jurchens, with whom the country had antagonistic relationship. It may be pragmatic, but it is not something that looks attractive in a age of nationalism. Accommodating America and Japan might be the order of the day. But it leads to restrictive worldview and one that does not count the various historical forces that are at work. And looking at the coverage about Middle East in South Korea, my suspicions are confirmed. Even in long monthly articles about Middle East (few and far they are) there is little if any articles about the complicated relationship within the region. What articles there are, is articles about Korean companies doing business there or interviews and profiles with government officials. Is it any wonder that the left in Korea questions the legitimate pedigree of the conservative papers?

What about the left? If the right suffers in limited worldview and overly doctrinaire pragmatism, the left suffers from critical lack of resources (compared to right), and increasingly strident view that seems to object any merit on views based on the fact that the opposition supports or attacks it. It is losing the flexbility which was its hallmark during the long struggle against the dictatorship years.

The news in Middle East is not only a portal to that world, but a reflection of our Korean worldview. I am not so sure I like that view.

Bargain

Article


The today's article is about the liberal paper Hankyoreh’s editorial about the Korea’s access to Iranian oil. The editorial demands that if the Korea does sanction Iranian oil, South Korea should demand some kind of assistance with the six-party negotiation with North Korea.

In theory I agree with the idea that some kind of quid-pro-quid is not only desirable but is in the offering. South Korean government might be pro-America, but idiots they are not. The question lies more on the nature of aid that Hankyoreh propose. Since the article note that the fact that India and Israel possess nuclear weapons tacit American toleration, but does not make explicit recommendations. I cannot but wonder what kind of concession Hankyoreh is thinking. Here are my list:

1 Live with nuclear North Korea: Hankyoreh is well known for arguing that sanctions due to North Korea’s Possession of Nuclear weapons are obsolete and should be removed. This would mean that both Koreas would accept North Korea as nuclear power. Considering the political climate in both Washington and Seoul where both countries are having presidential elections this year, that is not going to happen.

2 More aid to North Korea:  The general consensus is that there will be famine this year in North Korea. The current conservative government is unsure about sending aid due it the experience of past, not to mention wanting to see if Kim Jung-Un will make concessions. This might be more likely, but Kim is in no position to make concessions when his own power base is so insecure. So this will not happen either.

It would be interesting to know kind of concession there might be, and whether that would actually be found acceptable to the liberal newspaper. My guess? It won’t/

Bulletproof Contract

Today's article from the  Joongang-ilbo is about the rather light human interest story about Hussain al-Shahristani. the Assistant Prime Minister for Energy and Yu Jung-Jun, the head of Korean energy firm SK G&G. It recount the time in 2009 when Yu, along with the heads of competing firms in America and Europe visited Iraq in order to hammer out new deal in developing Iraq's abundant resources. The article goes on to note that unlike the heads of other companies who did not leave Baghdad airport, Yu strapped on a Bulletproof  vest and visited al-Shahristani on person. This evidently impressed al-Shahristani to a point that SK's position in development became much higher. The article notes this as triumph of personal leadership, saving SK whose position in Iraq has been in doubt for some years.

As for me? Without a doubt what Yu did took act of bravery. However, aside from the security concerns and the lives of his staff (whose choice in this matter would have been slight, considering the Korean business world). This article fails to take into account why Yu had to take such measures. SK was one of the companies in 2007 and 2008 took direct deals with regional powers in Kirkuk and up in Iraqi Kurdistan to develop the fields without directly dealing with Maliki government. Accordingly SK was frozen out of Iraq for several years.

True, the situation in Iraq in 2007 was chaos and corporations have obligation to create profit. But it is disingenuous of the Newspaper to argue that this personal courage somehow translated into business bonanza. If  its that easy to create international business agreement, courageous CEOs would be running into warzones and making Billions without need for staff, presentations and bribes.

Yu Jung Jun. Brave, Yes. A hero he is not

History: Korean Muslims

Article

Despite the restrictive online service and the wretched delivery service, there is a reason why even in Korea I subscribed to Hankyoreh, it is paper that was most like the Guardian in many ways. While it has its share of the problems (including the unreasonably friendly to China and have almost knee-jerk reaction against America), it is always breaking new ground, viewing issues that no other mainstream papers will deal with. Now whether they do that justly or not… the article will tell us about that.

The article here deals with the small community of Muslims in Korea. And the focus of the article is the life of 2^nd generation born of Pakistani immigrant. Much of the article deals with the cultural dislocation, prejudices, generational conflict and many other problems that immigrants have. This article when it came out created a small controversy last year. Hankyoreh’s position that the unofficial social persecution toward the 4000 Muslims (especially naturalized Muslims) must end, and that the government must extend social protection toward them.

The response to the articled ranged from the fact that many of these Muslims, do not adopt Korean cultural convention to the more nativist arguments about the Korea’s race purity and need to keep the distinct Korean race (how long will that wretched idea haunt the East Asian societies!) as well as talking about the supposed barbarism and the dangers of Islam (one commentator in the article makes argument that no immigrants can be truly Korean or accept the Korean values). Others made more nuanced argument that if these were the teething pains of a society were Islam is after all, new introduction, and was therefore considered alien compared to Christianity and Buddhism. After all, religious completion, like everything else in Korea, is highly and viciously competitive.  We must also consider the many, many evangelicals in Korea which parrot the narrative of their American brethren. But still, even the most positive commentaries demanded the subordination of Islam identity to the Korean and too many were negative in accepting them in any measure.

It has been twenty years since the Korean construction industries have been working in Middle East, Ten years since 9/11 where 50 Koreans perished. 7 Years since the War in Iraq and deployment of troops. 16 Years since the first civilian government pushed for internationalization of Korea. Still, we seem to be in dark about world that is not Japan, China or America.

How far have we progressed since his time?

History: Sending Troops to Iraq.

The Article That Started it All.

For the next few postings, I am going to focus my attention more on older, more historical articles. That is articles which either created sensations at the time or created the bases for positions that eventually other newsgroups took.

The article which was published in Monthly Chosun's May 2004 issue, was followed by far longer article recommending the deployment of troops into Iraq (Eventually, South Korea deployed the Zaytun Division, a 3,800 men non-combatant formation until 2008). If I were to summarize the supporting reasons behind the article, it was in two reasons. First was the argument that sending troops was beneficial to maintaining the Military Alliance between the America and South Korea (one of the conservative Holy Grail). Second was that sending troops were essential after death of Kim Sun Il, a Korean who was murdered in Iraq (and whose death led to brief surge of Anti-Iraqi feelings in Korea), to show resolve. Finally (although more muted at the time), was the argument that without sending troops, it would be impossible to secure the lucrative oil contract in Postwar Iraq (earlier article in the blog dealt with what happened to that boondoggle).

Aside from the controversy of sending troops into Iraq at all (after all the 2003 Iraq War, like in many other parts of the Globe, was hardly popular one in Korea), the controversy was in the reasoning behind it. These two articles from the liberal Hankyoreh give succinct summery of refutation. First, South Korea had no obligation neither in national interest or moral one, to send troops. Second, sending troops will only ensure greater exacerbation of bad impression between Iraq's neighbors and South Korea. But underlying all this was the Korean left's discomfort, since Korea once had its sovereignty stripped away from it, and ill-defined scene of kinship pervaded the articles.

Eight long years have passed since the publication of these articles. South Korean Troops has left Iraq. The country never got the oil contracts, the two papers which dueled are in still at each other's throats.But the central view of looking at Middle East has not changed. The conservatives are convinced in economic opportunity for Korea in the region and maintaining America's good triumphs morality (or is morality). While liberals still see eerily shadows of our own past.

Jesus = Heaven. No Jesus = Hell

Today as I was walking in the Korea-town in Flushing, I was accosted by the missionary who asked me "if I believed in Jesus Christ" to be saved. He went on tell me I could not only be saved but healed of all my physical ills by the power of faith. Its hard to bear that in Friday night when, your back is hurting and your balance is often shot to hell due to a long week.

I am Catholic. I came to peace with God some time ago.

The Missionary was Korean.

This posting will not link to any articles, but will be a musing from depth of my heart. Korea has many evangelicals. When the Christianity was introduced it found fertile ground in which to grow. The reigning Chosun dynasty was visibly failing to meet the needs of the its people, and rebellions and riots were showing that the internal contradiction of 500 years of Confucian Feudalism was coming to boil. Christianity quickly spread into the population, and by the 1900s the faith was well integrated into the life of Koreans. Unlike the Japan, where Shinto reignes supreme even now, the Confucian faith was compatible with the already existing belief systems and found little to be supplemented.

Moreover, it cannot be denied that for majority of time, the Church did its part. It had its place of honor against the Japanese Occupational era and later it fought against the military regime. But since than, the Church, especially the evangelical community has changed, for worse. Since 2003 the Evangelical community has openly embraced missionary tactics which will yield in damaging Korean interest and image.

The kidnapping of Korean Missionaries in Afghanistan in 2007 was merely the most embarrassing of the these events. All they manged to do was fatten the war chest of Taliban and marked out the converts for death (when Americans leave Afghanistan, the converts are essentially doomed). And since than they have also showed their faces in Iraq (in 2004 onward) and several non Middle Eastern nations, including Indonesia. I doubt they have converted any one. Koreans struggle to display their distinctive nature from our neighbors. This is one image I can do without

Decline of Great Paper?

Article

When I was in Korea I liked Donga-ilbo considerably more than the alternatives. It was liberal without the militancy and it unlike other papers, did not engage in much of mudslinging (unless it was Chosun-ilbo). But for me, it has been two long month trying to find a article that was not merely repeating facts. Regrettably this article was only one I could find that dealt with Middle East in any depth. And this article was about the sensational story about honor killing.

Listing various reasons for honor killing across the globe, the long article end with exhortation to stop honor killing from happening and offers merely platitude that his was both situation that must stop, and that it was immensely complicated issue. I am well aware that this is delicate issue, but by presenting mere list of facts without context and analysis can only serve to draw readers into conclusions that will be deficient because he does not have the supporting pillars of information to understand and categorize it. I really expected more from the article.

Israel in Eyes of Liberials

Article

Today's article deals with the how the liberal left views the State of Israel though the eyes of the Hankyoreh, which deals with the practices of Israel's illegal detention of Palestine activists. Needless to say, the article is harshly negative about the practice, calling in both illegal in the context of the international law and immoral in context of state ethics, and lastly unwise in the consideration of Israel's many strategical weakness. The article and the commentary does not hesitate to draw negative comparison between the current Israel regime and the old military dictatorship in Korea.

While I can understand the discomfort that the newspaper feels about these illegal detention, since many of the editors today have experienced those detentions themselves, I found it difficult to equate that with the old military regime in Korea. After all, Israel is bi-racial state with at least some Jews viewing the arrests and interrogation as (sadly) necessarily undertaking in survival of Israel. Even considering the similarities between the two nations, it is overly-stretching the truth to argue overly on the linking the two regimes together. Israel is sill a functioning democracy unlike the 1970s Korea. Still, it was refreshing to read a article about something else than oil price, or pro-Israeli puff piece.

Turkey or Iran: If you put it that way...

Article

A reader of this blog might feel that by the looks of the Blog, I am a some sort of Conservative, or at least read only conservative materials. I am neither (like to think I'm a moderate), but simple truth is that the conservative outlets and materials outnumber the liberal outlets and they have thing to say.

The article linked to at the top of the blog is from the Wolgan Chosun, the monthly outlet of the Conservative Newspaper. The article argues that there are two political paths which the Middle East can take, the Turkish Model of secular development and the Iranian Model of working within the Islam to create the democracy. The author strongly favors the Turkish model, arguing that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of Modern Turkish state was a visionary that enabled Turkey to recover from the fall of the Ottoman Empire and become the wealthy developed nation it is today. His only shortcoming was that he was too impatient in explaining and implementing his vision. Such is depth of author's favor toward the Ataturk's vision he explains away even the repeated Military Coup as unfortunate but necessarily needed intervention to ensure the idea of secular development.

What about the Iranian model then? Difficult to say, since the author devotes scant two paragraph in the article just for Iran and one of them was the difficulty for Koreans to visit Iran. The other paragraph is used in describing the unease many Arabian nations such as Saudi Arabia (Iran's Rivial) feel toward their "Follow Nation" (considering Iran's Persian origin this is something of a overestimation of fellowship). The reminders are devoted to contrasting the vibrant social and economic life of Istanbul where Women are free to dress what they desire and the drab, economically depressed Tehran where the returning Iranian women are in hurry to put their hajab back on before living the plane needs little additional explanation.

Despite ending his article with a platitude that both nations have valid model toward democracy. It is clear that he is disposed toward the Turkish model and are not particular fond of the current ruling AK party in Turkey, which he accuses of tinkering with the supporting pillars of the regime. No interview with leading Iranians were had, no interview with the average citizens in either nations were mentioned in the article. But, hey the author knows what he's talking about! Hurrah for Turkey, and to hell with nuanced understanding!

Israel and Korea

Looking at this Month's Wolgan Chosun, contained the interview with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. This laudatory interview can be divided into three segment. First is discussions about growing Israeli economy and his experiences on promoting Israeli export in his government career. Second was the ongoing discussion about Israel's security dilemma and lastly was the relationship between the two countries. Olmert noted that South Korea and Israel must remain friendly and that the two countries had long ties going back to the 1960s and that we shared many similarities.

Do we? True, both countries attained Independence in 1945 (de-facto)and 1948 (de-jure), and both countries endured war. it is true that the Talmud is among the fairly widely read books in Korea, where there was a fad for a while that the Talmud contained the "Secret to Success." And the evangelical Christians are highly disposed favorably toward the Jewish State, more during the recent decade.

Yet, embassies were not opened until 1992, and until very recently South Korea choose to focus on the Arab nations as the target markets. While the trade between two nations have increased significantly during the decade, with South Korea exporting US $1.1 Billion in 2011, it s a recent development. Looking back, there is little evidence that the two countries were close.

Olmert's word is the word of career politician, he can hardly say that the he does not want closer relationship between two countries. And it makes sense for the South Korea to be close to Israel considering America and Israel's relationship. But I have not been able to find prominent Palestinians giving interview to South Korean media in last 3 years. And its that lack of balance that worries me. Who gave up on who?

By the way, North Korea considers Hamas the legitimate government of the Israel.

KCIA: Be like the Mossad!

I have been meaning to work this article into this blog somehow.

This article Chosun Monthly's article profiling the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad. The article portrays Mossad as group of patriots unencumbered by political control and thus able to quickly gain results and protect Israel from its sea of enemies. The implication of the article was the the Korean Central Intelligence Agency should take Mossad as its role model. No other article could make feel the myriad emotions I felt today, incredulity, amusement, rage, and many others, few of them positive and none particularly agreeable.

Leaving aside the effectiveness of Mossad on the various current dilemma that Israel is in, or questions about its effectiveness. If I were to talk about this just as a Korean, it is not the right time and not the right way to say that intelligence agencies should be augmented.

KCIA, the main intelligence agency in South Korea in used be called K(GB)CIA. During the 1960s onward, it was famous the repression and torture of the political dissidents. Kim Dae Jung, the President of Korea from 1998-2003 was almost murdered in 1973 when he was kidnapped in Tokyo (he was exiled at the time). The KCIA's "black history" is famous and there are still thousands who have felt the hands of repression one way or another. That any respectable Korean paper could write about letting KCIA be free of political interference is not merely disturbing, but revealing about their view of the past in a way I cannot describe in words.

Oil and Business: Why Korea Went to War.

On the previous blog posting I wrote about the rather routine visit by the Iraqi Minister for Oil and his assurance that Korea will not lack for Oil when and if (and really in look at this issue from America, I doubt that the Sanctions will hold for long), there is to be a disruption in Iranian supply of oil. As noted beforehand the  Iraqi supply would be potentially just as essential as the Saudi Arabia's supply for Korea to endure this hardship.

But then I refer you to this article, written in February, by the Conservative Chosun-ilbo. It harshly criticizes the current government's failure secure future resources for South Korea around the world. Aside from 2008's Kirkuk fiasco, where Korean companies spent estimated US $40 Million in order to develop oil field only to strike water. Then the article goes on to show the various energy development project in Central Asia, South America and South East Asia,all with either resulting in below expectations or outright failure. According to the article since the current government has come to power it has signed 35 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) only one project seems to be on track.


Herein lies the dilemma of conservatives in the matter of Iranian oil. Compliance, in there view, is essential, because South Korea's destiny lies entwined with America's. Korea is the shrimp between some very aggressive sharks in, and to the Conservatives, alliance with the biggest shark of them all is the only surefire way to security. But looking at articles about energy development problems, or the English articles about the ongoing violence in Iraq and the sluggish pace of recovery even now, I doubt sincerely in event of disruption, there will be a Iraqi salvation. And without that salvation, there will be a recession again in Korea 

Alternative to Irainian Oil

Today's Articles are from the two conservative papers, the Chosun-Ilbo and the Donga-Ilbo. Both articles report that Hussain al-Shahristani, the Deputy Prime Minister  for Oil, had guaranteed that in a event of Oil shortage in South Korea, Iraq will "prioritize" supplying South Korea with Iraqi oil. Furthermore, the two countries were to ensure cooperation in additional development including construction, and energy development.

All in all, a standard, largely routine article dealing with such events. The article's importance came from two implied assurance. First is that Iraq can replace South Korean's Iranian oil (at least for duration of conflict). Second is that Korean business still had many opportunities for investment in Iraqi economy.

What is left unsaid is the stability of Nouri al-Maliki's government in Iraq. Who is to say that the when Korea will actually need the Iranian substitutes, there will be a friendly Iraqi government to deliver on this verbal  guarantee. Just as left unsaid is the questions about the oil producing capbility in Iraq, would it be able to produce and deliver the necessarily amount to meet the demand? Also, the article fails to mention the foreign competition for Iraqi oil in event of disruption in Iranian supply. Will South Korea be able to outbid China? After, all Asia's most voracious consumer is right next door (and seems to be determined to provoke Koreans lately).

As for business in Iraq... the next blog post will deal with that.

Korea's need for Iranian Oil

Article

The above editorial is from the moderate-conservative newspaper the Donga-illbo. The article discusses the impact of loosing access to Iranian oil access and what that can mean to South Korea. The result? Recession if Korea is lucky and the price of Saudi Crude (which is the only alternative to the Iranian source) rises only moderately. If unlucky, the sharp rise in fuel could cause stagflation, according to the article.

The article implies that currently, South Korea depended on Iranian sources for around 10% of its fuel needs and whatever happens, economic hardship is inevitable. Furthermore, trade with Iran has been growing for last several years, with the last year (2010 fig) ending at figure of US $126 Million alone. At the same time, the article all but concedes that defying America would be not only political, but economic suicide, as it notes that keeping the America friendly is of critical importance to the Korean export economy.

Introduction to the Media

Starting next week, I am hoping to work on the articles of interest. But before doing that, let me introduce you to some of the people you will be seeing for next two month.

The Chosun-ilbo ("ilbo" means daily newspaper. It is often used interchangeably with word "sinmun"). Is both the premier newspaper and the most conservative of the mainstream newspaper. It is also the most senior newspaper publication still in print, as it was established in 1920 during relative thaw in the Japanese colonial period.  Its publications dominate the Korean media, since its Monthly Publication "the Wolgan Chosun" (meaning "Chosun Monthly") is viewed as both the Foreign Affairs and the Economist of South Korea. Currently in close relationship with the conservative regime of Lee Myung-Bark, its positions are pro-Japanese, pro-American, pro-Business and anti-Left. The paper supported Korea's sending troops to Iraq (though not the war itself) and is considered to be pro-Israel paper in the country. 

Among the Korean's the newspaper is viewed in drastically different ways. The paper was notorious during the last years of the Japanese colonization as being stuffed with Collaborators, and even with Independence of Korea in 1945, many retained their jobs and outlook. Since then it earned additional black mark for supporting the Military dictatorship until 1980s. It added to its reputation by being lukewarm about the trial of Dictators in 1995 and the investigation about the Japanese Collaborators in 2007. However, conservatives laud the paper for its forthright position, willingness to admit error, and its spirited prose and editorials.  

Along with the Chosun-ilbo, it was established in 1920, being the second oldest paper in Korea (it was established about Month later). While among the Big 3 of the Korean newspapers, the general consensus is that the it lacks the influence that its eternal rive, the Chosun-ilbo has. However, the paper's refutation is not as extremely divided as its rival. The paper is known more for its cultural and literary content than the political content, and is considered to be superior than Chosun-ilbo on those matters. 

Once the favored of the mainstream liberals in the 80s and 90s, the golden days of this paper has passed. Regrettably, the paper today is in uncomfortable place, with no clear distinctive voice to distinguish from its rivals. 

Compared to the two senior papers, the Joongang-ilbo is much younger paper, established in 1965. From the beginning the paper was closed linked with Samsung, its founding company. Even now, many of senior members of Samsung's leadership also sits in the board of directors in the paper. Until the 90s the paper was not in the same league as the other two papers, who dismissed it as Samsung's Mouthpiece but during the 90s onward, the paper aggressively experienced with new formats, talent and Internet, thus gaining influence and readership. The fact that Sansung's emergency as THE preeminet corporation in Korea also played its part. 

Compared to the two rivals, which has long history and positions. The paper is notable for changing holding no clearly held position in many matters (aside from its defense of Samsung).  Its positions tend to be center left. 

The paper is also notable for being connected to Washington Post, it is not a exaggeration that much of the overseas news in Joongang-ilbo is product of Washington Post.

Hankyoreh's size and circulation cannot be measured with the abovementioned papers. It only is only a fraction of their size. But in influence they are equal to each one of them.  Hankyoreh is loved by the left in Korea, it is the paper which gave voice of protesters durning the 80s, it was the voice for liberalism in the transitional period in the 90s with the democracy. It is the paper which is not afraid to be left. It tends to be anti-American, pro-Iran, anti-Israel and pro-North Korea.

Understandably the conservative media like the Chosun-ilbo is not found of this paper, calling it a puppet of China and North Korea. But it is the one paper which tend to give more than cursey look at the outside world, and it is the one paper where the reality of Korea's many problems seem to be squarely, with all its rawness (sometimes too raw) shown in print.

There will be other papers. But these are main characters in our journey.

Preface II: The limit

Evolution of Conservative Movement in Korea according to liberals.

Before moving to the talking about the actual articles themselves, I wanted to spend little more time talking about the media outlets. The above picture is how the liberals in Korea see the conservatives and their establishments: as long unbroken tradition of being traitors and corrupt Neanderthals.

Since the independence from Japan after the Second World War, the conservatives in Korea, whether they wanted or not, were have been seen to have originated from the Japanese collaborators. Even after the chaos of Korean War and three decades of Military Dictatorships of Park Chung-Hee, and Chun Doo-Hwan (and their aggressive propaganda to discredit the liberals) the conservative movement in Korea has a legitimacy problem that cannot be overcome. They are viewed to have been collaborates to the Japanese, to the Americans, the Military Dictatorship and the Chebol that brought the humiliating IMF bailout in 1997s Asian Financial Crisis.

The Newspapers themselves are also deeply intertwined with the conservatives in the messy history of Korea. I hope to elaborate more on this later, but briefly speaking, despite the messy conditions they worked with (Chosunillbo and Donghaillbo was closed down repeatedly by the Japanese), it cannot be denied that they worked within the hated colonial system of Japanese overlords. Moreover, their behavior during the three decades of dictatorship after the Korean war, where they viewed themselves largely as partners of the oppressive regime cannot be forgiven by the liberal activists of younger generation whose persecutions and sacrifices were belittled or ignored for 30 years and even now are insinuated as pro-North Korean by the media establishment.

This is the background in which I begin my journey. 

Korean Blog Media I: Preface

Preface: Nature of Media in South Korea and how it will affect this blog.

Despite the explosion of the media since the beginning of the early 2000s (aided, in part, by the South Korea’s aggressive building of internet capability by the liberal Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Moo-Hyun presidency) the reality of media in South Korea is in many ways, not that dissimilar to their American counterpart.

Among the frustration that I as, an expatriate Korean feeling toward my country is the lack of what I feel is the independent voices in foreign affairs/foreign policy.  In matters that are not directly connected to its well being, traditional media of South Korea is still too close to being standard, (almost unquestioning) position taken by the establishment: that is to say, pro-American, pro-Chabol (the Great Conglomerate) and pro-Capitalism. The goal of this blog in the next five week is to find if there exists a valid, alternative voice in the Korea’s media. Andif it does, what that is.

Tomorrow's post will deal with the brief explanation with the sources I will be using and their limitations before moving to the actual postings.