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/