[Teheran-ro] Reflections on the White House Website

The scene at the White House feels unfamiliar. Its official website now features a list called 'Media Offenders.' Under the Donald Trump administration, media outlets are scored, and certain journalists are named and labeled as 'disgraceful.' Many prominent news organizations, such as The Washington Post (WP) and Cable News Network (CNN), have been included. Power itself acts as the judge of truth and falsehood, blowing the referee’s whistle, and when the state dislikes the reflection it sees in the mirror, it shatters it. One wonders if this is truly the America we once knew.
Has this strange current crossed the Pacific and reached Korea? Once again, the sharp slogan of 'media reform' is being wielded like a club. Pledges to punish fake news and restore justice are being introduced as formal policies. In recent government briefings, the language of those in power has become even more direct. President Lee Jae-myung sharply criticized certain General Programming Channels, saying, 'I can't tell if they are media or YouTubers,' questioning their legitimacy.
Those in power blame the mirror when it no longer flatters them. The only thing that has changed is who holds the authority; the relentless effort to polish the mirror is a familiar pattern from previous administrations. The instinct to create a quiet and comfortable 'utopia of governance' free from the noise of criticism is universal throughout history. Freedom of the press is not a gift bestowed by those in power. It is the last line of defense established by citizens to hold authority accountable. Setting up checkpoints at the entrance to the playing field and silencing voices may seem sweet in the short term, but history has shown us that such paths inevitably lead to corruption.
The president, who has harshly criticized media bias and applied strict standards, displays a rather multifaceted approach. While he has warned against traditional media, calling them a 'tilted playing field,' he has openly embraced new media outlets that use favorable language. In this dichotomy, voices that are unpleasant to hear are labeled as biased and punished, while agreeable messages are deemed legitimate communication.
That 'flexibility' is recorded in the annals of the last presidential election. In the decisive hours that would determine the nation’s fate, he did not appear in neutral forums for rigorous vetting or on strict debate stages. Instead, his final appearance was on Kim Ou-joon's broadcast. The standard used to disparage General Programming Channels as 'YouTuber level' was not applied in front of the most overtly partisan speaker. While speaking of fairness, he spent the last night of his campaign within the comfort of his own camp’s stronghold.
Is the bias of others an evil to be eradicated, while my own bias is a warm virtue? The answer is clear. Democracy breathes not before someone’s whistle, but in the public square. This is the unchanging standard by which today’s media policies—shaped atop double standards—must be measured.
km@fnnews.com Reporter